52 
they are laid, either singly or in twos or threes, on twigs of currant ; 
or, when sleeved, often on the sleeve. The characters of the egg 
agree well with those of the other Lygris species; although the degree 
of flattening of the narrower end was so extreme as to remind me 
more of Cidaria fulvata. The larvae commenced to hatch on April 
22nd. I followed pretty closely the duration of the various stages in 
two of them, but, as the weather was on the whole rather cold, they 
may have been slower than usual. One reached the first moult in 
about twelve days, the second moult in another twelve, the third in 
another ten, spun-up in another eleven, and pupated after two or 
three more ; total larval period about 48 days. The other reached the 
first moult in fourteen days, second moult in another twelve, third in 
another ten, spun-up in another twelve, and pupated in five more ; 
total larval period, 58 days, viz., May 7tb to June 29th, 1900. Ihe 
newly-hatched larva appears, as I have roughly indicated, under the 
generic description ; after feeding for some days it is much greener, 
the dark dorsal markings not really sharply differentiated in colour, 
as they were at first, though still a darker green than the ground¬ 
colour. The larvae much preferred red currant to black, refusing the 
latter whenever a choice was offered them ; this agrees with Double¬ 
day’s experience, and it is curious that Wormald describes them> as 
being found in a state of nature on black currant ( vide Newm., Brit. 
Moths , p. 198). In the later stages the larva is green, yellow at the 
margins of the segments, and with a darkish dorsal line ; there is 
extremely little to describe in any of these stages without going into 
the more difficult minutiae of larval structure. The pupa is green, 
marked with brown; in developing, the wing cases become light 
brown, the lines on them still showing conspicuously in darker brown ; 
after the disclosure of the imago, the pupa-case is almost white, just 
as with Cidaria fulvata. 
The nomenclature of Lygris associata has not yet been placed on a 
very firm basis, the name which Staudinger uses ( associata , Bkh.) 
dating only from 1794. Guenee believed it to be the dotata of Linne, 
and has induced Doubleday and Newman to follow him ; but in this 
he was almost certainly in error. It may have been the chenopodiata 
of Hufnagel (1767), but was decidedly not that of Linne. It was also 
the hilineata of Sepp, but not of Linne. Werneburg, however, refers 
the mellinata of Fabricius (1787) to this same species, and with con¬ 
siderable plausibility; I do not know why Staudinger has not accepted 
this. Walsingham and Durrant would tell me I was bound to follow 
Werneburg—the “ first author dealing with the name ”—unless 1 
could prove him to be in error, which I am certainly not prepared to do ; 
my only excuse for not adopting the name at present is that I have not 
yet thoroughly investigated its claims. Newman, who has mentioned 
four synonyms for the species, has curiously omitted one very well- 
known one, the marmorata of Hiibner, by which name it was long 
known in Germany. It is not a variable insect, and I know of no 
varietal names. 
Lygris pyraliata, Fb.— I have two or three times obtained eggs of 
this species, from Sandown or Torquay females, but have not yet 
succeeded in rearing it—partly through the difficulty of keeping up a 
supply of the food-plant, but partly also on account of the very small 
number of larva* which I have hatched, the great majority of the eggs 
