NOTES ON THE FUMEIDS. 123 
founded on are two examples in the collection of Mr. Clark and three in 
that of Dr. Mason. Allare from the collection of Mr. R. Mitford, and 
those in Mr. Clark’s collection labelled by Mitford “‘n. sp.,” but without 
indication of where he obtained the specimens or on what ground he 
considered them to be new and distinct. The specimens are faded and 
not in the finest condition. In general aspect they are very like the 
small (nitidella) form of F’. casta, with an expanse of about 11mm. The 
form of the wing seems to differ a little from typical I’. casta, the base 
of the inner margin being much less produced in a rounded curve, the 
base of the wing being consequently narrow and the costa and inner 
margin are less nearly parallel, but diverge at a wider angle. The 
antenne are 17- or 18-jointed (I have not mounted a specimen), and 
the length of the tibial spur is ‘71 and ‘73, the lowest figure I have 
met with in casta being ‘77. The wing form is so dependent on 
accidental circumstances of setting that it is difficult to place much 
reliance on it. Is this the species exhibited at the meeting of the 
Ent. Soc. of London, March 4th, 1861, and noted as ‘“ Psyche ? 
Apparently a very distinct species allied to P. roboricolella, but the wings 
much more rounded, as in P. radiella”’ (vide, Zool., p. 7453) ? These 
examples might be regarded as very small M. crassiorella, if we could 
assume a range of variation in M. crassiorella so great as to allow of a 
race of 1lmm. and at the same time allow the antennal joints to 
diminish to 17 or 18 (anterior tibia, pl. iv., fig. 39). 
(3) M. hibernicellaa—There are two specimens from Glengariff in 
Mr. Richardson’s collection which not a little resemble I. mitfordella in 
general facies, and one in Mr. Fletcher’s collection from the same 
locality. These have an expanse of 13mm.-14mm. Mr. Richardson’s 
differ a little in facies from Mr. Fletcher’s specimen, but I have already 
noted that setting and accidental circumstances affect this more than 
any real difference, and the present is I think a definite case in point, 
since the three specimens are from the same locality, have the 
same wing expanse, 19-20 antennal joints, and a spur length of +67 
and ‘74. These are smaller than typical M. crasstorella, and have only 
20 antennal joints at most (19 I think, but have only counted them 
on the specimens), so that they seem to be too distinct a race to be sunk 
as a var. of M. crassiorella (anterior tibia, pl. iv., fig. 80). 
(4) ML. subflavella, Mill.—This is a Riviera species described by 
Milliere, and he separates it from others by colour, and I think cor- 
rectly, an exception in this matter to prove the rule. He very stronely 
insists that the yellowish-brown colour, with rather darker hind 
margin, is definitely so in freshly emerged specimens. If a variety it 
could only be of I. crassiorella, from which it differs further in being 
smaller and broader and shorter winged. It agrees with M. crasstorella 
in having 24 antennal joints and a tibial spur length of -72, expanse 
12mm.-18mm. (vide, pl. iv., fig. 86, anterior tibia). 
(5) M. edwardsella, Tutt.—These are four specimens bred by Mr. 
Tutt from larve collected at Aix-les-Bains by Mr, Stanley Edwards and 
myself. They much resemble M. subflavella, but are smaller, viz., 
11mm. in expanse, and have only 20 joints to the antenne ; the tibial 
spur length is ‘70. The specimens are not in good condition, and 
rather suggest B. reticulatella in the looseness of their scaling, but this 
may be the result of want of condition. ‘There may be some grounds 
for suspecting that these are Bruand’s M. sazicolella. The latter is, 
