CATALOGUE OF MOTHS. 63 



entry in his diary. Meyrick gives it as occurring as far north as 

 Lancashire, bnt no collector appears to have met with it recently 

 in our district. 



13. Lithosia companula, Bdv. The Commoi^ Footmak. 

 Lithosia companula. Staint. Man., vol. i., p. 138. 



,, „ Nevrm. Brit. Moths, p. 28. 



,, ,, Barr. Lep. Brit. Is., vol. ii., p. 224. 



,, lurideola. Meyr. Hdbk. Brit. Lep., p. 27. 



Laeva. Buck., vol. iii., pi. xli., fig. 3 ; O.Wils., pi. x., fig. 14. 



This, the commonest and most widely-distributed of the genus, 

 has been very seldom met with in these counties. i)r. Lees 

 took a single specimen on the Railway embankment at Hartle- 

 pool in 1873. I got a second in 1876, and Mr. Gardner has 

 taken one or more at Ragwort flowers about the same date. It 

 has not since been met with here, and the only additional 

 record I have is that Mr. Henderson obtained it at Jesmond, 

 but I am not aware whether he got more than one specimen. 

 It is certain to occur elsewhere, but is very retiring in its 

 habits and very unlike a Moth when at rest. 



14. Lithosia griseola, Hub. The Diis^gy Pootman. 

 Lithosia griseola. Staint. Man., vol. i., p. 132. 



„ ,, :N'ewm. Brit. Moths, p. 29. 



,, ,, Barr. Lep. Brit. Is., vol. ii., p. 226. 



,, ,, Meyr. Hdbk. Brit Lep., p. 28. 



Laeva. Buck., vol. iii., pi. xli., fig. 5 ; 0. Wils., pi. x.,fig. 16. 



This species appears in the Twizell list as having occurred 

 there. I was inclined to doubt the correctness of the record, 

 especially as there was no specimen in the collection when it 

 was examined for me. I now find it ''has occurred not uncom- 

 monly near Scarborough" (Barr. Lep. Brit. Is., vol. ii., p. 229). 

 This being a somewhat similar locality renders the Twizell re- 

 cord more probable, and I have therefore included the species 

 here, though no recent specimen appears to be known. Collec- 

 tors on the coast should be on the look out for these peculiar 

 looking insects. 



