﻿72 
  BRITISH 
  LEPIDOPTERA. 
  

  

  collection. 
  Among 
  others 
  that 
  he 
  notes 
  as 
  having 
  seen 
  are 
  — 
  ochro- 
  

   dactyla, 
  didactyla, 
  calodactyla, 
  rhododactyla, 
  leucodactyla 
  (which 
  he 
  

   refers 
  with 
  doubt 
  to 
  his 
  tesseradactyla) 
  , 
  pterodactyla, 
  meyadactyla 
  (which 
  

   name 
  he 
  writes 
  miyadactylus), 
  and 
  hexadactyla. 
  Some 
  of 
  his 
  own 
  

   descriptions 
  under 
  these 
  names 
  disagree 
  so 
  absolutely 
  with 
  Schiffer- 
  

   miiller's 
  diagnoses, 
  that 
  one 
  suspects 
  either 
  (1) 
  that 
  Fabricius 
  had 
  no 
  

   clear 
  idea 
  of 
  the 
  Alucitid 
  species, 
  and 
  mixed 
  up 
  several 
  closely- 
  allied 
  

   ones 
  together, 
  or 
  (2) 
  that 
  Schiffernmller 
  himself 
  had, 
  by 
  this 
  time, 
  

   specimens 
  of 
  different 
  species 
  under 
  the 
  same 
  name. 
  The 
  excellence 
  

   of 
  one 
  or 
  two 
  of 
  Fabricius' 
  disagreeing 
  descriptions, 
  e.y.,calodactylus, 
  ochro- 
  

   dactylus, 
  etc., 
  favour 
  the 
  latter 
  alternative. 
  It 
  is 
  quite 
  clear, 
  for 
  example, 
  

   that 
  Fabricius' 
  short 
  description 
  of 
  ochrodactylus 
  has 
  nothing 
  to 
  do 
  

   with 
  Schiffermiiller' 
  s 
  insect 
  of 
  this 
  name, 
  in 
  spite 
  of 
  the 
  Fabrician 
  

   reference, 
  and 
  is 
  nothing 
  but 
  the 
  grey 
  form 
  of 
  monodactyla* 
  ; 
  similarly, 
  

   his 
  diagnosis 
  of 
  calodactylus 
  is 
  that 
  of 
  the 
  Amblyptiliid 
  species 
  known 
  

   so 
  long 
  as 
  acanthodactyla, 
  Tr., 
  whilst 
  Schiffermiiller's 
  calodactyla 
  was 
  

   evidently 
  a 
  Platyptiliid, 
  and 
  is 
  so 
  figured 
  by 
  Hiibner. 
  The 
  Fabrician 
  

   descriptions, 
  therefore, 
  cannot 
  be 
  taken 
  as 
  satisfactorily 
  determining 
  

   the 
  identity 
  of 
  certain 
  of 
  Schiffermiiller's 
  types. 
  

  

  In 
  1789, 
  de 
  Villers 
  published 
  his 
  Linnaea 
  Entomoloyia 
  Fauna 
  

   Suecicae, 
  etc., 
  and 
  here 
  deals 
  (vol. 
  ii., 
  pp. 
  5BO-535) 
  with 
  the 
  Linnean 
  

   Alucitids 
  — 
  A. 
  monodactyla, 
  A. 
  didactyla, 
  A. 
  tridactylaf, 
  A. 
  tessera- 
  

   dactyla, 
  A. 
  pterodactyla, 
  A. 
  pentadactyla 
  and 
  A. 
  hexadactyla, 
  giving 
  

   critical 
  notes 
  on 
  each, 
  and 
  the 
  species 
  referred 
  to 
  these 
  names 
  by 
  

   different 
  authors 
  ; 
  he 
  then 
  adds 
  diagnoses 
  of 
  fuscodactyla, 
  de 
  Geer, 
  

   bipunctidactyla, 
  Scop., 
  and 
  heterodactyla, 
  Mull., 
  whilst 
  farther 
  on 
  

   (vol. 
  iv., 
  pp. 
  546-547) 
  he 
  adds 
  A. 
  yalactodactyla, 
  A. 
  rhododactyla, 
  

   A. 
  miyadactyla 
  and 
  A. 
  ochrodactyla. 
  In 
  1791, 
  Schwarz 
  (Xeu 
  

   Raupeukal., 
  i., 
  pp. 
  146, 
  336) 
  describes 
  the 
  life-history 
  of 
  Phal. 
  Alucita 
  

   -pentadactyla. 
  In 
  1794, 
  Fabricius 
  gave 
  (Ent. 
  Syst., 
  iii., 
  pt. 
  2, 
  pp. 
  

   345-349) 
  another 
  list 
  of 
  the 
  known 
  Alucitid 
  species, 
  which 
  he 
  now 
  

   places 
  at 
  12, 
  viz., 
  Pterophorus 
  monodactylus, 
  L., 
  P. 
  ochrodactylus, 
  W.V., 
  

   P. 
  didactylus, 
  L., 
  P. 
  calodactylus, 
  W.V., 
  P. 
  leucodactylus 
  (now 
  referred 
  

   to 
  as 
  a 
  South 
  American 
  species), 
  P. 
  tridactylus, 
  L., 
  P. 
  rhododactylus, 
  

   W.V., 
  P. 
  tesseradactylus, 
  Li. 
  ( 
  = 
  leucodactyla, 
  W.V.), 
  P. 
  pterodactylus, 
  

   L., 
  P. 
  albodactylus, 
  P. 
  miyadactylus 
  (meyadactyla), 
  W.V., 
  and 
  P.penta- 
  

   dactylus, 
  L. 
  The 
  errors 
  of 
  determination 
  made 
  in 
  1787, 
  and 
  referred 
  

   to 
  (supra) 
  appear 
  to 
  be 
  repeated, 
  e.g., 
  ochrodactylus, 
  Fab., 
  does 
  not 
  

   — 
  ochrodactyla, 
  W. 
  V. 
  ; 
  tesseradactylus, 
  L., 
  is 
  probably 
  not 
  correctly 
  

   referred 
  to 
  leucodactyla, 
  W.V., 
  certainly 
  the 
  larva 
  of 
  tesseradactyla, 
  as 
  

   later 
  determined, 
  does 
  not 
  feed 
  on 
  Pubnonaria 
  officinalis. 
  

  

  Latreille, 
  in 
  1796, 
  cites 
  (Precis, 
  p. 
  148) 
  no 
  species, 
  but 
  gives 
  the 
  

   following 
  generic 
  diagnoses 
  : 
  

  

  Orneodes 
  (Phalaena, 
  Linn., 
  Pterophorus, 
  Geoff., 
  Fab., 
  Oliv.) 
  : 
  Antennules 
  

   anterieures 
  obsoletes 
  ; 
  posterieures 
  longues, 
  recourbees, 
  couvertes 
  d'ecailles, 
  

   paroissant 
  quelquefois 
  bifides 
  : 
  second 
  article 
  long, 
  le 
  dernier 
  presque 
  aussi 
  long, 
  

  

  * 
  Charpentier 
  found 
  ochrodactyla, 
  Hb., 
  in 
  Schiffermiiller's 
  collection 
  under 
  

   the 
  name 
  ochrodactyla, 
  and 
  we 
  know 
  that 
  many 
  of 
  Hiibner's 
  figures 
  were 
  made 
  

   from 
  Schiffermiiller's 
  collection. 
  

  

  f 
  De 
  Villers 
  already 
  draws 
  attention 
  (p. 
  533) 
  to 
  the 
  difficulty 
  of 
  determining 
  

   what 
  species 
  Linne 
  meant 
  by 
  tetradactyla 
  ; 
  he 
  quotes 
  the 
  Linnean 
  description 
  of 
  

   the 
  Fauna 
  Suecica 
  under 
  this 
  name, 
  and 
  shows 
  that 
  it 
  belongs 
  to 
  the 
  tridactyla 
  of 
  

   the 
  Systema 
  Naturae, 
  xth 
  ed., 
  and 
  there 
  leaves 
  it. 
  His 
  pterodactyla 
  is 
  evidently 
  

   the 
  whitish 
  form 
  of 
  monodactyla 
  not 
  pterodactyla, 
  ~L.=fuscu?, 
  Eetzius. 
  

  

  