286 BBITISH LEPIDOPTEBA. 



sory cell of B. sepium marks its connection with the Micro-Psychids, 

 all of which possess this structure, whilst the Macro-Psychids never 

 have it. (This cell is sometimes absent in B. sepium, the variation 

 being, no doubt, related to the transitional position of the species.) 

 In the antenna B. sepium has 26 joints, P. betulina 21 joints, whilst 

 the anterior tibial spur of B. sepium is half the length of the tibia, 

 and in P. betulina it is three-fourths its length, the latter marking a 

 transitional stage between the short -spurred Micro- and the long- 

 spurred Macro-Psychids. The antennal pectinations in B. sepium are 

 short, square-set, and rigidly maintain their positions in the dried 

 specimens, whilst those of P. betulina are long and flowing, and twist 

 considerably in drying. 



Steuctubal difference in females of Bacotia (sepium) and Pboutia 

 (betulina) . — Some confusion appears to have occurred between Bacotia 

 and Proutia. Chapman notes, in comparing Bacotia sepium 2 with 

 that of Proutia betulina ? — 



? B. sepium has the four joints of the tarsi of the following relative lengths : 

 1st leg— 4, 1, 1, 2. 3rd leg— 3, 1, 1, 2. 



? P. betulina has the four tarsal joints of all the legs of the same relative 

 length— 2, 1, 1, 2. 



The female of P. betulina has a pure snow-white anal tuft, and except 

 for a few similar scattered hairs on the surface of the body, is other- 

 wise naked. B. sepium is somewhat thickly clothed with ordinary 

 scales and the anal tuft is pale brownish. 



CoMPABISON OF PBOUTIA BETULINA, P. SALICOLELLA AND FuMEA CASTA 



(nitidella). — Zeller, in describing P. betulina, noted that the male was 

 so like F. nitidella that he had not been able to distinguish them, but that 

 the female was distinguished by the almost snow-white anal tuft, 

 which was grey in F. nitidella. Bruand, who is supposed by almost 

 all our leading lepidopterists to have renamed the insect anicanella, on 

 the strength of this character, notes that the male is darker than 

 that of F. roboricolella (which is described as " nigro-brunneus "), and 

 the wings a little more elongated, and insisted on the character pre- 

 sented by the snowy- white anal tuft of the female. We have already 

 noted (ante, pp. 281-2) that Bruand's salicolella is probably this species 

 (so far as it is a Proutia at all, and excluding such parts of his descrip- 

 tion as obviously refer to B. sepium), also that the ? of Bruand's robo- 

 ricolella (Mori, cles Psych., p. 99) and the male neuration (Ibid., pi. hi., 

 figs. 72 and ? 72) apparently belong to this species. Chapman suggests 

 that Bruand's anicanella is possibly the smaller Proutia, the salicolella of 

 various authors, and the description suggesting both smaller and more 

 rounded wings than salicolella, Brd., leaves one with the impression that 

 this may just possibly, indeed, be so. Mitford, who clearly writes as if he 

 knew both P. betulina and P. salicolella, stated (Ent. Mo. Mag., vi.,pp. 94, 

 186) that Bruand's name of anicanella was very suitable for this species 

 (betulina), as the ? has the anal tuft of a snowy whiteness, whilst in the 

 ? of P. scdicolella this part is not so white, particularly beneath, but 

 it has a white bloom on the sides. He also differentiates the males, 

 stating that the forewings of salicolella are more elongated, whilst those 

 of betulina (anicanella), on the contrary, rather resemble specimens of 

 F. intermediella and F. roboricolella. ," This differentiation of the 

 males suggests that his salicolella might be, after all, B. sepium, for, in 

 stating that the wings of salicolella are " more elongated than those of 



