81 
We now come to a very interesting account written by Heeger, as 
one of his “ Beitriige zur Schmetterlingskunde,” and published in the 
Sitznnysber. d. Kan. Acad. d. Wissenschaft for 1852 (ix., p. 278). He 
calls the insect Oposteya trernnlella, Fischer v. Roslerstamm, but there 
is not the slightest doubt that it is the same insect as Zeller’s Phylloc- 
nntn stiffusella. In fact, he writes on the plate accompanying the 
article, after the word Oposteya, the word Phjllocnites, in brackets, by 
way, I suppose, of correcting Zeller’s Greek. He says that the Italian 
poplar is the foodplant; that the larva has two processes on what we 
now call the eighth and ninth abdominal segments, and the moth has 
four black streaks on the costa; all of which statements point to 
P. snfusella. He gives twelve figures, of which one or two are very 
good : in any case, they leave one in no doubt as to what species he 
was discussing, except, perhaps, his figure of the venation, but this 
may be easily accounted for. No one studying Phyllocnistis can afford 
to overlook Heeger’s paper, to which I shall frequently again refer. 
Herrich-Schaffer (Bearb. d. Schtn. v. Fait., v.,p. 841, tab. 109, fig. 871) 
gives the first coloured figure of the species and a short description. 
We now come to Stainton, the father of British microlepidop- 
terists, but in this particular genus he can scarcely be considered to 
shine with his usual brightness. In the lnsecta Britannica (p. 285) 
he gives, I think, the best description of the imago of P. stiffusella 
that can be found. In the Fntomoloyist’s Animal for 1856 (p. 59) he 
mentioned finding the larvae numerous on aspens at Mickleham at the 
beginning of August. In the previous year they had been met with 
in Norfolk (Knt. Ann. 1855, 2nd ed., p. 81). The first mention by 
Stainton of suffinella is made, I think, however, in the Zooloyist for 
1848, in his supplementary paper on the British Aryyromiyes, but it is 
unimportant. In his Manual (p. 424) he again describes the species 
in 1859. In a paper read at Oxford and published in the Entomolo- 
yist's Weekly Intelligencer, July, 1860 (viii., p. 127), he makes some 
very extraordinary statements concerning the larva. He says :— 
“ Another peculiarity of this larva is that it never moults ; its skin is, 
apparently, of so elastic a nature that it grows with the larva.” In 
1856 Professor Frey makes some interesting remarks in his work on 
the Swiss Microlepidoptera (Tin. and Pter. Sclureiz, p. 315), and again 
notices the species in his Lepidapteren der Schweiz in 1880. In 1866 
Rossler (Jahrb. d. Xass. ver. f. Xatnrk., xix.-xx., p. 389 ; see also 2nd 
ed. Jahrg. xxxiii.-xxxiv.) notices, in his list of Nassau Lepidoptera, 
that the imago hibernates in moss or leaves. The moth is again de¬ 
scribed in Heinemann and Wocke’s “ Schmetterlinge Deutschlands 
und der Schweiz ” (Band ii, Heft, ii., p. 708), in some remarks on 
the family Phyllocnistidae, and attention is called to the “ vorstehende,” 
or projecting palpi, though in the diagnosis of the genus they are 
described as drooping. But drooping, as Liiders remarks, only applies 
to the dead specimen. The account of this moth given in Snellen 
van Vollenhoven’s “ Nederlandsche Insecten ” (Sepp, 2nd series, 
vol. iii., p. 177 [1877], pi. 33, fig. 1-20) is an excellent one, and it is 
accompanied by a good series of figures. Albania, who, I believe, is 
the writer, refers to Heeger and Goeze, besides others, showing that 
he did not ignore the previous literature of the subject, as some writers 
are in the habit of doing. He describes the eggs, mentioning the 
sculpture, the mining larva, and the spinning stage, commenting on 
