434 



BEITISH LEPIDOPTERA. 



i 



Pachythelia, Westd. 

 villosella, Ochs. 



var. nigricans, Curt. 



var. silesiaca, Heyl. 



var. hirtella, Ev. 



var. cinerella, Dup. 

 Amicta, Heyl. 

 oberthueri, Heyl. 

 jordani, Staud. 

 uralensis, Err. 



var. demissa, Led. 

 grummi, Heyl. 

 ecksteirii, Led. 

 lutea, Staud. 



var. armena, Heyl. 



var. schahkuhensis, Heyl. 

 febretta, B. de F. 



var. albipunctella, Mill. 



var. lambessa, Heyl. 

 tedaldii, Heyl. 



sera, Wisk. (hey laertsii, Mill.) 

 quadrangularis, Christ. 

 Canephora, Hb. 

 unicolor, Hufn. 



var. paleiferella, Brd. 



var. asiatica, Staud. 

 Oiketicidi. 



Eumeta, Walk, 

 pungeleri, Heyl. 

 japonica, Heyl. 

 minuscula, Butl. 

 pryeri, Leech 

 aurea, Butl. 



Addendum. 

 Peoutia salicolella, Bruand. 

 Whether there be another species on the continent passing under 

 this name, distinct from P. betulina (and P. eppiivjella), we do not 

 know, but it is asserted as a fact by Heylaerts, who writes : " Salicolella, 

 Brd., does not at all=betulina, Zell. I have specimens of salicolella 

 that belonged to Bruand (from Milliere's collection), and the species is 

 characterised by its case, larva, &c. These have much broader and 

 rounder wings than has betulina, Zell., the cell is shorter and 

 wider, &c. The case is not at all like that of betulina, Zell., and the 

 larva is of a dark brown colour, with a reddish tint, &c. I have 

 received it only from Lyon and Douai. It is a very rare species, and 

 Bruand's description and figures are very incorrect " (in litt., January 

 16th, 1900). Heylaerts' remark that it has " much broader and 

 rounder wings" than betulina suggests strongly that the insect cannot 

 be referable to our P. eppingella. It occurs to us, that if, on the compari- 

 son of Bruand's description of P. salicolella with the specimens that 

 Heylaerts has standing in his collection as P. salicolella, Brd., and 

 which were sent by Bruand to Milliere, Heylaerts is not able to make 

 them fit Bruand's description, it is more logical to conclude that 

 Bruand was not describing from specimens similar to those that 

 Heylaerts has, than to dub Bruand's descriptions and figures as " very 

 incorrect." We know enough of Bruand's work to assert that he 

 could describe what he saw. We also know sufficient of it to conclude 

 that he could not always differentiate allied species, and we suspect 

 that, having described P. salicolella, he afterwards sent to Milliere 

 specimens as P. salicolella, which did not correspond therewith, and 

 which Heylaerts now, no doubt justly, determines do not agree with 

 his description and figures of that species. The proper mode of action 

 appears to be, not to tack the specimens to a name and figures with 

 which they do not agree {teste Heylaerts), but to name, describe, and 

 publish the life-history of Bruand's, the Lyon and Douai examples, if 

 they all represent one species. 



Superfamily VI: LACHNELDES. 



The Lachneides or Lasiocampides are a most interesting superfamily 

 of the Sphingo-Micropterygid stirps, and appear to form one of the 

 most sharply defined groups of the Lepidoptera-Heterocera, yet it has 

 given considerable trouble to systematists, and Europterid and other 



