8472 Insects. 



described by himself (' Intelligencer,' No. 225, p. 135), and obtained from Messrs. 

 Tiltman and Nicholson, of Whitehaven, specimens of a Dianthaecia which he lost no 

 time in announcing, at the meeting of the Historic Society, at Liverpool, as Dian- 

 thaecia capsophila (see Zool. 7352). Here, however, he rather overshot the mark, for 

 when Mr. Nicholson, a short time afterwards, sent similar specimens to Mr. Double- 

 day, they turned out to be only dark varieties of D. carpophaga ; and subsequently, 

 when Mr. Gregson had collected and bred a number of the larva?, he discovered and 

 had to admit his error himself (Int. No. 258, p. 186). In July, 1861, Mr. Hind had 

 received D. capsophila from the Continent, which, on being compared by Mr. Double- 

 day with mine, proved them to be that species ; and at the same time M. Guenee 

 returned the specimen Mr. Doubleday had sent him, having ticketed it" Capsophila, 

 Boisduval." This alone might be supposed to be sufficient to have settled the matter; 

 but in the autumn of 1801, as Mr. Doubleday was making up a box of rare British 

 Lepidoptera for Dr. Herrich-Schseffer, I sent hirn a specimen to enclose; and 

 Herrich-Schaeffer's description, showing the points of difference between it and 

 D. carpophaga, is fresh in the minds of readers of the ' Zoologist ' (Zool. 8292). Be- 

 sides all this, I have the decided opinion of Mr. Bond in favour of the distinctness of 

 the species. Now, in the face of all this the Northern Entomological Society, or at 

 any rate a certain portion thereof, ventures, from the examination of a single speci- 

 men, and that, as I happen to know, not a fine one, to decide that the Irish species is 

 only a variety of D. carpophaga. Certainly Mr. Gregson might with great propriety 

 compliment the Society on having " worked out" a question in which he had so sig- 

 nally failed himself. He says that everybody unconnected with the Northern Ento- 

 mological Society has failed to give a decided opinion, except in favour of Boisduval's 

 name. That of course is a roundabout way of saying that everybody, with this ex- 

 ception, has agreed to give it that name ; and, that being the case, it would seem 

 hardly necessary to say any more about it, only that he deduces from this fact the 

 somewhat remarkable conclusion that it is therefore advisable and proper for that So- 

 ciety to come to a totally opposite decision. He says, moreover, that the Irish insect 

 does not agree with Guenee's description of D. capsophila, but with some interme- 

 diate varieties ; and that some specimens agree with his description of D. Nisus of 

 Gennar. How, then, does it happen that several entomologists of first-rate ability 

 simultaneously come to the conclusion that the Irish insect was D. capsophila, and 

 that only from Guenee's description, since there were no foreign specimens to be pro- 

 cured for comparison ? And how can Mr. Gregson undertake to give an opinion 

 of Guenee's description, when it is well known that he professed to name specimens 

 from that description which afterwards turned out to be D. carpophaga? With 

 regard to D. Nisus, my kind fiend Mr. Doubleday, to whom I am greatly indebted 

 for the trouble he has taken in the determination of this and other species, has, 

 1 believe, communicated with Dr. Staudinger upon the subject, and the result will 

 doubtless appear in an early number of the ' Zoologist.' — Charles G. Barrett ; Hasle- 

 mere, Surrey, February 27, 1863. 



[I think that the Secretary of the Society would do well not to give any decision 

 as that of the Society collectively ; but assign each opinion to the member who 

 expressed it. — E. Newman]. 



Note on Brephos Parthenias. — I succeeded in overcoming the reluctance of these 

 lively insects to lay egjjs, by enclosing several in a large glass cylinder over birch 

 twigs in wet sand, feeding them with syrup: they were a week, however, before they 



