Genus AGLOSSA, Lat. A. pinguinalis, Lat.-Plentiful in old stables. SECTION 8. LURIDE, Gn. FAMILY 2. ENNYCHIDE, Dup. Genus PYRAUSTA, Sch. P. punicealis, W. V.-Lydiate. Scarce. P. purpuralis, Curt.-Sutton, Parkgate, and Ditton. Genus RHODARIA, Gn. R. sanguinalis, Linn.-Wallasey sand hills, where wild thyme grows. Evening, June. Genus HERBULA, Gn. H. cespitalis, W. V.-Not scarce on the Cheshire coast sand hills. Genus ENNYCHIA, Tr. E. cingulata, Step.-Plentiful, but local, on the Wallasey sand hills; flies about 5 p.m. May and August. FAMILY 5. HYDROCAMPIDE, Gn. Genus CATACLYSTA, H. S. C. Lemnalis, H. S.-In every old pit. Genus PARAPONYX, Steph. P. Stratiotalis, Step.-May be found in a large pit behind New Brighton, on the lower side, opposite the stile road to Wallasey Church; is also in a round pit on Bidston Marsh. Flies at dusk, June. Genus HYDROCAMPHA, Lat. H. Nymphæalis, Step.-Abundant around pits. June. FAMILY 8. BOTYDE, Gn. Genus BOTYS, Lat. GROUP 4. B. Fuscalis, W. V.-Plentiful on Bidston Marsh. June. GROUP 5. B. Urticalis, Steph.-Abundant at Liscard, and pupæ plentiful on white poplar, under loose bark. Genus EBULIA, Gn. E. crocealis, Tr.-Woods around Kirkby, Eccleston, and Lydiate. June. E. Sambucalis, Albin.-Plentiful at Wallasey, Ford, and Linacre, in garden hedges. Genus PIONEA, Gn. GROUP 2. P. forficalis, Linn.-May be bred from larvæ found in curled leaves of Silene inflata, in May. Genus SPILODES, Gn. GROUP 2. S. sticticalis, Linn.-Two specimens taken by N. Cooke, Esq., and five specimens taken by R. S. Edleston, Esq., at Wallasey sand hills, are all that have yet been taken here. July, in the sun. Genus SCOPULA, Sch. S. lutealis, Haw.-Abundant about ditches; bred from Silene inflata. June. S. olivalis, W. V.—Plentiful in damp places, particularly in woods. GROUP 4. S. Ferrugalis, Hb.-I once met with this species in a clump of trees, at the bottom of Mrs. Peacock's garden, at Saughall Massey. I have not heard of it in any other locality. SCOPARIDE, Gn. Genus STENOPTERYX, Gn. S. hybridalis, Hb,-Plentiful on Bidston Marsh, and on the sand hills. Genus SCOPARIA, Haw. GROUP 2. S. ambigualis, Tr.-May be taken at Jackson's Wood, and at Birch Wood. July. S. cembralis, Haw.-Neston and Woodchurch. June and July. S. muralis, Curt.-Prenton Hill. June. S. mercuralis, Haw.-Bidston Hill and Fir Grove. End of May. S. truncicolalis, Sta.-Prenton Wood. July. S. frequentalis, Sta.-Bidston, Edge Lane, and Green Bank. End of May. S. disputalis, Greg. N.S.-Simonswood Moss. May. This distinct species is nearest allied to Frequentalis, Sta., and Mercurialis, Haw., but is readily distinguished from both these species, by its more suffused appearance, the first fascia being less sharply defined, and the outer fascia more acutely bent outwards, the upper wings broader, and the under wings lighter, than in either of the above insects. Plentiful. S. resinalis, Haw.-Fir Grove, Croxteth, and Allerton Hall. May & June. S. coarctalis, Zell.—Plentiful throughout the district. Summer. GROUP 3. S. palidulalis, St.-Bidston Marsh, and on the wet land below Crosby, Simonswood, and other mosses. End of Part IV. ABBREVIATIONS OF AUTHORS REFERRED TO. Albin's Natural History of English Insects. London, 1724. 1764. Curtis or Curt. Curtis' British Entomology. London, 1823-1840. Dalm. De Geer. Dup. Esp. Fab. Ger. Gn. Haw. Hb. Lat. Linn. Och. H. 8. Sch. Scop. St. or Steph. Tr. Westw. W. V. De Geer. History of Insects. Duponchel. Natural History of Insects, and Catalogue. 1844. Esper. Die Schmetterlinge in Abbidungen nach der natur. 1786. Fabricius Entomologia Systematica. 1793. Germar. Magazin der Entomologia. 1813-1821. Hawarth Lepidoptera Britanica. 1803. Hubner Sammlung Europaischer Schmetterlinge. 1796. Latreille Gen. Crustaceorum et Insectorum. Paris, 1806-1809. Ochsenheimer Systema Glossatorum Europæ. 1811. Schrænck Fauna Boica. 1801. Scopoli Entomologia Carniolica. 1763. Stephen's Illustrations of British Entomology. 1829. Treitschke Schmitterlinge von Europa. 1825-1826. Westwood. Westwood and Humphry's Butterflies and Moths. 1841-1845. Wiener Verzeichniss. 1801. ON THE AREA AND POPULATION OF THE MANCHESTER DISTRICT. By J. T. Danson, Esq., F.S.S., Vice-President. (READ 14TH FEBRUARY, 1856.) Near Manchester there are fifteen other towns*, so connected with it by the manner in which all have come into and are kept in existence, that I see no way of dealing with them asunder, and justly. Hence I say "the Manchester District "-not "Manchester." OUTLINE. A circle having Manchester in its centre, and a radius of about fourteen miles, would include all these towns and their suburbs. But the district is not circular, nor is Manchester, in a geometrical sense, even near its centre. Were the district described by a line drawn round the entire group of towns, and passing at a minimum distance of five miles from the centre of each of the outer ones, its greatest length would be on a line nearly due east and west, from Leigh through Manchester and Staleybridge-about twenty-nine miles. And the area of the district thus described would be about 341 square miles, or 218,240 acres. The divisions of the surface now in use for enumerating the population *To the word "town" I here attach this meaning, and no other, viz.,-that of an area, great or small, inhabited, permanently, by a minimum number of persons, whose number, in relation to the area occupied, affords an average density not below another minimum. In this instance, the minimum number is 2000 persons. The minimum density is ten persons per acre. Thus I call Atherton a town, because, on 250 acres of ground, I find there, in 1851, 2,780 persons. And I call Eccles a town, because on 325 acres, I there, at the same date, find 4,108 persons. In a previous paper, on the population of Liverpool and its environs, I have distinguished town from suburbs. Here this distinction is not marked. It was not necessary to the purpose in view; and would, if attempted, have involved a serious addition to the labour of the gentleman to whom I am indebted for the computations on which the greater part of the present paper is based. So much for the guidance of the reader; and not more, I am assured, than is needed. If he can form a better definition of a town than the one here used I shall be glad to hear from him.-J. T. D. of this area do not coincide exactly with the boundary thus assumed. But the difference is not great. If we take all the Parishes and Townships, considerable portions of which lie within the assumed boundary, and make, in each case, only such allowances for surplusage as seem to be quite necessary, they are found to cover a gross area of 222,576 acres, or nearly 348 square miles. A comparison will make clearer the significance of these figures. London and its suburbs, described together in the census of 1851 as "the London District," has an area of 78,029 acres. In other words it was, in size, compared with the Manchester District, as two to seven nearly. The population of the 348 miles of the Manchester District, in 1851, was 1,044,816 persons. That of the London District, at the same date, 2,362,236. Here the proportion is reversed. Though three and a half times as large, the provincial district has not half the population of the metropolitan. In few words, the London District is about eight times as densely peopled as the Manchester District. Nevertheless, apart from the London District, there is no other in the United Kingdom, and, excepting also Paris and its suburbs, no other in Europe, on which a million of persons are so closely placed as they are in the Manchester District. And in one respect this group of population stands before every other of like magnitude in Europe, or perhaps in the world. It has increased with greater rapidity during the last fifty years. In 1801 the London District contained a population of 958,863-the Manchester District, as above described, one of 311,544 persons. In the fifty years 1801-51, for every one hundred persons at the beginning, 146 were added in the London District, and 236 in that of Manchester. On the other hand, it will be observed that the difference already established between the two districts is so great, that the lapse of even another half century, with the same rate of increase in each, would not much disturb their present relative proportions. The Manchester District would, in 1901, have only about three-fifths of the population of the London District; and the relative density would be only about one-fifth, instead of one-eighth. The same difference runs through the entire history of the two districts. London was a considerable port and mart, and a royal residence, when much of the Manchester District was yet a free and pleasant hunting |