282 BKITTSH LEPIDOPTEEA. 



that a pair of his species had recently been sent him by Speyer as hetulina, all of 

 which goes to support the view that anicanella was really hetulina, as all our 

 leading lepidopterists have for many years supposed. 



If the above facts and conclusions be correct, we have P. hetulina 

 extending at least in part over Bruand's roboricolella and salicolella, and 

 absorbing his anicanella, as certainly B. septum absorbs his tabulella 

 and extends partly over his salicolella. It may be added as a curious 

 incident that though Bruand correctly figures the male, female, and 

 case of B. septum (pi. ii, figs. 75 a-b), yet his neuration of this species 

 (pi. iii., fig. 75) is entirely incorrect, and evidently belongs to a Proutia 

 (or less likely to one of the Fumeids of the reticulatella group), the 

 accessory apical discoidal cellule present in B. sepium being absent in 

 this figure, whilst a large " cellula intrusa," unknown in B. sepium, is 

 figured ; yet there can be no doubt that Bruand knew the life-history 

 of this species well (see, Bull. Soc. Ent. France, 1844, pp. 195-197, 

 and figs. E a-e), but, when he described it as clathrella, he evidently 

 could not separate the imagines from those of the allied species. 



We have in Britain two Proutias, and Bruand described two Proutias 

 — anicanella and salicolella, the latter of which, in part, i.e., so far as it is 

 a Proutia, equals hetulina, and Bruand says that his anicanella is also 

 Speyer's hetulina, and notes it as being smaller, 11mm. -12mm., than 

 salicolella 12mm. -13mm. This difference is, perhaps, trifling, and both 

 sets of measurements are probably included within the limits of hetulina, 

 which extends sometimes to almost 14mm., but it is noteworthy that 

 our two British Proutias — hetulina, and that which we have hitherto called 

 salicolella (but Avhich is certainly not salicolella, Brd.) — differ similarly in 

 size, the latter being the smaller (and on the whole less dark). On 

 this account Chapman inclines to sink salicolella, Brd., as hetu- 

 lina, and to retain anicanella, Brd., as our salicolella (both species 

 by the bye appear to have ? s with white anal tuft), but the evidence 

 for this appears quite insufficient, and there seems to be no positive 

 basis for doing so. It is rather remarkable though that a poor 

 example which Chapman received from Staudinger as salicolella (from 

 France) appears to be the smaller species we have hitherto called 

 salicolella, but which certainly is not salicolella, Brd. This insect never 

 seems to have been, hitherto, adequately described, and on account of this, 

 and of the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence relating to anicanella, 

 Brd., we are inclined to name the species and so get rid of the inex- 

 tricable confusion that has grown up from the use of Bruand's name. 

 We cannot do better, perhaps, than call it eppiru/ella, from Epping 

 Forest, whence Prout's examples (<? and ?),the only authenticated 

 British specimens, have come. Mason has another 3 but he knows 

 nothing of its history, and we have seen (as noted above) one other $ 

 example from Staudinger' s collection. Our suggestion that this species 

 was probably more generally distributed than P. hetulina {Ent. Rec, 

 xi., p. 238) is, therefore, quite erroneous. 



There is one other described species that appears to be a Proutia. 

 This is Heylaerts' Asiatic species rouasti. A description of the species 

 will be found in our account of P. hetulina. 



The $ s of the British species can be distinguished by the following 

 characters : 



(1) P. hetulina. — Antennas 21-jointed ; wings with hind margin more oblique 

 and apex more pointed, making wing look longer and more Lufliid in shape. 



