318 BEITISH LEPIDOPTERA. 



Britannica, p. 478, the readers of that work are requested to read 

 Fumea, the former name being occupied by a genus of plants. 

 Stephens, in 1829, adopted the generic name Fumea, gave the 

 same five species as Haworth, including a short account of the 

 life-history of only one of them — nitidella — which he noted also in 

 his generic diagnosis, and thus evidently restricted Fumea to the group 

 of which nitidella is the commonest representative. In 1855, Herrich- 

 Schaffer applied to this same group Hiibner's name of Epiehnopteryx, 

 making the pulla group his Fumea. Speyer, on the other hand, in 

 1858, restricted the name to the nitidella group, remarking (Geog. 

 Verb., i., p. 458) that Fumea was "erected in 1813, by Herworth (sic) 

 for nitidella, &c, and must, therefore, be retained for the genus which 

 contains this species." It is quite evident that Haworth's genus was 

 erected for nitidella and pulla, the latter under various aliases, and that 

 there was no special restriction of the name by HaAvorth to the group 

 containing the former species, and that, had it not been for Stephens' 

 restriction in 1829, Herrich-Schaffer's action would have stood. In 

 the first edition of Staudinger and Wocke's Catalog (1861) these 

 authors follow Herrich-Schaffer, but in the second edition (1871) they 

 changed the name of the nitidella group to Fumea, and retained that of 

 Epiehnopteryx for the pulla group. Haworth's diagnosis of Fumaria 

 reads as follows : 



Fumaria (The chimney-sweeper). Characteres generis: Antennae breviusculas, 

 masculin£e validissimte pectinataa, racliis lente filiformibus, distantibus, instar 

 costarum Halecis. Corpus breve alaeque omnes rotundataa fumosae ; hirsutae, sed 

 alarum pagina saepe denudata : volata diurno, solari, humillimo. 



It is quite evident that this contains a combination of characters 

 taken from nitidella and pulla but as Haworth does not restrict it 

 particularly to either, but on the contrary includes both, and even 

 applies the name of "chimney-sweeper" to every one of the species 

 included in it, we are thrown back on Stephens' action to determine 

 the type. Haworth included in the genus the following species : 



(1) Muscea (The transparent chimney-sweeper) = muscella, Fb., l = bombucella> 

 Hb.,1, 4? (2) Pectinea (The light chimney-sweeper) =pectinclla, Fb., Ent. Syst., 

 iii., 482, 235 ? =pectinella, Hb., Tin., 1, 5. (3) Plumistrea (The chimney-sweeper's 

 boy) =pkimistrella, Hb., 31, 213. (4) Nit id a (The shining chimney-sweeper) = niti- 

 della, Hb., 1, 6. (5) Plumea (The lesser chimney-sweeper) =plumella, Hb., 1, 7? = 

 bombella, Fb., iii., 482, 234? 



Practically the whole of the references to continental species here 

 made by Haworth are incorrect, the species to which his names are 

 referred having long since proved to be species not found in 

 Britain. The only reference which is undoubtedly correct is nitida, 

 Haw.= nitidella, Hb. As we have before said we suspect all the rest of 

 these names of Haworth to belong to E. pulla, but have no very definite 

 proof thereof. They may have included, of course, some of the 

 Fumeas recently differentiated by Chapman, but this, too, is very 

 dubious. Stephens includes the same five species as Haworth in his 

 genus Fumea. Most of the male characters are evidently taken from 

 E. pulla. He gives, however, a brief life-history of only one of them, niti- 

 della, and this he includes in his generic diagnosis, thus restricting the 

 generic name to this group ; his reference to the ? also must belong 

 to F. nitidella. His diagnosis reads as follows : 



Fumea, Haw. — Palpi and maxillae wanting, their place occupied by a tuft of 

 elongate hairs. Antennae of the male elongate, bipectinated, the pectinations sub- 



