EUDOREA ANGUSTEA. 197 



times not even see the insect, I was considerably 

 astonished when Mr. Orosland told me he had counted 

 as many as sixty specimens on the wall at one time. 

 I had worked all round the locality with tolerable 

 regularity for towards twenty years, and yet had never 

 seen a specimen within miles of the place ! 



Consequently it was with much pleasure that on 

 the 21st of July last, 1885, 1 accompanied Mr. Crosland 

 to the wall, where, on stripping off the moss, we soon 

 found in plenty both full-fed larvse and pupae of a 

 Scoparia, which, as I saw at once did not belong to 

 muralis, we had no doubt would prove to be angustea. 

 This was further confirmed by our finding before we 

 left the wall, even at that early date, a single fine 

 imago of the species. As I passed the wall three days 

 later — on the 24th — I found two more imagos, and a 

 week later again I picked off twenty specimens. On 

 this day — the 30th — also appeared the first specimen 

 from the larvae and pupae I had collected. For a week 

 or so from that date the species was in great plenty, 

 but towards the middle of August seemed to be 

 rapidly decreasing in numbers, though Mr. Crosland 

 told me he noticed specimens on the wall well into 

 September. Altogether, including a nice series bred 

 from the collected larvae and pupae, I set about a 

 hundred and twenty beautiful specimens. How I 

 missed the species for so many years, supposing it to 

 have been always there, is to me a mystery. 



After such an experience, I was a little surprised 

 to receive, on the 11th of August, from Mr. W. H. B. 

 Fletcher, of Worthing, a good supply of quite small 

 larvae, not more, indeed, than about one-third grown, 

 which Mr. Fletcher said were 8. angustea, and which, 

 indeed, I at once saw were perfectly similar to my 

 July larvae. Mr. C. G. Barrett had told us (E.M.M., 

 XXII, 42) that on the south coast the species is 

 probably double-brooded; and that would have been 

 a satisfactory explanation had not Mr. Fletcher, in 

 referring to Mr. Barrett's paper, written that he was 



