NOTES ON THE FUMEIDS. 91 
‘61 and ‘62 and the 20-jointed antennez. I have bred one specimen of 
this from a Riviera larva, but have not recorded the precise locality 
(ant. tibia, pl. iv., fig. 30). 
Masonia crassiorella.—I am not quite sure that I have not two 
species confounded under this name. It should be a large species, at 
least 16mm. in expanse, and those specimens that I regard as abso- 
lutely agreeing with the supposed type have 24 joints to the antenne 
and a tibial spur formula of -68--70. This form I have taken at 
Cannes and have received from Staudinger. From another German 
source I haye received specimens with 22 joints to the antenne, and 
the British specimens I have seen (Mr. Digby’s specimen and those in 
Dr. Mason’s collection) agree in this. I have also specimens bred 
from Locarno larvee with only 22 antennal joints and an expanse down 
to 12mm. All these have fairly uniform tibial spurs, varying from 
‘68-70 British, from :66-:69 the typical 24-jointed form, and ‘69-°72 
the Locarno form. Iam unable to bring other characters into line 
with these variations, and the number of antennal joints does not vary 
in accord with the tibial spine. It is quite possible that my extreme 
measurements may be somewhat in error, and that °67-:70 is the 
correct tibial formula for crassiorella. Certain specimens, however, of 
the Locarno form havea decidedly broader and shorter wing, slightly 
more rounded at the apex. In the absence of any distinct difference 
in spur length or antennal joints (22-28) I prefer for the present to 
leave them as an unnamed variety. I should define J. crassiorella as 
a large /umea, 18mm.-16mm. in expanse, with 21-24 antennal joints, 
and an anterior tibial spur of -66-:72, but this range of variation does 
not occur everywhere, some races being of 15mm.-16mm., and with 
24 antennal joints invariably, others, as the English forms, never 
having 24 antennal joints, but ranging from 21-28 (pl. iv., figs. 31-34). 
B.reticulatella and B. comitella have the ‘‘ cellula intrusa,” that is, 
the median neryure divides into two branches within the cell. M. 
crasstorella and all the other species I have examined are without it. 
Bruand describes (or at least figures) MM. crassiorella as possessing it, 
and from an examination of a single specimen I agreed with him. 
Having, however, some doubt, I proceeded to make a further examina- 
tion, and proceeded with specimen after specimen without finding it, 
which was only to be expected, since it does not possess it. I was, 
howeyer, rather dissatisfied with myself at having fora time fallen into 
SO serious an error, and at length I discovered the specimen I had first 
examined. It possesses the ‘‘cellula intrusa’”’ well-developed on one side, 
very minute, if existing at all, on the other. It was having fallen by 
accident on this aberration that led me into my mistake. It shows 
that one should not be satisfied with examining one specimen, even 
when the result is to confirm a supposed well-established fact. Before 
I discovered the source of my error I thought I might have taken one 
of the B. reticulatella var. obscurella for an example of M. crasstorella. 
How did Bruand fall into the error—by mere carelessness, by mis- 
taking B. reticulatella var. for M. crassiorella, by meeting with an 
aberration such as 1 did? Ido not know, but, however much I may 
feel annoyed at being led into error so easily, I am clearly not in a 
position to find fault with him. 
(? Bruandia) rouasti is an eastern species. The description does 
not show whether it is a true Fumeid or, perchance, a Proutiid. Ifa 
