﻿GILLMERIA 
  OCHRODACTYLA. 
  221 
  

  

  genitalia 
  (Pter. 
  of 
  Nth. 
  America, 
  p. 
  35, 
  pi. 
  ix., 
  figs. 
  4-5, 
  and 
  figs. 
  14-15). 
  

   The 
  similarity 
  of 
  the 
  imagines 
  is 
  great, 
  but 
  their 
  differences 
  are 
  dealt 
  

   with 
  at 
  length 
  (postea 
  p. 
  223). 
  Miihlig 
  (Stett. 
  Ent. 
  Zeitung, 
  1863, 
  p. 
  

   213) 
  and 
  Rossler 
  (Wien. 
  Ent. 
  Monats., 
  viii., 
  pp. 
  53-54) 
  were 
  the 
  first 
  

   observers 
  to 
  discriminate 
  between 
  these 
  two 
  closely 
  allied 
  species, 
  and 
  

   their 
  attachment 
  to 
  separate 
  foodplants. 
  Sang 
  insists 
  (Ent. 
  Mo. 
  May., 
  

   xviii., 
  pp. 
  143-4) 
  that 
  ochrodactyla 
  occurs 
  only 
  on 
  Tanacetmn, 
  although 
  

   Achillea 
  may 
  be 
  plentiful 
  in 
  the 
  same 
  district, 
  to 
  which 
  pallidactyla 
  

   appears 
  to 
  be 
  equally 
  closely 
  confined. 
  Barrett 
  observes 
  (op. 
  cit., 
  xviii., 
  

   p. 
  177) 
  a 
  correlated 
  difference 
  in 
  the 
  divergent 
  ways 
  in 
  which 
  the 
  larvae 
  

   of 
  the 
  two 
  species 
  feed. 
  Porritt 
  also 
  states 
  (op. 
  cit., 
  xxii., 
  pp. 
  104-5), 
  that 
  

   anyone 
  having 
  experience 
  with 
  both 
  species 
  in 
  nature 
  can 
  scarcely 
  help 
  

   noticing 
  the 
  differences 
  between 
  them, 
  and 
  this, 
  in 
  spite 
  of 
  the 
  fact 
  

   that 
  the 
  larvae 
  of 
  both 
  insects 
  correspond 
  in 
  having 
  three 
  forms 
  of 
  

   colouring 
  in 
  the 
  different 
  stages 
  of 
  growth, 
  and 
  the 
  resemblance 
  of 
  the 
  

   adult 
  larvae 
  particularly 
  shows 
  their 
  close 
  relationship, 
  whilst 
  the 
  

   differences, 
  apart 
  from 
  the 
  foodplants, 
  are 
  sufficiently 
  wide 
  to 
  separate 
  

   them. 
  

  

  Gillmeria 
  ochrodactyla, 
  Schiffermuller 
  and 
  Denis. 
  

   Synonymy. 
  — 
  Species 
  : 
  Ochrodactyla, 
  Schiff. 
  and 
  Denis, 
  " 
  Sys. 
  Verz.," 
  p. 
  145 
  

   (1775); 
  Goze, 
  "Ent. 
  Beit.," 
  iv., 
  pt., 
  3, 
  p. 
  176 
  (1783); 
  Hb., 
  "Eur. 
  Schmett.," 
  

   Aluc. 
  ix., 
  figs. 
  12, 
  13 
  (post 
  1811); 
  Charp., 
  "Die 
  Ziinsler," 
  etc., 
  p. 
  174 
  (1821); 
  

   Hb., 
  " 
  Verz.," 
  p. 
  429 
  (1825); 
  Treits., 
  " 
  Die 
  Schmett.," 
  ix.,pt. 
  2, 
  p. 
  228 
  (1833); 
  Staud., 
  

   " 
  Cat.," 
  2nded., 
  p. 
  341 
  (1871); 
  Hein. 
  and 
  Wocke, 
  "Schmett. 
  Deutsch.," 
  iii., 
  

   pt. 
  2, 
  p. 
  783 
  (1877); 
  Frey, 
  " 
  Lep. 
  Schweiz," 
  p. 
  428(1880); 
  Barr., 
  "Ent. 
  Mo. 
  

   Mag.," 
  xviii., 
  p. 
  177 
  (1882); 
  Sorb.., 
  " 
  Kleinschmett. 
  Brandg.," 
  p. 
  2 
  (in 
  part) 
  

   (1886); 
  Leech, 
  "Brit. 
  Pyr.," 
  p. 
  51 
  (1886); 
  Tutt, 
  "Young 
  Nat.," 
  x., 
  pp. 
  163, 
  

   221 
  (1889) 
  ; 
  xi., 
  p. 
  18 
  (1890) 
  ; 
  Meyr., 
  "Trans. 
  Ent. 
  Soc. 
  Lond.," 
  p. 
  486 
  (1890); 
  

   Hering, 
  " 
  Stett. 
  Ent. 
  Zeitg.," 
  pp. 
  269-279 
  (1892) 
  ; 
  Tutt, 
  "Pter. 
  Brit.," 
  p. 
  27 
  (1895) 
  ; 
  

   Meyr., 
  "Handbook," 
  p. 
  435 
  (1895); 
  Hofm., 
  "Deutsch. 
  Pter.," 
  p. 
  453 
  (1895); 
  

   Staud. 
  and 
  Reb., 
  "Cat.," 
  3rd 
  ed., 
  p. 
  72 
  (1901). 
  Ochrodactylus, 
  [Dup., 
  "Hist. 
  

   Nat.," 
  xi., 
  p. 
  641 
  (in 
  part) 
  (1838);] 
  Zeil., 
  " 
  Isis," 
  p. 
  775 
  (in 
  part) 
  (1841) 
  ; 
  [Dup., 
  " 
  Cat. 
  

   Meth.," 
  p. 
  381 
  (in 
  part) 
  (1845) 
  ;j 
  Zell., 
  " 
  Linn. 
  Ent.," 
  vi., 
  p. 
  327 
  (in 
  part) 
  (1852) 
  ; 
  

   H.-Sch., 
  " 
  Sys. 
  Bearb.," 
  v., 
  p. 
  367, 
  supp. 
  fig. 
  3 
  (1855) 
  ; 
  Frey, 
  " 
  Tin. 
  Pter. 
  Schweiz, 
  ' 
  r 
  

   p. 
  402 
  (1856); 
  Sta., 
  "Man.," 
  ii., 
  p. 
  44 
  (in 
  part) 
  (1859); 
  Wallgrn., 
  " 
  Skand. 
  

   Fjar.," 
  p. 
  11 
  (1859); 
  Ross., 
  "Wien. 
  Ent. 
  Monats.," 
  viii., 
  pp. 
  53-54 
  (1864); 
  

   Nolck., 
  "Lep. 
  Faun. 
  Estl.," 
  p. 
  800 
  (1871); 
  Jord., 
  "Ent. 
  Mo. 
  Mag.," 
  xviii., 
  pp. 
  

   74-75 
  (1881); 
  Porritt, 
  " 
  Buckl. 
  Larvae," 
  ix., 
  p. 
  338, 
  pi. 
  clxiiL, 
  fig. 
  3(1901). 
  

   Dichrodactylus, 
  Miihlig, 
  "Stett. 
  Ent. 
  Zeitg.," 
  p. 
  213 
  (1863); 
  Sta., 
  "Ent. 
  Mo. 
  

   Mag.," 
  ii., 
  pp. 
  137, 
  138 
  (1865); 
  Jeffrey, 
  "Ent. 
  Mo. 
  Mag.," 
  ii., 
  p. 
  165 
  (1865); 
  

   Jord., 
  "Ent. 
  Mo. 
  Mag.," 
  vi., 
  p. 
  121 
  (1869); 
  Buckl., 
  "Ent. 
  Mo. 
  Mag.," 
  xii., 
  pp. 
  

   233-234 
  (1876) 
  ; 
  South, 
  " 
  Ent.," 
  xv., 
  p. 
  146, 
  pi. 
  iii., 
  figs. 
  2a-2c 
  (1882) 
  ; 
  xviii., 
  pp. 
  

   280-2 
  (1885) 
  ; 
  Porritt, 
  "Ent. 
  Mo. 
  Mag.," 
  xxiii., 
  p. 
  163 
  (1886). 
  Dichrodactyla* 
  

   Sang, 
  "Ent. 
  Mo. 
  Mag.," 
  xviii., 
  pp. 
  143-144 
  (1881). 
  Bertrami, 
  South, 
  "Ent.," 
  

   xviii., 
  p. 
  279 
  (in 
  part) 
  (1885). 
  Ochrodactylus 
  var., 
  Barr., 
  "Lep. 
  Brit. 
  Isl.," 
  ix., 
  

   p. 
  346 
  (1903). 
  Dichrodactylus 
  var., 
  Barr., 
  "Lep. 
  Brit. 
  Isles," 
  ix., 
  pi. 
  413, 
  figs. 
  

   Sh-c 
  (1903). 
  [The 
  Alucita 
  ochrodactyla 
  of 
  Schiffermiiller 
  and 
  Denis 
  (Sys. 
  Verz. 
  

   Schmett. 
  Wien., 
  p. 
  144) 
  was 
  figured 
  by 
  Hiibner 
  (Eur. 
  Schmett., 
  Aluc. 
  pi. 
  iii., 
  figs. 
  

   12-13) 
  between 
  1811 
  and 
  1817. 
  In 
  1821, 
  Charpentier 
  states 
  (Die 
  Ziinsler, 
  WickUr, 
  

   etc., 
  pp. 
  174 
  et 
  seq.), 
  after 
  comparison 
  of 
  the 
  plumes 
  in 
  the 
  Vienna 
  collection 
  with 
  

   the 
  descriptions 
  of 
  Schiffermiiller 
  and 
  Denis, 
  that 
  ochrodactyla, 
  SehiiT., 
  was 
  quite 
  

   accurately 
  figured 
  under 
  this 
  name 
  by 
  Hiibner. 
  Fabricius' 
  description 
  of 
  ochro- 
  

   dactylus 
  (Mantissa, 
  p. 
  258) 
  evidently 
  does 
  not 
  refer 
  to 
  a 
  "plume" 
  at 
  all. 
  nor 
  can 
  

   it 
  have 
  any 
  connection 
  with 
  Schiffermuller's 
  species 
  of 
  this 
  name 
  (see 
  anted, 
  p. 
  ~!'2). 
  

   Zeller 
  says 
  (Isis, 
  1841, 
  p. 
  881), 
  that 
  the 
  specimen 
  bearing 
  this 
  name 
  in 
  the 
  Vienna 
  

   collection 
  in 
  1841 
  (66 
  years 
  after 
  the 
  issue 
  of 
  the 
  Schmett. 
  Wien.), 
  was 
  QracUaria 
  

   elongella 
  (Ornix 
  signipennella). 
  One 
  can 
  only 
  suppose 
  that 
  there 
  were 
  two 
  species 
  

   labelled 
  ochrodactyla 
  in 
  the 
  collection, 
  one 
  an 
  Ornieid 
  which 
  Fabricius 
  saw 
  and 
  

   described, 
  and 
  which 
  Zeller 
  refers 
  to 
  O. 
  elongella 
  {(>. 
  signipennella, 
  Tr.), 
  the 
  other 
  an 
  

   Alucitid 
  which 
  Hiibner 
  figured 
  and 
  Charpentier 
  saw. 
  It 
  is 
  impossible 
  to 
  discover 
  

   what 
  changes 
  were 
  made 
  from 
  time 
  to 
  time 
  in 
  old 
  collections, 
  and. 
  where 
  supposed 
  

  

  