]_98 [September, 



larly says, " The Entomological Society has Haworth's specimen," 

 clearly implying that he knows affinis, Dgl., to be identical with 

 affinis, Haw. Meyrick also, HB. Br. Lep., 589 (1895), credits 

 Douglas with the species, but I have frequently examined Haworth's 

 original type specimen, which bears his MS. label " affinis^'' and is 

 now in the British Museum collection, and it is without doubt the 

 same species referred to under that name by Douglas, Stainton (in 

 Nat. Hist. Tin.), and Meyrick. I do not know to what species 

 Stephens applied the name, but his collection contains a specimen of 

 affinis, Hw., bearing his MS. label " Diffinis " ! 



Q. umhrosella was only added to the British List by Stainton in 

 1866 (Ent. Ann., 1866, pp. 170-1), so that the earlier British examples 

 of it were mixed up in collections with affinis and other allies, and 

 Stainton, in Nat. Hist. Tin , ix, 158, says that he himself described 

 umhrosella under the name affinis in Ins. Brit. Lep. Tin., p. 115 

 (1854). The Stainton British series of affinis consists of that species 

 alone except for one broken individual, which appears to be similis, 

 but the Douglas series is a mixture of affinis and umhrosella, all the 

 last six specimens being referable to the latter: in spite of this, 

 Douglas' description (Tr. Ent. Soc. Lond., N. S., i, 17 (1850) was 

 clearly taken from affinis only, though I have no doubt that when 

 giving " the Chesil-bank, Weymouth," as a locality for it, he was really 

 referring to umhrosella, which swarms there. Douglas (l. c.) tells us, 

 without however stating upon what evidence Zeller's remark was 

 based, that Zeller said of " this species " (^. e., affinis, Hw., Dgl.), 

 " certissime mea umhrosella " (which we can well understand if the 

 last six* specimens in the Douglas series were submitted to him !), 

 but Stainton, in Nat. Hist. Tin., ix, 160 (1865), says, " The umhrosella 

 described by Zeller in the ' Isis ' of 1839 belongs to the sand-hill 

 species ; I saw the original specimens when at the meeting of natural- 

 ists at Stettin," and his remarks there prove that by " the sand-hill 

 species " he meant the one clearly defined by him as umhrosella in 

 Ent. Ann., 1866, pp. 169-170, which is now well known under that 

 name in Britain. It has the opposite marginal spots of the fore-wing 

 very large and very white as compared with similis and affinis, and 

 they rarely unite so as to form a fascia. 



The Rectory, Corfe Castle : 

 June 29t7i, 1898. 



* Owing to the method of labelling and mounting employed by Mr. Douglas, it is a matter 

 of great risk and trouble to ascertain the data of any of the specimens : I, therefore, never 

 attempt it except in cases of considerable importance, so do not know the year of captwe of 

 these umhrosella. — E. R. B. 



