﻿184 
  BRITISH 
  LEPIDOPTERA. 
  

  

  " 
  Illus.," 
  iv., 
  p. 
  373 
  (1834). 
  Phseodactylus, 
  Stephs., 
  " 
  Cat.," 
  ii., 
  p. 
  230 
  (1829). 
  

   Similidactylus,t 
  Stphs., 
  "111.," 
  iv., 
  p. 
  375 
  (1834); 
  Wood, 
  "Ind. 
  Ent.," 
  1st 
  ed., 
  

   p. 
  236, 
  pi. 
  1L, 
  no. 
  1643m 
  (1839). 
  Similidactyla, 
  Staud., 
  "Cat.," 
  2nd 
  ed., 
  p. 
  342 
  

   (1871); 
  Stange, 
  " 
  Stett. 
  Ent. 
  Zeit.," 
  p. 
  118 
  (1881); 
  p. 
  514 
  (1882) 
  ; 
  Sorh., 
  

   " 
  Kleimschmett. 
  Brandbg.," 
  p. 
  2 
  (1886); 
  Meyr., 
  "Trans. 
  Ent. 
  Soc. 
  Lond.," 
  

   p. 
  486 
  (1890); 
  Hofm., 
  " 
  Deutsch. 
  Pter.," 
  p. 
  49 
  (1895). 
  Isodactyla, 
  South, 
  

   "Ent.," 
  xxii., 
  p. 
  31 
  (1889); 
  Meyr., 
  " 
  Handbook," 
  etc., 
  p. 
  434 
  (1895); 
  Staud. 
  

   and 
  Wocke, 
  "Cat.," 
  3rd 
  ed., 
  p. 
  72(1901). 
  [Nemoralis, 
  Meyr., 
  "Trans. 
  Ent. 
  

   Soc. 
  Lond.," 
  p. 
  486 
  (1890).] 
  

  

  Original 
  description. 
  — 
  (Capillis 
  in 
  fasciculum 
  brevem 
  frontalem 
  

   productis 
  ?) 
  ; 
  alis 
  aDterioribus 
  fusco-ochraceis, 
  antice 
  obscurioribus, 
  

   triangulo 
  costali 
  ante 
  fissuram 
  obscuriore 
  obsoletissimo 
  ; 
  in 
  digiti 
  

   tertio 
  dorso 
  medio 
  squamis 
  paucis 
  atris 
  (<y 
  musei 
  Stainton). 
  The 
  

   single, 
  old 
  and 
  worn 
  $ 
  from 
  Stainton's 
  collection, 
  which 
  I 
  have 
  before 
  

   me, 
  has, 
  as 
  Stainton 
  correctly 
  observes, 
  only 
  a 
  remote 
  relationship 
  

   with 
  ochrodactylus, 
  from 
  the 
  apex 
  of 
  the 
  anterior 
  wings 
  being 
  much 
  

   less 
  prolonged. 
  It 
  is 
  much 
  more 
  nearly 
  allied 
  to 
  gonodactylus, 
  of 
  

   which 
  it 
  has 
  quite 
  the 
  same 
  form 
  of 
  wing. 
  Although 
  the 
  costal 
  

   triangle 
  seems 
  to 
  have 
  been 
  rubbed, 
  yet 
  it 
  appears 
  to 
  have 
  been 
  

   originally 
  paler 
  and 
  less 
  distinctly 
  margined. 
  This 
  then 
  is 
  the 
  first 
  

   point 
  in 
  which 
  it 
  differs 
  from 
  gonodactylus. 
  The 
  second 
  lies 
  in 
  the 
  

  

  of 
  course, 
  the 
  name 
  would 
  stand 
  or 
  fall 
  with 
  the 
  original. 
  It 
  appears, 
  however, 
  that 
  

   Haworth 
  really 
  referred 
  a 
  specimen 
  of 
  isodactylus 
  to 
  monodactyla, 
  Linn., 
  quoting 
  de 
  

   Villers 
  note 
  thereon. 
  Bankes 
  has 
  the 
  specimen 
  reputed 
  to 
  have 
  been 
  in 
  

   Haworth' 
  s 
  possession. 
  The 
  parts 
  of 
  Haworth 
  's 
  account 
  that 
  most 
  probably 
  refer 
  to 
  

   this 
  insect 
  are 
  the 
  " 
  Habitat 
  " 
  and 
  " 
  Captor 
  " 
  (infra), 
  but, 
  as 
  Haworth 
  queries 
  the 
  

   references 
  he 
  quotes, 
  it 
  is 
  quite 
  possible 
  that 
  the 
  diagnosis 
  (which 
  Bankes 
  says 
  

   agrees 
  with 
  Ha 
  worth's 
  example 
  in 
  his 
  possession) 
  was 
  also 
  made 
  from 
  the 
  specimen, 
  

   in 
  which 
  case 
  the 
  name 
  would 
  really 
  belong 
  here. 
  Tbe 
  matter 
  is 
  of 
  little 
  importance, 
  

   but 
  we 
  give 
  our 
  readers 
  the 
  details: 
  " 
  A. 
  monodactyla 
  (The 
  hoary 
  Plume). 
  — 
  Alis 
  

   anticiscanisretusis, 
  fissura 
  inconspicua,posticis 
  tripartitis 
  fuscis. 
  [Phalaena 
  Alucita 
  

   monodactyla, 
  Linn., 
  "Faun. 
  Suec," 
  1452?; 
  Villers, 
  "Ent.," 
  2, 
  530, 
  1083?]. 
  

   Habitat 
  apud 
  nos 
  rarissime. 
  Imago 
  ripis. 
  Communicavit 
  ejus 
  captor 
  B. 
  Scales. 
  

   Expansio 
  alarum 
  9^ 
  lin. 
  Obs. 
  Alucitarum 
  omnium 
  alee 
  digitatee 
  quodam 
  modo 
  

   videntur 
  ; 
  inferiores 
  semper 
  tripartita 
  et 
  ultra 
  divisse 
  sunt. 
  Superiores 
  scissurarum 
  

   numerus 
  variat, 
  ex 
  his 
  rimis 
  nomina 
  trivalia 
  sumpsit 
  Linnaeus. 
  Monodactyla 
  ilia 
  

   est 
  cujus 
  alas 
  superiores 
  indivisas 
  sunt 
  ; 
  scilicet 
  parum 
  scissas, 
  rima 
  unica 
  ultra 
  

   dimicliam 
  alae 
  partem 
  non 
  extensa 
  parumque 
  visibilis. 
  Didactylse 
  alae 
  superiores 
  

   bifidas, 
  etc. 
  Pedes 
  omnium 
  specierum 
  longi. 
  tenues, 
  spinis 
  acutis 
  armati. 
  Alarum 
  

   situs 
  fere 
  semper 
  cruciformis 
  (de 
  Villers, 
  loc. 
  cit.)." 
  (Haworth, 
  Lep. 
  Brit., 
  p. 
  

   476). 
  The 
  species 
  is 
  placed 
  by 
  Haworth 
  between 
  bipunctidactyla 
  and 
  tetradactyla. 
  

   Stephens' 
  description 
  is 
  purely 
  literary, 
  and 
  the 
  name 
  stands 
  or 
  falls 
  with 
  Haworth's. 
  

   It 
  reads 
  : 
  " 
  Pterophorus 
  monodactylus. 
  — 
  Alis 
  anticis 
  canis 
  retusis, 
  fissura 
  inconspicua, 
  

   posticis, 
  tripartitis 
  fuscis 
  (Exp. 
  alar. 
  9£ 
  lin.). 
  [Ph. 
  Al. 
  monodactylus, 
  Linne?; 
  

   Pt. 
  monodactylus, 
  Steph., 
  Catal., 
  ii., 
  229, 
  no. 
  7609.] 
  Anterior 
  wings 
  retuse, 
  hoary, 
  

   with 
  a 
  very 
  obscure 
  short 
  cleft 
  ; 
  posterior 
  fuscous, 
  and 
  divided 
  into 
  three. 
  Bare, 
  

   found 
  near 
  Croydon 
  and 
  at 
  Darenth 
  Wood, 
  in 
  June 
  " 
  (Stphs., 
  Illus., 
  iv., 
  p. 
  373). 
  

   " 
  Croydon 
  and 
  Darenth 
  Wood" 
  are 
  not 
  at 
  present 
  known 
  as 
  localities 
  for 
  isodactylus. 
  

   Zeller 
  referred 
  the 
  species 
  here, 
  possibly 
  on 
  the 
  strength 
  of 
  information 
  received 
  con- 
  

   cerning 
  the 
  Haworthian 
  specimen, 
  for, 
  at 
  the 
  time 
  that 
  he 
  made 
  the 
  reference, 
  he 
  was 
  

   describing 
  isodactylus 
  from 
  a 
  single 
  worn 
  specimen 
  in 
  Stainton's 
  collection. 
  Double- 
  

   day 
  marks 
  (" 
  Syn. 
  List," 
  2nd 
  ed., 
  p. 
  36) 
  monodactyla, 
  Haw., 
  with 
  a 
  query. 
  Wood, 
  in 
  

   1839, 
  figures 
  (Ind. 
  Ent., 
  pi. 
  51, 
  fig. 
  1643??) 
  well 
  this 
  species 
  as 
  Pterophorus 
  similidac- 
  

   tylus, 
  and 
  gives 
  as 
  a 
  synonym— 
  P. 
  phaeodactylus, 
  Steph., 
  Illus., 
  iv., 
  p. 
  575, 
  and 
  

   notes 
  it 
  as 
  occurring 
  in 
  Dorsetshire, 
  Devonshire, 
  the 
  New 
  Forest, 
  etc. 
  Stephens, 
  in 
  

   1854, 
  in 
  his 
  List, 
  p, 
  174, 
  gives 
  Wood's 
  figure, 
  1643, 
  as 
  undoubtedly 
  isodactylus, 
  

   Zell., 
  but 
  queries 
  both 
  Haworth's 
  and 
  his 
  own 
  monodactyla 
  in 
  reference 
  thereto, 
  i.e., 
  

   Stephens 
  did 
  not 
  himself 
  know 
  at 
  that 
  time 
  whether 
  his 
  monodactylus 
  was 
  isodac- 
  

   tylus, 
  Zell. 
  (similidactylus, 
  Wood), 
  although 
  Wood's 
  figure 
  is 
  an 
  excellent 
  one. 
  It 
  

   appears 
  doubtful, 
  therefore, 
  whether, 
  in 
  1854, 
  Stephens 
  really 
  knew 
  the 
  species. 
  

   f 
  Similidaetylus, 
  Stphs. 
  nee 
  similidactyla, 
  Dale, 
  the 
  latter 
  = 
  liihodactyla, 
  Tr. 
  

  

  