6504 Insects, 



I forwarded it to Mr. Doubleday, who informs me that he cannot as yet satisfactorily 

 decide upon it. The Rev. H. Burney, in a letter which he kindly wrote to me on the 

 subject, says, " I have seen two specimens of the so-called X. ocellaris, both very dif- 

 ferent, yet each, I think, is only a variety of X. gilvago. Mr. Harding sent me the 

 first, which was the best of the two taken by him at Deal ; I sent it to Mr. Double- 

 day, and he returned it as a bright variety of X. gilvago. The other, a very light 

 specimen, was sent to me by Mr. Tidy, a pretty looking insect, but in markings I 

 could see no material difference from X. gilvago: this I also sent to Mr. Doubleday, 

 who considers it to be the latter species. Mr. Bond and others also saw Mr. Tidy's 

 and Mr. Harding's specimens, and pronounced them to be X. gilvago." I am informed 

 by Mr. Pratt that Mr. Tidy's specimen was exhibited at the Entomological Society of 

 London, and that Mr. Tidy was assured that it was X. ocellaris, which statement was 

 confirmed by Mr. Newman. It will be perceived that Mr. Tidy's specimen thus ac- 

 knowledged was the same which Messrs. Doubleday, Bond, Stevens, Burney and others 

 consider only as a variety of X. gilvago. Whence this diversity of opinion ? According 

 to M. Guenee X. gilvago varies, but not so much as X. ocellaris. This may in some 

 degree account for the difficulty in recognising X. ocellaris, but when there are distinct 

 characteristics in the perfect insect one would believe that it is surmountable, and that 

 the peculiarities could be detected. Had the difference existed only in the larva?, had 

 X. gilvago and X. ocellaris been in a similar position to Acronycta tridens and A. Psi 

 one could have understood the relative position of each, and on the required proofs 

 being given as to the authenticity of the larva, one would accept the insect for what it 

 was represented to be ; but when a difference is stated to exist, not only in the larva, 

 but also in the perfect insect, which cannot be found in specimens that have been ac- 

 knowledged as X. ocellaris, I am at a loss at what conclusion to arrive. I have 

 referred to all the recorded specimens asserting a claim to this name, with the exception 

 of one taken by Mr. Turner. Concerning it I do not know more than what I learned 

 from Mr. Allis, who informs me that many think it a variety of X. gilvago. Mr. 

 Doubleday tells me that Lederer, in his recent ' Catalogue of Noctuae,' unites them 

 as varieties of one species, but after the satisfactory accounts given by M. Guenee, 

 proving the distinctions both in the larva and the imago, I shall not enter upon this. 

 In conclusion I hope that before this species is included in our lists it will be fully 

 ascertained that some of the specimens are genuine, and I trust it will not be admitted 

 without proper investigation, to be at a future time erased. — Robert Anderson ; Coney 

 Street, York, March 9, 1859. 



PS. — Since writing the above, I have received Mr. Doubleday 's ' Synonymic List 

 of British Lepidoptera ' (second edition), and am glad to observe that he places this 

 insect amongst the reputed British species, which position is, I think, its proper place, 

 and I hope that those authors and compilers of lists who have already included this 

 species will receive the facts connected with it as a lesson, teaching them not to be 

 too zealous in adding new species before they have proper proofs as to the truthfulness 

 and accuracy of their information. — R. A. 



Correction of an error. — I am much obliged for your correction of an error of mine 

 in the ' Zoologist ' (Zool. 6388), in which I stated that the death's head moth had 

 damaged the combs of a hive of bees ; it was the honey moth (Galleria cerella of 

 Doubleday's list) as you say, one of the worst enemies the bees can have. — H. W. 

 Newman; Cheltenham, February 14, 1859. 



