9G 
[September, 1880. 
in any review of my work to correct Cochylis to Conchylis with my entire con- 
currence.” I have read with care all that has come under my notice published on 
this question of orthography, and I can reach no other conclusion than that it is 
better to make such corrections as the above, and for the same reason Lozotania, 
Steph., becomes Loxotcenia , Stepli. 
For the Californian species cuneanum, the genus Hendecastema is established, 
but this species is identical in structure with humerosana which Clemens published 
in 1860, and for which he established the genus Amorbia which must take precedence 
over Hendecastema. I am very sure his lordship did not possess an example of 
humerosana at the time he published this work, else he would have noticed their 
generic relation and placed his cuneanum in the genus Amorbia of Clemens. 
I cannot convince myself that Jutosana, Clem., is identical with inceriana , Clem., 
or with the European politana, which is not uncommon in this country. Specimens 
identified by Prof. Zeller as politana, Haw., have been raised here from Finns strobus. 
I think the identity of these species is still an open question. 
The species pulcherrimana, Wlsm., and demissana, Wlsm., belong to the genus 
Dichelia, while xanthoides, Wlk. belongs to (Enectra . 
Conchylis gratana, Wlk., is regarded as equivalent to “ Croesia? reticulatana, 
Clem., var. sulfureana,” but reticulatana , Clem., is a true Cenopis, while sulfureana, 
Clem., is quite distinct, belonging to the genus Dichelia. According to my notes on 
Walker’s types gratana , Wlk., is identical with sulfureana, Clem. 
Sericoris fuedana, Clem., is given as a synonym of Fenthina hebesana, Wlk. I 
must hold myself responsible for this error, for I am very sure I told his lordship 
that such was the case, and I had very good reason at tlio time for thinking so, but 
I now have the type of foedana before me, and it proves to be distinct from hebesana , 
Wlk., but identical with Sericoris concinnana, Clem., and is a true Exartema and 
must be known hereafter as Exartema concinnanum , Clem. 
Exartema griseoalbanum, Wlsm., is a true Fenthina , as shown by the males 
in my collection. The type was a female, hence it was not possible to be sure of its 
location. 
The British Museum Authorities are to be congratulated upon the publication 
of a work so reliable and valuable to workers on this family of insects. — C. H. 
Fernald, State College, Orono, Maine, U.S.A. 
Entomological Society of London. — August 4 th, 1880. J. W. Dunning, 
Esq., M.A., F.L.S., Vice-President, in the Chair. 
Sir Sidney Saunders forwarded for exhibition four living specimens of Frosopis 
rubicola, all stjlopizcd females, recently bred from larva) extracted from briars 
received from Epirus, and contributed notes thereon. 
Miss E. A. Ormerod exhibited a soft gall-like formation found on Rhododendron 
ferrugineum, but believed to be of fungoid growth. 
Mr. Billups exhibited a specimen of Heptaulacus villosus from Box Hill. 
Mr. H. J. Elwes communicated a paper “ On the genus Colias.” 
Mr. W. L. Distant read a paper entitled “Notes on exotic Bliynchota, with 
descriptions of new Species.” 
