SOLENOBIIDAE. 157 



from the Taleporiids on three grounds : (1) The absence of ocelli and 

 palpi (in the former) ; (2) The single nervures of the forewings ; (3) 

 The loose larval case. He states that " only five nervures of the 

 forewings run into the outer margin in Solenobia," adding that " the 

 one that lies directly above them, and runs into the costa, is identical, 

 however, with the sixth in Talaeporia, while it also joins the nervure 

 which separates a part of the discoidal as a supplementary cell in S. 

 clathrella." He notes that this supplementary cell is " wanting in S. 

 pineti, and, consequently, also the nervure." Zeller further considers 

 that Solenobia, owing to its delicacy and fragility, approaches nearer to 

 the Psychids (iiitidella, septum, &c). 



The species of Solenobia are ill-defined, little known, and hence 

 difficult to distinguish correctly. In Britain, owing to the isolation 

 of those who have attempted to work at the group, each seems to have 

 left the species in worse confusion than before, and this has been 

 increased by an attempt to attach the names of European species to 

 British specimens (chiefly of S. inconspicuella) that have happened to 

 differ slightly from others. At present we are quite certain only that 

 we possess one British species — S. incompicuella. We also appear to 

 have the parthenogenetic S. lichenella ; douglasii apparently belongs to 

 Bankesia, and Barrett says that we possess S. ivockii (a conclusion with 

 which, after examination of the specimens on which the opinion was 

 founded, we are forced to disagree). At the same time, we may observe 

 that some continental lepidopterists do not allow S. ivockii to be distinct 

 from S. inconspicuella. The parthenogenetic form obtained by Hamm 

 (Wellington College), ? Fletcher (Horsham) and others, is possibly 

 8. lichenella, although to us the case appears indistinguishable from 

 that of S. inconspicuella, and larva3 and living females of the latter 

 from a locality where winged males occur have not been sufficiently 

 well-described to enable us to make a critical comparison. The dark 

 dorsum of the pupa may be differential, but if so, the S. lichenella of 

 the " Stainton " collection are possibly incorrectly named, and Snellen 

 van Vollenhoven's triquetrella would appear to be lichenella. We have 

 discussed ( Ent. Record, xi., p. 173) this British parthenogenetic Solenobia 

 from near Wellington College, on certain characters which Barrett 

 and Chapman considered (Ent. Mo. Mag., xxxiii., p. 127) to distin- 

 guish it from S. inconspicuella. Although we were able to show that 

 these characters did not hold good, and although Chapman on further 

 examination could not differentiate these females from others called 

 S. inconspicuella, we have not yet been able to prove that the insect is 

 S. inconspicuella, and unless there be a parthenogenetic form of the 

 latter species, it is more logical to assume it to be S. lichenella. 

 Still, authors have referred parthenogenetic forms to various species, 

 and the subject is an exceedingly difficult one. 



Possibly this phenomenon of parthenogenesis is one of the most 

 remarkable features in the economy of the Solenobiids. It would 

 appear to be beyond question that the females of some of the species 

 at least have the power to produce parthenogenetic progeny for many 

 successive generations. Siebold observes that during 1850, 1851, and 

 1852, he collected in Berlin several hundred cases of Solenobia lichen- 

 ella and ,S'. triquetrella, and bred nothing but females, although one 

 locality gave him two males of S. triquetrella. The females " clung 

 firmly to the outside of their cases, in the same way as do the females 



