1389.] 



THE YOUNG NATURALIST. 



77 



Our Pterophori. 



By RICHARD SOUTH, F.E.S. 



A note on " Our Pterophori," by Mr. C. A. Briggs, in the March 

 number of the Young Naturalist has just been introduced to my notice. 



Confusion there is without doubt, both here and on the Continent, 

 in connection with the Pterophori, but facetious criticism of honest 

 attempts at the elucidation of some of the difficulties attending the 

 study of species pertaining to this very perplexing group does not 

 render such confusion any less confounded. 



In his remarks, on the various species he has thought well to refer 

 to, the writer is not always accurate when dealing with questions of 

 fact, this is most unfortunate, as it implies either that he is insincere 

 or ignorant of recent literature upon the subject. 



The capture of L&tus, in N. Devon, has been recorded, Entom. 

 XV. p. 35, but, perhaps the authenticity of this occurrence does not 

 commend to one, who says, with assumed authority, when adverting 

 to this insect, " no authentic record of captures in England exist " ; 

 so it may be well to produce other evidence. 



Mr. Barrett (E.M.M. XVIII. p. 178), in discussing the identity of 

 LatuSy Zell., and Distans, Zell., says, after examining types of each 

 insect received from Prof. Zeller, that there can be very little doubt 

 that Lcetus is a variety of Distans ; he then goes on to add, " a very 

 few specimens have been taken at Folkestone, by Mr. Purdey and 

 others of an Oxyptilus, which agrees absolutely with Continental 

 Lcetus" he concludes his remarks with this important observation, " I 

 think. I am at liberty to say that Prof. Zeller is also now of opinion 

 that Distans and Lcztus form but one species." 



The statement that " Bipunctidactylus and Plagiodactylus have been 

 clearly proved to be different in their larvae and in their food, as well 

 as in appearance," requires verification. 



There are several other statements which are not reconcilable with 

 fact, such, for instance, as Favfarella being in danger of being called 

 identical with Tceniadactylus, but these may be ignored, as perhaps 

 after all they are inconsequent, seeing that the communication in its 

 entirety is probably intended rather as a literary effort in the direction 

 of a style known as "smart writing," than a contribution of practical 

 utility to students of British Pterophoridae. 



At the same time it must be admitted that there is one profitable 

 grain among the overflowing measure of useless chaff, and that is the 

 correction of an error in the matter of Heterodactylus. The original 



