32 
the great change in appearance. He evidently had noticed both 
P. miff'iisella and sorhai/eniella, as he says those moths marked with 
dark patches are much commoner than those in which the spots are 
wanting, and he gives both aspen and poplar as foodplants. Speaking 
of the August brood, he says that a part yield the moth in September, 
while another part pass the winter as pupae. In favourable years, he 
remarks, one still finds larvae in November, which pupate before 
winter, though many of them die of frost. 
In his “ Lepidoptera of Asia Minor ” (Lep. Fauna Kleinasiens, ii., 
p. 257), published at St. Petersburg in 1880, Staudinger states, he 
found mines, doubtless of this species, in white poplar, in the valley 
of the Kerasderebach. This is the first mention of the species—if it 
be si iff) i sella, by the way—feeeding in white poplar. Drs. Steudel and 
E. Hofmann, in a list of Wurtemberg Tineina (Jahreshefte <1. Yer. f. 
rated. Xaturh. in Wiirtem., xxxviii., pp. 145-162) strike a true note 
when they say of P. stiffttsella, “ throughout the summer among pop¬ 
lars.” They are, too, the first to notice that the mines in Populus 
treinnla present an especially white appearance. They also mention 
Populus alba as a foodplant. 
Sorhagen, in his “ Kleinschmetterlinge der Mark Brandenburg ” 
(p. 291, 1886), makes some erroneous statements on the species, the 
most flagrant of which is that the larva comes out of the mine to make 
its cocoon. In 1887 August Hoffmann (Stett. ent. Frit., xlviii., p. 307) 
calls attention to the peculiar last larval stage, likening it to that which 
occurs in certain psychids. He gives a fair description of the larva 
and prepupal form. 
By far the most detailed description of the imago, larva, and pupa 
we find, as we should expect, in the last published matter on the sub¬ 
ject. Last year Liiders, in his “ Beitrag z. Kennt. d. Lep. Gatt. 
Phyllocnistis” (Jahresh. Reahchnle in St. Pauli, Hamburg, 1900), suc¬ 
cessfully establishes his new species J\ sorhatjeniella. He described 
the imagines, body, wings, limbs, scales, in very minute fashion, and 
the earlier stages in the same way, as far as he appears to know 
them. One is, however, rather disappointed to find that he appeared 
not to have studied the previous literature of the subject to any extent. 
The paper is accompanied by some very good plain plates. The figures 
are usually excellent, but those of the larva or larval details are 
certainly poor. 
The last mention I can find of this moth is in Tutt’s “ Practical 
Hints ” (i., p. 70, 1901), but this is not very extensive. 
I have omitted one or two purely faunistic references, but Reutti 
(1898) and Stange (1899) I have not yet had the opportunity of 
consulting. 
Synonomy. —In the his of Oken for the year 1889 (p. 214), Zeller, 
in that famous paper “ Versuch einer naturgemiissen Eintheilung der 
Schaben,” described under the genus Oposteija, Zell., a small moth 
which he named salii/na. This description, however, is so insufficient 
that but for Zeller’s subsequent writings we should still be somewhat 
in the dark as to which insect lie intended the description to apply to. 
For, though the name saliyna points, of course, to the willow fre¬ 
quenting species, he makes no mention of the characteristic lines, and 
he gives both willow and poplar as the foodplants. Again, in the his 
for 1847 (p. 894), Zeller describes, in a paper on the insects he met 
