20 THE ENTOMOLOGIST’S RECORD. 
30, 1898). Messrs. Brazenor Bros. sent me aseries of this insect from 
Brighton, and Mr. William Farren a similar lot from Boxworth, Cambs. 
I have also received a pair from a weasel taken near Nairn.—N. 
Cuartes Roruscutp, B.A., F.Z.8., Tring Park, Tring. Deceniber 
30th, 1899. 
New Psycumw cenera.—lIn order to legitimise as it were, certain 
names that I am using in my second yolume of British Lepidoptera, 
and to prevent (as far as possible) them being reduced to synonyms 
prior to publication, I wish to notice the following: 
(1) Genus Bruandia, n. gen. with type reticulatella, the anterior wings reticu- 
lated, the costa rounded, possessing a well-defined cellula intrusa, the anterior tibial 
spines short (under -64 the length of tibia) and 20 or more antennal joints. 
(2) Genus Masonia, n. gen. with type crassiorella, the anterior wings without 
reticulations, the median neryure not forming a cellula intrusa; the anterior tibial 
spines intermediate, *66-"72 the length of the tibia, the antennal joints usually 20 
or more. 
The Fumeids of which casta is the type, will retain the name H'umea, 
Haw. 
Among the Epichnopterygids, one separates readily the Bijugids 
and Psychideids from the Epichnopterygids proper which are withont 
anterior tibial spines. The species thus left appear to fall into two 
genera, viz. :— 
(1) Epichnopterix, Hb., with (dark) unicolorous wings and well represented by 
pulla, which is the type of the genus. 
(2) Whittleia, n. gen. with reticulated wings and well represented by reticella, 
which may be named as the type. 
The extended diagnoses of these genera will of course be published 
in British Lepidoptera, vol. u.—J. W. Turr. January 1st, 1900. 
FURTHER NoTE ON LUFFIA FERCHAULTELLA.—In reference to my note on 
this species in Hint. Record, xi., p. 2938, 1 wish to add a remarkable point 
that I had not clearly before me in writing that note. It does not in 
any way alter the facts then stated, but may affect some of the conclusions 
that may be derived fromthem. In observing the habits of the various 
Luffiid races, Mr. Bacot especially notes that whilst L. ferchaultella 
from various British localities commenced ovipcsition immediately on 
emerging from the pupa, those from Bignasco did not do so, but on the 
contrary, assumed a ‘‘calling’’ position like those of L. lapidella; he 
bred altogether six females between July 20th and 27th, as to each of 
which he makes this note. But he did not note whether they ultimately 
laid eggs or, still less, whether they were fertile. Still, his observation is 
abundantly adequate to show that the females expected males, and that 
such males must exist, however rare they may be, and that this race 
cannot be so completely parthenogenetic as the English examples. It is, 
nevertheless, true that perhaps some 200 cases were collected, that from 
twenty to thirty, perhaps more, 9s were bred, together with swarms 
of Chalcids, and that not one male appeared, and, further that in all 
its anatomical points, it agreed absolutely with L. ferchaultella and not 
with L. lapidella, and that in the matter of variability within the L. fer- 
chaultella form, especially affecting the tarsi, it occupied an intermediate 
position, between the two forms presented by different English races.— 
T. A. Cuapman, M.D., F.E.S., Betula, Reigate. 
British Lerpmoprera, Vou. I.—Crirican Nores.—I have been 
reading your British Lepidoptera, vol. i., and think it a good work. 
Perhaps you will not object to my mentioning a few points that struck 
