PROUTIA. 281 



(1) Psyche roboricolella.* — Of this no doubt his male, case, and possibly larva 

 are, as far as the descriptions are concerned, F. casta (nitidella), but the female 

 appears certainly to be that of P. betulina, whilst his figures of the neuration of the 

 species (pi. hi., figs. 72 and ? 72) are just as certainly P. betulina, showing a large 

 cellula intrusa, a character apparently wanting in Fumea (in sensu strictiore). It 

 was a species that he evidently did not know well in nature, for he notes that it is 

 the most common species of the genus around Paris, but quite otherwise around 

 Besancon, where one found it much less frequently than F. crassiorella and -F. 

 intermediella. It appears certain that Bruand had no very clear idea of the limits 

 of betulina, some dark examples of which, one suspects, he placed with the Parisian 

 examples of F. casta to form his roboricolella. 



(2) Psyche salicolella. — The male of Bruand's salicolella is almost certainly 

 betulina, so also is the case according to the Latin diagnosis — " Involucrum, ut 

 apud anicanellam, quisquilius lignosis vel corticeis indutum" — but when he 

 described this more fully in French, he evidently mixed up therewith cases of B. 

 sepium, for he notes it as " un peu resserre a l'ouverture, s'elargit legerement au 

 milieu et se termine en pointe obtuse." The larva described is almost certainly that 

 of B. sepium, and the ¥ , which agrees with no known species in having " une seule 

 petite tache noiratre a la partie ventrale, endessous du quatrieme anneau," 

 appears otherwise to be that of F. casta (nitidella). His figures are undoubtedly 

 those of P. betulina throughout, the male, case, and larva (pi. ii., figs. 74 a-d) 

 showing the real Proutiid characters, whilst the neuration (pi. iii., fig. 74) is also 

 distinctly Proutiid, and possibly that of betulina. 



(3) Psyche anicanella. — There is no doubt from the description of the case 

 that this is a Proutiid, one suspects it to refer to P. betulina, and the female, both 

 by description and figure (pi. ii., fig. 73) almost certainly belongs to this species. 

 Bruand himself inclined to consider it a variety of roboricolella, which, as shown 

 above, was certainly in part P. betulina, and one suspects thao he had the same 

 species (in part at least) in the examples he was comparing. Bruand also notes 



* We at first suspected that Speyer's criticism (Stett. Ent. Zeit., xlix., pp. 203-4) 

 was based on a book knowledge only of roboricolella and a real knowledge of 

 betulina, but his detailed description of the antennae, &c, of the former made this 

 doubtful, and further reference showed that Bohatsch sent him a pair of insects 

 and the case (the ? labelled " Douai, E. 31. V. old wood-lichens "), which, after 

 comparison with the description of roboricolella in Bruand's Monograph, he deter- 

 mined to be the latter species, although he states th.it the ? is not larger than 

 those of intermediella and anicanella, and that Bruand's pi. ii., fig. 72a 

 does not show the shape of wing accurately, and the hindwing is made much too 

 bright. He then states that " roboricolella is somewhat smaller than nitidella 

 (intermediella, Brd.), but of the same colour, a little shorter in the forewings, which 

 are rather more rounded at the apex ; the shape of the wing differs greatly from 

 that of betulina ( = anicanella, Brd.); the antennas are 16-jointed, finer than those of 

 nitidella and betulina, their pectinations filiform, distinctly thickened at the tip, in 

 the middle of the shaft somewhat more than double as long as the joints on which 

 they are seated, otherwise all else is as in nitidella. The ? differs distinctly from 

 the otherwise similar ? of nitidella in having a white anal tuft. The case also is 

 similar to that of nitidella, covered lengthwise with narrow dry grass stems or 

 twigs, quite unlike that of betulina." Speyer then notes that Bruand doubts 

 whether his anicanella (betulina, Zell.) may not be a mere variety of roboricolelld, 

 but the former asserts that he has in different years bred nearly 200 betulina, and 

 convinced himself as to "its distinctness from its nearest relatives. Besides the 

 entire difference of the larval cases, and the difference in form of the forewings of 

 the male, the antennae present considerable differences. The anal tuft of the ? 

 roboricolella is, indeed, white, but not snow-white as is that of betulina ; roborico- 

 lella is much nearer to nitidella than to betulina," and Speyer adds that he has 

 caught and bred nitidella so commonly (and once reared a whole brood from eggs), 

 and yet has never once had a ? nitidella with a really white anal tuft, though 

 some have been whitish-yellow, and hence lighter than usual, that this distinction, 

 coupled with the difference in the shape of the wing, which appears to be constant, 

 compels him to look upon roboricolella as distinct. On the other hand he considers 

 nitidella to agree well with intermediella. Which Fumea is it that Speyer is here 

 referring to roboricolella ? Is there, indeed, a Fumea with a ? with "entirely 

 white " anal tuft as Bruand describes ? Has the male such neuration that it com- 

 prises a " cellula intrusa * as Bruand figures? 



