THE NEPTICULIDES. 183 



Switzerland, and as the number of workers in other countries has 

 not increased to any great extent, a list compiled at the present time 

 consists of but little more than the additions made since 1871 by the 

 British and German lepidopterists, united to Wocke's list of that 

 date — an approximate list of this kind has been compiled, ante, 

 pp. 166-167. At the present time the number of British species 

 may be put down at — Nepticula 78 (including five or six species 

 doubtful), Trifurcida 3 (one of the species, squamatella, included in 

 Wocke's Catalog, etc., having since been united with Unmundella) 

 Scoliaula (Bohemannia) 1 species. 



We have, in the genus Nepticula, a certain number of British 

 species whose right to specific claim is doubtful. Of these the 

 best known are Nepticula atricapitella and N. ruficapitella, which 

 are sometimes considered but one species. Stainton says (Nat. 

 Hist. Tin., i., p. 276) that they pair true, and should be con- 

 sidered as really distinct, also that the larva of N. atricapitella, 

 like the moth, has a black head, and can by this be dis- 

 tinguished from that of N. ruficapitella. On the other hand, in the 

 MS. Catalogue of Stainton's British collection (by Hampson), we 

 observe that specimens of N. atricapitella are recorded as being bred from 

 " pale-headed " lame, and many specimens of both N. atricapitella and 

 N. ruficapitella are recorded as bred from " dark" larvae and "pale " 

 larvae, apparently indiscriminately. Sorhagen writes [" Die Klein- 

 schmett. der Mark Bradenburg" (1886), p. 302] that " Dr. Hinneberg, on 

 April 28th, 1885, observed, at Potsdam, N. ruficapitella, in copula with 

 N. atricapitella, whereby, probably, all doubt as to their identity is 

 removed." The second pair of doubtful species comprises N. arggropeza, 

 Sta. and N. apicella, Sta., which are said to = respectively the N. 

 subapicella, Sta. and N. arggropeza, Zell. The N. arggropeza of Zeller 

 (= N. apicella, Sta.), is the P. tremida species, which is certainly 

 British, but is N. subapicella ( = N. arggropeza, Sta.) a distinct species 

 from it ? Other doubtful species include N. obliquella (diversa), so called 

 British specimens of which may be N. salicis or N. vimineticola, making 

 elongate mines in large leaves of S. caprea ; also N. didcella, British speci- 

 mens of which may constitute a small form of N. frag arietta. N. filipen- 

 dulae, Fletcher says, " may be N. poterii feeding in Spiraea filipendulae. 

 NTpoterii is very local, its food-plant very abundant. N. filipendulae 

 is widely distributed on the Sussex downs, though its food-plant is less 

 abundant, and I have never yet found the two Nepticulids on the same 

 ground, though the food-plants are fairly mixed." On the other 

 hand, Fletcher writes : " I am not at all sure that we may not have 

 two species included in N. anomalella, alluded to by Stainton (Nat. 

 Hist. Tin., i., p. 58), viz., a larger one — the imago, with bright gellow 

 face and head, the larva feeding in hedgerows on Rosacanina and R. rubi- 

 ginosa, and in gardens on several species of rose. I have bred it pure 

 in large numbers from rose " Kampant," which is I think a var. of Rosa 

 sempjervirens. The larva of the other, smaller form, the imago with 

 black hairs on head, feeds in Rosa arvensis, in woods, chiefly under shade 

 of trees. I have met this form in Sussex and Lincolnshire." Again, 

 N. hodgkinsoni has not yet been very definitely distinguished from N. 

 centifoliella, and one would like more light on the former species. 

 iV. tengstormi claims its place as British on a single specimen bred 

 from Scotch larvae. N. castanella is only known as British from 



