218 [Augu.sl, 



Carpucapsa pomonella in New Zealand. — C. pomonella has been inlroduced 

 into New Zealand with imported apples. — W. W. Smith, East Belt, Asbburton, 

 New Zealand : March 29th, 1890. 



3Iecyna polt/gonalis, Tr., in New Zealand. — Being a belierer in sound and 

 generous criticism, I am at all times well pleased to have my errors corrected ; I, 

 however, doubt if Mr. E. Mejrick's comments on my notes on M. polygonalis in the 

 March No. of this Magazine will settle all the questions he has raised. 



(1). We are informed that " M. poli/gonalis has never yet been taken in New 

 Zealand." With all due deference to Mr. Meyrick as a New Zealand Lepidopterist, 

 I now admit that I wrongly assigned my notes to M. polygonalis instead of to M. 

 deprivalis, but the error, fortunately, disillusionized New Zealand entomologists, as 

 the moth was hitherto known to us only by the former name. 



(2). In respect to M. deprivalis, Mr. Meyrick says "its larva, like those of the 

 other allied species of the group, feeds solely on Leguminosce, and rarely on any but 

 Sophora tetraptera." There are no plants of the latter within thirty miles of 

 Ashburton, yet the moth is common here every year. The larva in this district, 

 although chiefly attached to the introduced Genista capensis, is not " solely " confined 

 to Leguminosce , as I find it occasionally on Discaria toumaton, a species of Rhamnce, 

 and at the present time on chrysanthemums in the flower borders. Ashbui'ton is 

 sixty miles distant from Christchurch, in a separate county, and is, therefore, not as 

 Mr. Meyrick puts it " in the district of Christchurch." To any one desirous of 

 knowing the history of " Caterpillar Plagues " in New Zealand, I may refer him to 

 the introduction to Sir Walter BuUer's new edition of 1888 on the Birds of New 

 Zealand. 



(3). As to my having been "misled by a very slight superficial resemblance " 

 into confounding M. deprivalis, Walk., with Heliothis armigera, Hb., I assure my 

 critic that, irrespective of any slight resemblance in colour, I have long been able to 

 distinguish a small Pyrale from a large Noctua, and have for many years known the 

 life-history of both species ; but whilst animadverting on my " notes," Mr. Meyrick 

 made no allusion to the colour, size, or structure of the larva of any of the two 

 species which are naturally very different. My remarks on the two broods and the 

 protective colouring of M . deprivalis should have convinced him (assuming that he 

 knew it) that it was simply an error on my part in the nomenclature of the species, 

 without formulating any comments. During eighteen years collecting in this country 

 I have never been so fortunate as to observe H. armigera " very abundant in New 

 Zealand," and in no instance to be destructive to cereal crops. I, however, do not 

 doubt Mr. Fereday's statement about the larva of the species destroying pea crops ; 

 I have also known the hibernating larvae of Mameslra nutans to do the same thing. 

 In some years the former is strictly local. 



(4). My remarks on the increasing flax trade in affecting the economy of many 

 of our finest species of Lepidoptera are, according to my experience, most conclusive, 

 although opposed to Mr. Meyrick's views. Instead of " only two or three (species) 

 at most" occurring on flax lands in the flowering season, I may instance, that during 

 December and January last, my friend, Mr. A. W. Webb, and myself took over forty 

 species of Nocturnal Lepidoptera on a flax flat below this town, together with a fine 



