Myloicus pinastri. 293 



a baker's pump at Deal." In 1882, Carrington further publishes 

 (Ent., xv., p. 210 J, two letters received from correspondents 

 whom he obviously suspected of introducing the species for sale 

 purposes into the Suffolk district, but Cooper wrote a note 

 (Ent., xix., pp. 14-15) supporting the authenticity of the Suffolk 

 specimens, stating that Hele had taken imagines and larvae at 

 Aldeburgh in 1885, whilst Hele himself (Bloomfield's Lepidoptera of 

 Suffolk" p. 8) says that he took one in July, 188 1, and, in the 

 following year, about 40, in July and August. In this year, 

 Coverdale found larvae in the same district and bred imagines, 

 which are in our possession. Cooper's note brought a letter 

 from Edwards (Ent., xix., p. 64), stating that a larva taken 

 in the Island of Mull in September, i860, near Achnaeroish, produced 

 an imago on July 24th, 1861, a second larva being taken in the 

 same wood in September, 1 861, but this died. Rendlesham obtained 

 imagines, from which ova were obtained, in 1892 (Ent. Rec, iii., p. 

 226), and Walsingham exhibited larvae, received from Rendlesham, at 

 the meeting of the Ent. Soc. of London, held on October 5th, 1892 

 (loc. cit., p. 245). Thellusson states (loc. cit., vii., p. 131) that he 

 first found the species in August, 1891, taking 14 specimens and 

 leaving many worn ones on the trees at Woodbridge, but the 

 context shows that this statement refers to the 1892 captures just men- 

 tioned. He says that none were seen in 1892, an obvious error, but 

 specimens were again captured in 1893, 1894, 1895, when many 

 imagines, larvae, and dug pupae were found. Thus three larvae 

 were found August and September, 1893 at Waldringfield, on 

 August 25th, 27th, and September 6th, two imagines appearing 

 in June, 1894 (Ent., xxvii., p. 246), whilst, on June 23rd, 1895, two 

 imagines were taken, and 15 others are reported as having been 

 captured at later dates, whilst on August 2nd, 1895, som e 100 

 larvae were feeding (Ent., xxviii., pp. 232, 257), and the species 

 seemed to have become firmly rooted in the county. But disil- 

 lusionment came, and Cambridge {Ent. Rec, vii., p. 218) did a 

 real service to science, as well as to all students of the distribution of 

 our native fauna, when he explained how a direct and apparently 

 successful attempt had been made to acclimatise the species in Suffolk, 

 and those of us who possess Suffolk caught and Suffolk 

 bred examples no doubt owe our specimens indirectly to these 

 introductions. Why those who introduced the species into Suffolk 

 did not notify the same to the entomological magazines it is 

 difficult to say, but we do not here propose to discuss the subject 

 further. The only other records that we have observed are : 

 In 1884, Watkins (a dealer) states that he took a specimen on 

 May 26th, off the palings of West Wickham Wood (E.M.M., xxi., 

 p. 34), whilst Godwin records a larva in the early part of September, 

 1887, near Wimbledon, which produced an imago on July 16th, 1888 

 (E.M.M., xxv., p. 159); in 1895, Gummer records an example 

 taken at Salisbury by his sister (Ent., xxviii., p. 312), and Abbott is 

 recorded (Ent., xxix., p. 70), as exhibiting, in 1896, Sussex examples, 

 and remarking that in that county the species had been taken in numbers 

 recently — an obvious error ! Tarbat in June, 1897, found an imago in 

 a breeding-cage, without knowing certainly whence he obtained the 

 pupa (Ent., xxx., p. 222), whilst Douglas (Ent., xxxiii., p. 250) notified 



