1388 [November, 
“and unnamed species. Trigonodactylus, Stt., ought, therefore, to be looked upon 
“as a synonym of Zetterstedtii, Z., and not of gonodactylus, S. V., which is allied 
* to, but decidedly different from, Zetterstedtii.” 
It would seem at first that the tangle was unravelled, and that all we had left 
to do was to name our English species, but such is not quite the case. I have at 
present a specimen from Herr Miihlig, labelled gonodactylus, and yet, without 
doubt, a trigonodactylus, Stt.; and next, in the paper on Swedish plume-moths by 
Herr Pastor Wallengren, a Platyptilus Zetterstedtii is spoken of, the larva of which 
feeds on Senecio nemorensis. The confusion is therefore not entirely confined to the 
Entomologists of Gt. Britain; and I shall, in the next place, endeavour to find out 
what is the gonodactylus of the Vienna Catalogue, as indicated by Dr. Staudinger, 
and what is the Zetterstedtii of Wallengren. 
It would be highly interesting if those Entomologists who have taken this rare 
British plume would give full particulars of its capture. It is very scarce in col- 
lections, and probably the specimens which exist are not more than a dozen. Asa 
Piatyptilus, the larva would be certain to live in the interior of the stem of some 
composite plant, and amongst the most probable are Inula crithmoides, Chrysocoma 
Unosyris, and Cineraria campestris, all of them maritime in their haunts. 
If this prove to be an unnamed insect, it would be very pleasing to me if Mr. ~ 
Doubleday would allow his name to be affixed to it.—R. C. R. Jorpan, 35, Harborne 
Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, September 15th, 1871. 
Butalis cicadella at Southend.—Observing in the September number of the 
Magazine the notice of the capture of this insect at Weybridge, by Mr. McLachlan, 
and reference made to my own captures, I think it as well to state that I took about 
a dozen specimens of this moth at Southend, about 20 or 25 years ago, in the flowers 
of a kind of dandelion, and they remained with a memorandum under them as “new 
species” till Mr. Stainton kindly determined them a few years back. At the time of 
their capture it was almost impossible to name these obscure species. I remember 
I took them both to Mr. J. F. Stephens and to Mr. Bentley, who could not iden- 
tify them. On the day I captured this new species, I was fortunate enough to add 
three other species to our list, viz.: Acidalia perochraria, Catoptria citrana, and 
Gelechia pictella: four new species in one day I expect will never fall to my lot 
again.—SamMuEL Srevens, 28, King Street, Covent Garden, October, 1871. 
Heliothis armigera near Exeter—After an interval of ten years, I have again 
captured, in my garden, a single specimen of Heliothis armigera. The perfect state 
of the specimen would indicate its birth-place to be not far distant.—H. D’OrRvILLE, 
Alphington, near Exeter, October 18th, 1871. 
Note on the sound produced by Chloephora prasinana.—I only noticed yesterday 
in the ‘Annual’ for 1871, that Dr. Knaggs seems rather to doubt the account of 
the sounds made by C. prasinana (pp. 78, 79). 
It will be found that the fact was stated by me long ago in my “ History 
of British Moths.” I wrote of my own knowledge; I remember the time, 
place, and circumstance well: I was then at Bromsgrove School, and was out 
“hunting” one evening ; and I remember that it was very early, and before actual 
dusk, on a hill, or rising ground rather, some two or three miles from the town, near 
