1890.] 139 



ease with which a larva belonging to this family of Pyralites miglit exist among 

 dried vegetable substances on board a vessel gives colour to this opinion. It does 

 not appear that any second example of tliis very pretty and distinct sjiecies has 

 been recognised from any part of the world, and the existence in excellent preserva- 

 tion of this unique specimen, fifty years after its capture, is of genuine interest. 



In Mr. Robertson's collection I also saw six (EcopJiora formosella, evidently 

 the original specimens (called Batiaformosella) taken by him at Wanstead. The 

 utter disappearance of this lovely species, like that of CE. Woodiella, is sufficiently 

 mysterious.— Id. 



Variation of Phycis dihilella, Iliib. — With regard to Mr. C. Gr. Barrett's very 

 satisfactory paper on the identity of Phycis subornatella and adoriiatella {ante p. 20), 

 I think that it will be found that Portland is not the only place that produces inter- 

 mediate forms of this species. I have four specimens from Brighton, all sent to me 

 as subornatella. In one of these the white basal fascia is almost, if not quite, as 

 distinct as in an Isle of Man specimen sent me by Mr. Barrett, and the wing is 

 much more suffused with white scales ; in the other three specimens there is less 

 white, especially on the hind margin, than in the Isle of Man specimen, and the 

 basal fascia is almost obsolete in slightly varying degrees in the three specimens. It 

 would probably not be noticed at all if we did not know of its existence in other 

 specimens, but as we know where to look for it, some of its faint outline can be made 

 out with difficulty. These three specimens are undoubtedly, I should say, of the 

 adornatella variety, though they are not extreme forms. A long series from Brighton 

 would probably show many other forms, but most likely the specimens taken both 

 there and at Portland have for years gone by the name of nvbornatella, and 

 the dark adornatella varieties have, I suppose, passed with tbeni under the same 

 name. I have three specimens from Shoreham, which are all distinct adornatella, 

 but show some variation in the direction of subornatella. The most constant series 

 I have is from North Devon— four specimens, very like each other, dingy ochrcous, 

 with a few white scales on the costa and hind margin, and no basal fascia. This 

 form also occurs at Portland. With regard to Mr. Barrett's last paragraph but 

 one, I may mention that I saw a specimen taken by Mr. C W. Dale at Portland, 

 very dark, with exceedingly long and narrow wings, more striking in that respect 

 than any of the very variable graduated series I was able to send to Mr. Barrett last 

 year, and which seemed to me to conclusively prove the identity of the two so-called 

 species. I had never taken dilutella elsewhere, but as I was not satisfied about the 

 Portland specimens, I sent a few varieties to Mr. Barrett in 1887, asking for his 

 opinion on them, and he then said that they were more like subornateUa than any 

 adornatella he had seen, and that he thought that these two species might turn out 

 to be identical. 



There is one point in the differentiation by Zeller (Ent. Ann., 1867, p. 142) of 

 subornatella from adornatella which is worth noticing. He there says that sub- 

 ornatella is distinguished from ardornatella by (amongst other things) tlic slight 

 angles of the 2nd transverse line, whereas, in the specimen of subornatella from the 

 Isle of Man above alluded to, these angles are particularly sharp and well-defined. 

 By comparing other specimens, I sec that the shape of this line is very variable, and 



