1890.] SO 



Lepidopterists. If Mr. Tutt, or any of your other correspondents, who doubt the 

 distinctness of hasistrigalis from mnbigualis, had seen the former in the numbers I 

 and several other Lepidopterists saw it in Edlington "Wood, near Doncaster, on 

 August 4th, 1879, I fancy their doubts would have for ever been dissipated. That 

 year it occurred in profusion in one part of the Wood (opposite and around the 

 Wood House), and a dozen or so were sometimes seen on a single tree trunk. I 

 remember distinctly that on seeing the first specimen on that occasion, although I 

 had never seen the insect alive before, I at once recognised it as hasistrigalis ; and 

 on calling to the late William Prest, of York, who was working some distance from 

 me, on coming up and seeing the specimen on the tree, he instantly said " Basi- 

 strigalis ! " Some hundreds must have been taken that day, and hundreds more 

 were left ; and I know others went and obtained the species freely afterwards, so 

 there must be plenty of these specimens scattered in different collections in the 

 country. The following year hardly any were seen, and although I went specially 

 for it several following seasons, I do not remember that I ever saw another specimen. 

 Mr. Prest had also found it not uncommonly one season some years previously at 

 Bishop's Wood, near Selby, but it now seems to be completely lost from both locali- 

 ties. It is a much larger insect than aiuhigualis, as nearly as possible, indeed, as big 

 as S. cembrw, whilst it is a considerably broader and rounder winged insect than 

 either of these species. The markings of some strongly marked ambiyualis no doubt 

 approach very closely to hasistrigalis, but these are exceptional, and the distinctly 

 different shaped wings in hasistrigalis, apart from its larger size, at once separate it. 

 I have never seen hasistrigalis except in Edlington Wood ; and although I suppose 

 I have seen thousands of ambigualis in all sorts of localities, I have never seen any 

 I was even inclined to suspect might be hasistrigalis. — Geo. T. Poeritt, Hudders- 

 field : February 13th, 1890. 



Identity of Dianthcecia carpophaga and D. capsophila. — In 1884, I obtained a 

 number of Dianthacia larvae on the sea-coast near Tenby, in Pembrokeshire. 

 Many of the resulting imagos have proved of great interest, and, I think, determine 

 the identity of the species Dianthacia carpophaga, Bork., and D. capsophila, Dup. 



The larvse were taken in the flowers of Silene maritima in the first fortnight of 

 September. To look for them it is necessary to examine flowers of which the 

 corollas have fallen or faded ; if they are viewed from above, the larvae, when at all 

 large, are readily seen coiled round the base of the ovary, usually with their anterior 

 segments buried in it. After a little practice, large beds of Silene may be quickly 

 examined. 



The larvae were kept in a wooden box, on the bottom of which was spread a 

 layer of about an inch deep of the shale in which the Silene grows. They pupate 

 in this, and are easily and quickly reared ; all that is required is to carefully 

 clean out the calyces whose contents are eaten, and throw in fresh ones. They keep 

 fresh a long time, and give no difiiculty by drying up. I had between eighty and 

 ninety larvae, some of which had not pupated by the 7tli of October ; so the Dian- 

 thaecite appear to have been double-brooded on this occasion. The larvae belonged 

 apparently to three species, but I did not attempt to keep them separately. 



All the moths emerged in June, 1885 ; I had few cripples and no ichneumons. 



The species bred were : — Dianthcecia capsincola, Hb., fourteen specimens of the 



