232 CATAIOGUE OP MOTHS. 



Durham beyond that of the "Manual." It is not entered in 



Bang's diary.* 



363. N. cryptella, Stain. 



Nepticula cryptella. Staint. Man., vol. ii., p. 432 fpartim). 

 ,, ,, Meyr. Hdbk. Brit. Lap., p. 726. 



Cryptella is marked by Mr. Hodgkinson as havingf been 

 met with by him in West Nortlmmberland. The larva blotches 

 the leaves of Lotus corniculatus , and though the species is said 

 to be "local," I think it will be found in many other parts of 

 these counties. 



364. N. eurema, Durrani 



Nepticula eurema, Drnt., in Tutt's N. H. Brit. Lep., i., 332 

 (1899), This species, whose very existence was unknown to 



* Sang's reason for uot mentioning it was, without doubt, that he 

 considered it too common. I know that he bred It plentifully, and notice 

 in a series of his supposed " anomcdella " before me, all unfortunately 

 without data, some examples of the closely-allied N. Jletcheri, which, after 

 having been confused with anomalella for many years, was at last 

 separated therefrom, and described as n. sp. in Tutt's Nat. Hist. Brit. 

 Lep., i., 211 (1899). It is quite likely, therefore, that Sang's fietclieri 

 were collected in Durham, but proof is wanting, so we cannot include 

 this species. Some of the records given above may, of course, really 

 refer to Jletcheri rather than to aibomalella, but only an examination of 

 all the individuals that were captured and bred could settle this point. — 

 E. R. B. 



f Without seeing Mr. Hodgkinson's Northumberland specimens, it is 

 quite impossible to tell whether they were referable to the cryptella, 

 Stn. , or to the closely-allied eurema, Drnt., which was for many years 

 confused with cryptella, and was only separated therefrom in 1899. Mr. 

 Robson, unaware of this separation, and copying Mr. Sang's diary, stated 

 above that Sang found cryptella in Castle Eden Dene and at Darlington, 

 birt I have reason for transferring these entries to my notice of eureiTia 

 (q.v.). We have therefore no proof that the true cryptella, described by 

 Stainton in Ent. Ann., 1856, p. 41 (N.B. The "Manual" description is 

 made from both species), occurs in these counties, but Sang perhaps took it 

 in Durham. I possess a lengthy series, bred, and perhaps partly taken, by 

 him, of his supposed cryptella, unfortunately without data, and although 

 the majority are eurema, there are some cryptella mixed with them. — 

 E. R. B. 



