5148 Insects. 



Occurrence of Vanessa Antiopa at Cobham, Surrey. — I have just added to our 

 collection a fine specimen of this rare species : it was taken by a gardener resident in 

 this neighbourhood (from whom I obtained it), in the month of September of last 

 year. — A. F. Sheppard ; Rutland House, Kingston-on-Thames, May 14, 1856. 



Notodonta Carmelita at West Wickham. — It really seems that all our rarer insects 

 are becoming common : in support of this remark I have only to refer to the capture 

 of Ino Globulariae, Notodonta cucullina and other Notodontida?, Ptilophora plumigera, 

 Dipthera Orion and Plusia orichalcea within the last year or so: to this list many 

 might be added, and it is now my good fortune to announce the appearance this year 

 in some numbers of the hitherto rare Notodonta Carmelita. I have heard of the cap- 

 ture of no less than fourteen specimens, seven of which, four males and three females, 

 we have at the present time under braces. The seven in our possession were taken at 

 West Wickham within the last fortnight. What would have been thought of this six 

 years ago ? — Id. 



Error in the ' Entomologist's Weekly Intelligencer.'' — At p. 26 of the ' Entomologist's 

 Weekly Intelligencer,' and subsequently at p. 44, Ennomos sublunaria is referred to 

 as the summer brood of E. illustraria. I beg to say that E. sublunaria, Steph. y is a 

 dark variety of E. lunaria, as may be seen by reference to the figure on the 28th plate 

 of the 'Illustrations;' the deeply dentate posterior wings will at once distinguish it 

 from any variety of the male illustraria. The specimen from which this figure and 

 description was taken, consequently the type specimen of sublunaria, is in my collec- 

 tion. — Edwin Shepherd; May 14, 1856. 



Double- broodedness of Notodonta camelina. — I have carefully perused, analysed and 

 digested Mr. E. Shepherd's article (Zool. 5072) on the double-broodedness of Notodonta 

 camelina ; but though Mr. Shepherd casts the gravest doubts on my proofs and asser- 

 tions, and Mr. Newman seems to infer that the bare supposition of its being double- 

 brooded is absurd, I am compelled, with all due deference to the entomological lore of 

 those two veteran knights of the net, to remain unshaken in my former opinion, 

 viz. that Notodonta camelina is most undoubtedly double-brooded. Mr. Shepherd 

 says that, by " especial care," my eggs of camelina produced moths in August, and, 

 interpreting "especial care" by the terms "abundant supply of food" and " want of 

 exercise," he argues that had it not been for this " especial care" the moths would not 

 have emerged till the following spring. Now the facts of the case are these: between 

 the time of my finding the eggs (26th May) and their hatching, which took place in 

 about a week, I did take " especial care" of them, in the hope that they might produce 

 N. carmelita. A very few days after they hatched, however, I perceived my hope to 

 be fallacious, and recognised them as indubitable camelina: after this period "espe- 

 cial care" at once vanished, and, so far from having an "abundant supply" of food, 

 the larva? were very often, I won't say starving, but on uncommonly short allowance. 

 So that the treatment they experienced, so far from being calculated to accelerate 

 maturity, was likely to retard it, and, in fact, corroborate Mr. Shepherd's own expe- 

 rience in the case of E. illunaria. With regard to the want of exercise, I cannot con- 

 ceive that that has anything whatever to do with the question. The larva? of all the 

 Notodontida? are extremely sluggish in their habits, and that of camelina not the least 

 so, and nothing would astonish me more than to meet a larva of that moth taking its 

 daily constitutional. My larva? were kept in a cool room, where the windows were 

 constantly open ; they were irregularly fed, and no particular care taken of them ; and 

 yet they produced moths in August. This appears to me to prove incontestably that 



