﻿266 t^P" 1 - 



" subsequent authors have entirely mistaken the Phryganea bicaudata of Linnaeus 

 "will be perfectly evident to any entomologist who will take the trouble to 

 " examine the Linnsean specimen, now in possession of the Linnsean Society." 

 Notwithstanding this assertion, Pictet in his "Perlides" did not feel justified in 

 considering the matter as settled, and named the species " bipunctata." I have 

 examined the Linnasan Cabinet, and find therein no insect that has any claim to be 

 considered a type of bicaudata. It is true there is a label " bicaudata," but in the 

 handwriting of Sir J. E. Smith and not of Linne. It fact, it is one of the numerous 

 cases in which the insects added by Smith, and labelled by him, have been mistaken 

 for actual Linnsean types. The insect is very old, and I will not affirm it is bipunctata, 

 but by the side of it (without labels) stand an imago and larva certainly of that 

 species. Hence the name bicaudata remains as unsettled as ever, and will probably 

 sink quietly into oblivion, unless some Swedish entomologist can succeed in re- 

 instating it. I may add, that bicaudata of -Zetterstedt (Ins. Lapp., 1058), Linne's 

 fellow-countryman, is evidently Dictyopteryx microcephala, Pictet. 



And now, as to maxima of Scopoli (Bnt. Carn., p. 269 ; 1763), a name that has 

 also been variously applied. Herr Brauer in his " Neuroptera A/ustriaca " gives it 

 as a synonym of abdominalis, Burm., without according to it the right of priority, 

 thus indicating doubt. Scopoli himself cites bicaudata of Linne, and yet applies a 

 new name. That maxima is really the species described by Pictet as bipunctata, 

 appears to me most probable from his description of the imago, and absolutely 

 certain from that of the larva, for he had bred the species. I have no hesitation, 

 therefore, in adopting Scopoli's name. The species occurs in all the mountainous 

 regions of central Europe, and surpasses any other in size. As British, I have at 

 present seen only a Leachian example in the British Museum, labelled " Dartmoor," 

 and some smaller and somewhat doubtful specimens in the Entomological Club 

 collection, probably taken by Mr. Newman at Leominster, but think it probable 

 that other examples are extant, and that the insect referred to by Curtis as P. 

 grandis is the same species. — R. McLachlan, Lewisham, January 8th, 1870. 



Eritomological Society of Newcastle-on-Tyne. — We are requested to notice that, 

 on the 1st of February, a meeting was held at Mr. Johnson's, 48, Dean Street, for 

 the purpose of establishing a Society in that town, when about 20 Members joined. 

 The Secretary is Mr. Hamilton, of 13, Union Street. We believe the Society con- 

 sists chiefly of working men, many of whom are beginners, and they would be 

 grateful for larva? or eggs of Lepidoptera. From the best source, we hear that a 

 taste for Entomology and Natural History in general is gradually springing up in 

 Newcastle. — [Eds.] 



Entomological Society of London, 21st February, 1870. A. K. Wallace, 

 Esq., F.Z.S., President, in the Chair. 



M. M. Schio.lte, of Copenhagen, and von Siebold, of Munich, were elected 

 Honorary Members, and Messrs. G. T. Porritt, of Huddersfield, and B. J. Lucas, of 

 Tooting, Subscribers. 



Mr. Hunter exhibited a Plusia from the New Forest, which he thought might 

 be P. ni, recently introduced into our lists (interrogationis ? Eds.). 



Mr. Miiller exhibited a dipterous gall on the flowers of Tanacetum vulgare, 

 sent to him by Mr. D'Orville, of Exeter. This gall consisted of hypertrophied discal 

 florets, which were raised far above the level of the others. 



