22 January. 



margin in the intermediate spaces, and all with ashy-white clouding towards tho 

 costa. In the darkest specimens no trace of the white shading appears in the basal 

 space — that before the first line, but in others it shows itself in varying degrees 

 towards the costa, then others show a faint extension of it across the wing, until, in 

 a few, it actually produces the irregular, indistinct basal fascia, which has hitherto 

 been held to be the one reliable character of subornatella. These specimens from the 

 Isle of Portland, therefore, bridge over the whole interval, and prove clearly that 

 adornatella and suhornatella form one variable species, in which the subject of 

 geographical or climatal permanent variation is well illustrated. The forms which 

 show the most considerable development of white clouding seem to come from the 

 coast — at Folkestone, on sand, Pembroke, on mountain limestone, Ireland and the 

 Isle of Man, on (I believe) trap-rock ; those with ochreous colouring more inland, 

 from the softer limestone or chalk of Durdham Downs, and the dull red-grey forms 

 from the chalk, still further inland, at Box Hill'; while Portland seems to unite 

 all forms. 



Reluctant to give up my old belief, which also was that of my friends Prof. 

 Zeller and Dr. Knaggs, I have studied all these forms carefully side by side, and 

 with magnifiers, but cannot find a single reliable point of distinction between them, 

 all the apparent characters being mixed together and assumed on each side. I have 

 thought that the fore-wings of subornatella were longer and narrower than those of 

 adornatella, and to some slight extent this seems to be the case ; but among un- 

 questionable adornatella specimens occur in which the fore-wings are even narrower 

 than in the other form. The species is, in fact, variable in this respect, and there is 

 also a difference between the sexes. 



With the union of these two forms as one species, the need for both names 

 seems to disappear. There can be no doubt, I think, that Stephens's description of 

 Phycita diluteUa, Hb. (vol. iv, p. 303), refers to this species, and Hiibner's figure 

 69 in his fifth volume seems to me conclusive. We may, therefore, safely go back 

 to the old name — dilutella, Hiib. — Id. : December 5th, 1889. 



Habits of the larva of JSndorea dubitalis. — I bred one or two specimens of 

 Eudorea dubitalis, eight or nine years ago, from roots of sorrel collected at Folkestone, 

 on Good Friday, when searching for larva; of Sesia chrysidiformis. The larvse must 

 have been among the roots but I did not notice them. There M'as little or no moss 

 among them. — W. Machin, 29, Carlton Eoad, E. : December, 1889. 



The life-history of Simaethis combinatana, Walk. — On August 21st, in a secluded 

 gully above the Wellington Reservoir, I discovered a number of small larvfE feeding 

 on the native groundsel {Senecio bellidioides). They were living in silken gal- 

 leries, which were formed amongst the young shoots of the plant, and were rather 

 abundant. In shape, the larva was somewhat stout, slightly tapering at each end. 

 The head and dorsal surface of the prothorax were corneous and pale brown in colour, 

 the rest of the body being ochreous. Each segment was provided with eight black 

 tubercles, arranged in two parallel rows, consisting of two and six warts respectively. 

 From each of these a small black bristle arose. Length of the larva, 3 to 4 lines. 

 During September these larvcc spun a number of extremely dense white cocoons 



