280 BRITISH LEPIDOPTERA. 



from labium, which has a pale (transparent) spot in centre ('? point of attachment 

 to imago). 



Imago. — <j . Wings almost unicolorous, well scaled, oval in outline ; antennse 

 21 (betulina) to 26 (eppingella) joints, last joint simple, pectinations long, faintly 

 clubbed, unsealed ; anterior tibial spurs from one-fourth from base of tibia to end 

 of tibia. ? . Antennas 15 joints (betulina) ; 4 joints to tarsi (mark of anchylosis 

 of 4-5) ; surface of skin with a few hairs only ; white transparent marks (? tubercle 

 i) on certain plates of the abdominal segments. Carries pupal head-parts on 

 emergence (? always). 



Neuration.' — (? . Anterior wings : 7 to apex ; subcostal accessory cell wanting ; 

 median present and bifurcating in discoidal cell to form a median accessory cell 

 (the " cellula intrusa "). Posterior wings : Median between 5 and 6. 



This genus is possibly, in spite of the position we have given it, 

 more closely allied to the Epichnopterygids than to the Fumeids, but 

 the case covered with pieces of bark, leaf, and lichen, the black head 

 and thoracic plates of the larva, are sufficient to distinguish it, and 

 whilst the antenna separate this genus somewhat widely from Fumea, 

 the early stages and the females separate it widely from the Epichnop- 

 terygids. The male imago is distinctly Fumeid in general appearance 

 and coloration, but has less square forewings, and this superficial 

 resemblance has, perhaps, misled all previous authorities and tempted 

 them to place P. betulina and B. septum in the genus Fumea. Speyer, 

 in 1846, observed that the pupa of P. betulina was to be distinguished 

 from that of B. sepium by the two rather widely separated ventro-anal 

 hooks. The pupal headparts are carried on the head of the ? imago 

 on emergence and in this Proutia also agrees with the Epichnoptery- 

 gids (as represented by Epichnopteryx pulla). 



We are quite ignorant as to the number of species there may be in 

 Proutia. Two are found in most of the lists, viz., (1) betulina, Zell. 

 ( = anicanella, Brd.), (2) salieolella, Brd. These three names apparently 

 represent the only European species that have yet been described and 

 which appear to work out as follows : (1) Betulina, Zell. [which also 

 equals betulina, Speyer {teste the small number of antennal joints, ante, 

 p. 258)] . (2) Anicanella, Brd. (which Bruand himself refers to betulina, 

 Speyer). (3) Salieolella, Brd. It is quite evident that Bruand's salieo- 

 lella is almost entirely referable to Bacotia sepium, but the male and 

 first part of the description of the larval case evidently refer to P. 

 betulina. Did Bruand then have two species of Proutia, or did his 

 salieolella (so far as it was a Proutia) =his anicanella ; and further, was 

 he right in referring Speyer's betulina, to his anicanella ? Considering 

 that he appears to have mixed up a Proutia (betulina) and Fumea (casta) 

 to make up his roboricolclla, and referred the larva, case, &c, of B. 

 sepium to P. salieolella, when he had described and figured the former 

 species nine years previously in the Ann. Soc. Ent. France, 1844, pp. 

 195-197, as clathrella, we have little hesitation in assuming that his 

 anicanella may have been betulina, as he himself said, and slightly 

 smaller specimens than those he described as salieolella. If, indeed, 

 he had two Proutiid species, there is no proof that they were the 

 same as the two now known in Britain, but if they were it follows that 

 the larger species betulina would probably be represented by his salieo- 

 lella, and the smaller by his anicanella. Chapman has assumed the 

 latter to be so, but we cannot very well accept this view and have 

 named our smaller British species cppinyclla. The facts relating to 

 Bruand's species (Mon. des Psychicies, pp. 98-101), appear to be as 

 follows : 



