276 
THE entomologist’s RECORD. 
Dimithacia facies may be for protection etc,, in the imago stage, the 
affinities will be best found in the larvae.” It is therefore incontestable 
that the imago conforms to the Dianthcecia type ; so much so indeed 
that the melanic var, of D. nana often passed for D. barrettii. The 
antennae are of the DianthcBcia character, not that of Luperina ; 
the emergence of the moth is that of a DianihcBcia ; the pupa is dis- 
tinctly Dianthcecian with the well-marked protuberance at the end of 
the wing cases. Staudinger and Wocke rank luteago as a Dianthcecia. 
It feeds in the larval stage on Silene, which is the characteristic food of 
this genus. But Mr. Buckler and Mr. Dobre'e say that the larva is 
similar in habits to that of Luperina. How ? The head and first seg- 
ment are exactly that of Dianthcecia. The shape also similar to D. 
capsophila^ and sometimes the larva of the latter is almost as pale as 
that of D. barrettii. The only point alleged is its being an internal 
feeder ! And the extraordinary thing is, that the greater portion of the 
species in Luperina are not internal feeders. Some of them eat the 
roots of plants, as L. cespitis^ others eat the shoots and leaves, but hide 
only among the roots, e.g..^ Z. testacea, L. nickerlii and Z. virens. L. 
rubella is the only one that is, I believe, an internal feeder, the rest eat 
grass, or various portions of low plants, just as D. capsophila does, to 
my knowledge, when the capsules are not to be had. In fact, when 
capsophila larva is nearly full-fed, it lives, like many Nocture, in the 
sand or earth, and eats capsules, leaves or stems of the Silene at night. 
I have bred D. barrettii as far as the larval stage, and the larva is a 
Dianthcecia larva, except that it is blanched like every internal feeder. 
It, hov/ever, also eats leaves and twigs above earth occasionally. Re- 
turning again to the imago, the shape and pattern is that of the 
Hadenidce., none of the marked characters being wanting. The 
Luperinas are conspicuously devoid of these, and are rightly not so 
grouped. If we are to overlook this, and class a species from one 
characteristic of the larva only, we may as well remove D. barrettii to 
the Sesiidce and place it next musciformis. — W. F. de V. Kane, 
Sloperton Lodge, Kingstown. October 20 th, 1891 . 
I consider D. barrettii a true Dia7ithcecia., the larvae may have a 
superficial resemblance to those of the genus Luperina^ but I am told 
by people who should know something about the matter, that they (the 
larvae) are really Diarithcecia. The pupae are true Dia7ithcecia^ and the 
imagines are certainly in a more natural position among the Dia7ithcecice 
than among the species of Luperina. The foodplant should also be 
considered, but to my mind, the structural difference of the pupa is the 
best argument in favour of the insect being considered a species of 
Dia7ithcecia. Reid, Pitcaple, N.B. Nove77iber ^th, 
RRENT NOTES. 
I would call the attention of our subscribers to the fact that it 
would save some trouble to send the shilling for the Special L7idex to 
Vol. II. of the Ent. Record., with the annual subscription. 
The meeting of the London Entomological Society on the 2 nd inst., 
was a very enjoyable and successful one. Mr. Merrifield’s exhibit 
proved most conclusively that his low temperature experiments had 
