64 
THE entomologist’s RECORD. 
emerged last year, one has just appeared. , The imagines are not at all 
like C. verbasci but they are very much like C. lychnitis, although 
perhaps rather larger and more coarsely scaled, but still it would be 
dilhcult to distinguish them in the imago state. The three species are 
well distributed and definitely distinguished on the Continent (principally 
in the larval stage), where scrophularm appears to be the commonest. 
Dr. Staudinger gives the following as their distribution : — “ C. verbasci^ 
Central and Southern Europe, Southern Sweden, Livonia, Asia Minor, 
and Armenia.” “ C. scrophularice. Central Europe, Southern Sweden, 
T ivonia, Piedmont, Corsica, North part of the Balkan District, and 
Southern Russia.” “ C. lychnitis^ Germany, France, South England, 
Corsica, Southern and Western Russia.” By this it will be seen that 
verbasci and scrophularice each spread equally north, but that scrophularice 
has a more southern range, whilst lychnitis is far more restricted and 
more" decidedly a southern species. Britain therefore comes well into 
the area of distribution of both the former species. 1 find on reference 
to the E 7 iiomologist, vol. ix., pp. 259-260, that Mr. Harwood quotes 
from a letter of the late Mr. H. Doubleday as follows : — “ Cucullia 
verbasci and C. scrophularice, are as distinct as any two species of the 
genus \ but I believe that few English entomologists are acquainted 
with the latter species, which appears to be very scarce in this country at 
the present time. The Rev. A. H. Wratislaw, of Bury St. Edmunds, 
found a brood of larvse three years since, but he has not met with them 
again. M. Constant says it is sometimes abundant in autumn and then 
disappears for several years. I sent three or four larvse to Mr. Buckler, 
and bred a few moths myself. The larva is quite different from that of 
C. verbasci^ being shorter and with fewer markings. The moths appear 
the middle or end of May, a month or six weeks later than C. verbasci. 
I send for your acceptance a pair that M. Constant gave me. You will 
see that this species is more like C. lychnitis than C. verbasci. The 
larva of C. verbasci often feeds upon Scrophularia aquatica., but I 
believe scrophularice only feeds upon A. iiodosa which always grows in 
dry places.” I presume this refererence, by a lepidopterist who un- 
doubtedly knew both species thoroughly, has been overlooked by Mr. 
Dale, or he would not have suggested that the species was “an 
entomological myth,” although the Rev. O. P. Cambridge is of opinion 
that “ his Bloxworth examples may not be any more than C. verbasci^ 
in fact, if they are very like verbasci they probably are that species. I 
suppose there are some true scrophularice in various collections but all I 
have ever had sent me have turned out to be verbasci. I have never 
formed an opinion on Haworth’s scrophularice^ but it may be lychnitis^ 
although that seems in no way to affect the former as a British species. 
In the Rev. E. N. Bloomfield’s Lepidoptera of Suffolk, p. 23, we read : — 
“ Larvae of this rare species were taken by Mr. E. Skepper, and the 
Rev. A. H. Wratislaw, Some of these were sent to Mr. Doubleday, 
and were described and figured by Mr. Buckler.” It is also recorded 
on the same page from Lakenheath, Barton Mills and Higham in 
Suffolk, by Messrs. T. and J. Brown. — J. W. Tutt. May, 1891. 
Flowers attractive to Moths. — I beg to supplement Mr. Russ’ » 
“ list of border plants and shrubs which are attractive to moths ” {Record, 
vol. i., p. 340) with the following: — Border Flowers. Golden rod 
{Solidago canadensis)’, torch flower {Tritonia uvaria and vars.), this 
