Skip to main content

Full text of "Transactions of the Entomological Society of London"

See other formats 


OD cag a ee \ aut ad 
te iy dG tak ato Rol 


ata Ration 
Magee 


ES toh Es aniipt 
nentatnlaae ee 
+ Ss: ah we 


SE CoE We hmige 
Sipe eh ts 


eae te fai & 


atthe societies aye 


rae ck 


rte Ady :' 
Le ee 


‘ 


w by NBS tat aa 
Pe PERE BACT eM 


yo 
vo, ae 


u 


MELORICAL sariices 


WE 


LOMO” 


TRANSACTIONS 


OF THE 


ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY 


OF 


LONDON 


Ke 


my a NG 


AUG131923 


S 7 wt 
SHheanian pepe 


Avr, 


,f 
a ’ 4 
: oT) 
a ° 
j ; " 
r 
F ae aT . eG, 
‘4 ry \ .* 7 A. a 
i ; ig” ) 
i im 
iJ 


qt 
ij 


WA 


es 


4 


ay, ee ek ATO AO 


imi 
tes ny rc : 
eh f ,) 4. ; 
et ; ae F i eaul ‘i! i 
f ‘ P 
yt eich 
Riot ook s 
Ve ho : 
] i 
dc, te . 
Oleh 2 | 
? f ; 
\\ 
, j ns 
aa, : 
i f 
Lier? ‘ ’ 
te ¢ 
i ’ + D4 
Mi bs at 7 : fi oh 
vi ~ Ride, 
@ oie 
aie i Ale Ly ‘ = 
) ¥ hs; 
iy 


ok: Ga os ee 8 ar mY 
a i f " ; ip M iia ee ’ ot 


LAr "ES hg tid dnp 0 


: a 


ZL a, 


TRANSACTIONS 


OF THE 


-ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY 


OF 


LONDON 


hOLG. | 


<rary of Cong, 


AUG131923 


LONDON: 


PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY AND SOLD AT ITS ROOMS, 
11, CHANDOS STREET, CAVENDISH SQUARE, W. 


1919-1920. 


re) 
Kp 


Q y b ly \ 
Aa 


DATES OF PUBLICATION IN PARTS. 


Parts I, II. (Trans., p. 1-319, Proc. i-xvi) published 15 Aug., 1919 
i LV. 55 321-467, ,, xvii—lxiv) » 15 Jan., 1920 
Ixv—lxxviil) » 1 April, 1320 


” NV. oF es a a ee 


— 


} : 


2-0 2 


ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON 


FouNDED, 1833. 


INCORPORATED BY Royal CHARTER, 1885. 


\ PATRON: HIS MAJESTY THE KING. 


OFFICERS and COUNCIL for the SESSION 1919-1920. 


President, 
ComMMANDER JAMES J. WALKER, M.A., R.N., F.LS. 


Vice=Presidents, 


C. J. GAHAN, M.A., D.Sc. 
G. A. K. MARSHALL, D.Sc. F.ZS. 
Tue Rey. F. D. MORICE, M.A., F.Z.S. 


Treasurer, 
W. G. SHELDON, F.Z.S. 


Secretarics. 


THe Rev. GEORGE WHEELER, M.A., F.Z.S. 
S. A. NEAVE, M.A., D.Sc., F.Z,8. 


Wibrarian. 
GEORGE CHARLES CHAMPION, F.Z.S., A.L.S. 


Otber Members of Council. 


E. C. BEDWELL. 
G. T. BETHUNE-BAKER. 
K. G. BLAIR, B.Sc. 
M. CAMERON, M.B., R.N. 
>W. C. CRAWLEY, B.A. 


<~ J. HARTLEY DURRANT. 


SO 


H. ELTRINGHAM, M.A., D.Sc., F.Z.S. 
A. D. IMMS, M.A., D.Sc., F.L.S. 
H. E. PAGE. 


Resident Librarian. 
GEORGE BETHELL, F.R.Hisz-.S. 


Ava») 
Trustees of the Society. 


PROF. W. BATESON. 
THE HON. N. CHARLES ROTHSCHILD. 
THE RT. HON. LORD WALSINGHAM. 


Business and Publications Committee. 


ROBERT ADKIN. 

G. T. BETHUNE-BAKER. 

JOHN HARTLEY DURRANT. 

THE REV. F. D. MORICE. 

And the Executive Officers of the Council. 


British Mational Committee of Entomological Momenclature. 


G. T. BETHUNE-BAKER. 

DR. C. J. GAHAN. 

DR. K. JORDAN. 

L; BaPROUT. 

THE REV. GEORGE WHEELER. 
JOHN HARTLEY DURRANT, Secretary. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

List of Fellows — ... ais “a oi at fae ale ( ix ) 

Additions to the Libr ary. ae kc hee a = Bat (ERX XL) 

List of Benefactious 5H aes on ae as 365 eee ey (lw) 
MEMOTRS. 

PAGE 

I. Butterfly Vision. By H. Errrincuam, M.A., D.Sc., F.Z.8. ... 1 


Il. The synonymy and types of certain genera of Hymenoptera, 
especially of those discussed by the Rey. F. D. Morice and 
Mr. Jno. Hartley Durrant in connection with the long- 
forgotten “Erlangen List” of Panzer and Jurine. By 
J. CHESTER BRADLEY, M.S., Pu.D., Assistant Professor of 
Systematic Entomology in Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. 
Communicated by C. Gorpon Hewirt, D.X&c. 50 


III. A Migration of Yellow Butterflies aa aaa sativa) in 
Trinidad, By C. B. Wirtiams, M.A. 76 


IV. Note on Bonelli’s “ Tableau Synoptique.” By H.E.ANDREWES 89 


V. Notes on the Ancestry of the Diptera, Hemiptera and other 
Insects related to the Veuroptera. By G. Cuesrer CraMp- 
Ton, PH.D. Communicated by G. T. BrrxHune- ey 
F. nee F.Z.S8. me 880 2 cf ac. UB: 


Vi. On the types of Oriental Carabidae in the British Museum, 
and in the spel Department of the Oxford University 


Museum. By H. E. ANDREWES es 119 
VII. “he British Species of Andrena and Nomada. By R. C. L. 
Perkins, M.A., D.8c., etc. ate a6 ane ae oa. ols 


VIII. Nees on the Exotic Proctotrupoidea in the British and Oxford 
Tniversity Museums, with Descriptions of New Genera and 
Svecies. By Aran P. Dopp. Communicated Ee 52 A. 
Neave, D.Sc. Bee se 23 re . d2l 


IX. The scent-scale of bdivanter ya liliana Gr. Smith. By F. A. 
Dizey, M.A., M.D., F.R.S., Subwarden of Wadham College, 
Ox'ord ote oe 383 


X. A new Hydroptila. By} MarTIN HE, Mosery ... + oa OO 


XI. Scent-ergans in the Genus Pp ahe st (Mrichopter By 
Martin E. MosEry ah .- 9393 


XII. The Male Abdominal se and ree ue of Habrocerus 
capiliaricornis Grav. LO ee Nie amenel Py 
Freprrick Muir . 398 


( viii ) 


PAGE 

XIII. On the Mechanism of the Male Genital Tube in Colour 
By Freperick Muir _... 404 

XIV. A New Family of ai oh the Anthelidae. by A. JEFFERIS 
TurRNER, M.D. ep 415 

XV. On the Histology of the Scent-organs in the Genus peer drop 
Dal. By H. Evrrineuam, M.A., D.Sc., F.Z.8. 420 

XVI. New Moths collected by Mons. A. Avinorr in W. Turkestan 

and Kashmir during his journeys in 1909-1912. By Sir 

GEORGE F. Hampson, Bart. Communicated by J. HartTiey 
DURRANT ... aes tee ane acc “Se ee 431 

XVII. Cocoon Softening in some Agrotids ae By tty ae 
CuHaprmaNn, M.D., F.RB.S. ... eee 435 

XVIII. Notes on Lycaena alcon F., as reared in 1918-1919. oe AD AL. 
CuapMman, M.D.,F.R.S. ... 443 

XIX. Contributions to the Life History of Fycaena ephems Hb. 
By T. A. Coapman, M.D., F.R.S 450 
Addendum to Dr. CuEstER CRAMPTON’s paper... ee 2. | 466 


Addendum to Mr. H. E. AnprEwes’ Note on Bonelli’s 
“Tableau Synoptique” ... Se es sbi ae «-- 467 


Proceedings for 1919 __... ioe bsg oy ay a we 1-1 xxviii 
Annual Meeting ... sas ee aan Acie ase cine aut )xxix 
Balance: Sheet... hae sp ee is axe ac oe lxxxv 
President’s Address ah ie ee. be ee oe Bee lxxxix 
General Index... ahi ey nae ak ee =e B44 cXVill 
Special Index ee aes ves ase bss z& vat ae exxiil 
Errata eas Boke <f nent fe ccs es ies ays cee exlil 


EXPLANATION OF PLATES, TRANSACTIONS. 


Plates I-V See page 49 Plate XX See page / 402 
Plates VI-X a 88 Plate XXI a 413 
Plates XI-XV Att SG’ Pinte Seedy , eee 
Plate XVI * $88 ‘Plates XXIII-XXvilI 7” / 448 
Plate XVII ” - 392-s«Plates KXXIX-XXXVI 7/ 465 
Plates XVII-X1X NE 
PROCEEDINGS. 
Plate A. See page xv. 
Plate B. mi xlv. 


Sketch Map = Ixxxix. 


( ix ) 


ist of Fellows 


OF THE 


ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON. 


HONORARY FELLOWS. 


Date of 
Election. 


1900 Aurivinitus, Professor Christopher, Stockholm. 

1915 Berrwiesy, Professor Antonio, via Romana, 19, Firenze, Italy. 

1905 Botivar, Ignacio, Museo wacional de Historia natural, Hipodromo, 
17, Madrid. 

1911 Comstock, Prof. J. H., Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A. 

1894 Foret, Professor Auguste, M.D., Yvorne, Canton de Vand, 
Switzerland. 

1898 Grassi, Professor Battista, The University, Rome. 

1915 Howarp, Dr. L. O., National Museum, Washington, U.S.A. 

1914 Lameere, Professor A., 74, rue Defarg, Bruxelles. 

1918 Marcuat, Dr. Paul, President of the Entomological Society of 
France, 45, rwe de Verriéres, Antony, Seine, France. 

1908 OsbeERTHUR, Charles, Rennes, Ille-et-Vilaine, France. 

1913 Tran-SHanski, A. P. Semenoff, Vassili Ostrov, 8 lin., 39, Petrograd, 
Russia. 

1911 Wasmayy, Fr. Erich, 8.J., Valkenburg (L.) Ignatius Kolleg, Holland. 


SPECIAL LIFE FELLOWS. 


Date of 
Election. 


1916 (1894) Mratnt, Louis Compton, F.R.S., (Councrt, 1903, 1908), 
Norton Way N., Letchworth. 

1916 (1888) YreRBuRyY, Colonel John W., late R.A., F.Z.S., (Councit, 
1896, 1903-5), 2, Ryder-street, St. James's, 8. W. 


FELLOWS. 
(The names of those who have not yet paid either the Entrance Fee or 
the first year’s subscription are not included.) 
Marked * have died during the year. 
Marked + have compounded for their Annual Subseriptions. 
Marked t¢ have signed the Obligation Book (to Dec. 1919). 
Marked || have ceased to be Fellows during the year. 


Date of 
Election 


1914 7 Aparr, E. W., B.A., Turf Club, Cairo, Egypt. 
1913 ¢ Avams, B. G., 15, Fernshaw-roud, Chelsea, 8. W. 


eS) 


1877 { Apams, Frederick Charlstrom, F.Z.S., 28, Montague Mansions, 
Portman-square, W. 1. 

1902 ADKIN, Benaiah Whitley, Trenoweth, Hope-park, Bromley, Kent. 

1885 { ADKIN, Robert, (CounciL, 1901-2, 1911-13), Hodeslea, Meads, 
Hastbowrne. 

1912 Aten, J. W., M.A., 266, Wiliesden-lane, London, N.W. 2. 

1911 AwnpeErson, T. J., Entomological Laboratory, Kabeti, Brit. H. Africa. 

1919¢{ANDREWES, Christopher Howard, 1, North-grove, Highgate, N. 6. 

19107¢ANDREwES, H. E., 8, North-grove, Highgate, N. 6. 

1899 { AnDREws, Henry W., Woodside, Victoria-road, Eltham, S.E. 9. 

1901 ¢ Annine, William, 39, Lime Street, E.C. 3. 

1908 { AnTtRAM, Charles B., Somerdale Estate, Ootacamund, Nilgiri Hills, 
S. India. 

1913 ¢ ArmyracE, Edward O., Ingleby, Armytage, Victoria, Australia. 

1907 ¢ ArNoxD, G., M.Sc., A.R.C.S., Curator, Rhodesia Museum, Bulawayo, 
S. Africa. 

1899}{ARRow, Gilbert J., (Councit, 1905-7), 9, Rossdale-road, Putney, 
S.W. 15 ; and British Musewm (Natural History), Cromwell-road, 
Se WaT 

1911} Asupy, Edward Bernard, 36, Bulstrode-road, Hounslow, Middlesex. 

19077 {AsHpy, Sidney R., 39, Park-lane, Wembley, Middlesex. 

1886 Armorg, E. A., 48, High-street, King’s Lynn. 

1913 Avinorr, André, Liteyny, 12, Petrograd, Russia. 

1914 Awarti, P. R., Medical Entomologist, c/o Grindlay & Co., Bankers, 
26, Westmorland-street, Calcutta. 


1901 ¢ Bacot, Arthur W., (Counotn, 1916-18), York Cottage, York-ill, 
Loughton, Essex. 

1904}£BaGnatt, Richard §., Penshaw Lodge, Penshaw, Durham. 

1909 + Bacweti-Pureroy, Capt. Edward, Hast Farleigh, Maidstone. 

1916  Batrour, Miss Alice, 4, Carlton-gardens, 8.W., and Whittingehame, 
Prestonkirk, Scotland. 

1912 Batiarp, Edward, Govt. Entomologist, Agricultural College and 
Research Institute, Coimbatore, Madras, S. India. 

1886 { Banxes, Eustace R., M.A. 

1890 Barcuay, Francis H., F.G.8., The. Warren, Cromer. 

1886 Bareaeui, Marchese Piero, Piazza S. Maria, Palazzo Tempi No. 1, 
Florence, Italy. 

1895 Barker, Cecil N., 81, Bellevue-road, Durban, Natal, South 
Africa. 

1902 { BarrauD, Philip J., Chester Cottage, Benhill-road, Sutton, Surrey. 

1907 { Barrierr, H. Frederick D., 1, Myrtle-road, Bowrnemouth. 

1894+¢Bareson, Prof. William, M.A., F.R.S., Fellow of St. John’s College, 
Cambridge, The Manor House, Merton, Surrey. 

1908 Bayrorp, E. G., 2, Rockingham-street, Barnsley. 

1904 Bayne, Arthur F., c/o Messrs, Freeman, Castle-street, /ramlingham, 
Suffolk. . 


( ab ) 


1912 ¢ Baynes, Edward Stuart Augustus, 120, Warwick-street, Eccleston- 
square, S.W. 1. 

1896{BeaRrE, Prof. T. Hudson, B.Sc, F.R.S.E., (V.-Pres., 1910; 
CounciL, 1909-11), 10, Regent Terrace, Edinburgh. 

1908 ¢ Beck, Richard, Heckitt, The Park, Yeovil. 

1905 Berprorp, The Duke of, K.G., Pres. Z.8., etc., Wobwrn Abbey, Beds. 

1912 Beprorp, Gerald, Entomologist to the Union of South Africa, 
Veterinary Bacteriological Laboratory, Ondestepoort, Pretoria, 
Transvaal. 

1913 BrEprorp, Capt. Hugh Warren, Church Felles, Horley. 

1899 { BepwELL, Ernest C., (Councin, 1917-19), Bruggen, Brighton-road, 
Coulsdon, Surrey. 

1914 || BenpERirrer, Eugéne, 11, Rue St. Jacques, Le Mans, France. 

1904 Brnersson, Simon, Ph.D., Lecturer, University of Lund, Sweden ; 
Curator, Entomological Collection of the University. 

1915 Benunam, Prof. William Blaxland, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S., University 
of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. 

1906 ¢ Benratt, E. E., The Towers, Heybridge, Essex. 

1913 ¢ Best-GarDNER, Charles C., Rookwood, Neath, Glamorgan. 

1885 + BeraunE-BakeER, George T., F.LS., F.Z.8., (PreEs., 1913-14; 
V.-Pres., 1910-11, 1915; Councrt, 1895, 1910-15, 1919- ), 
19, Clarendon-road, Edgbaston, Birmingham. 

1918 Brveriper, Col. W. W. O., C.B., D.S.0., R.A.M.C., c/o J. H. 
Durrant, Esq., Natural History Musewm, Cromwell-road, 8. 
Kensington, S.W. 7. 

1891 { Buaser, W. H., F.L.S., 34, Cromwell-road, Hove, Brighton. 

1904 ¢ Brack, James E., F.L.S., Nethercroft, Peebles. 

1904 ¢ Buair, Kenneth G., (Councin, 1918- ), Claremont, 120, Sunning- 

fields-road, Hendon, N.W. 4. 

1885*}Biatuwayt, Lt.-Col. Linley, F.L.S., Hagle House, Batheaston, Bath. 

1904 ¢ Briss, Maurice Frederick, M.C., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., 130, High 
Town-road, Luton, Beds. 

1916 ¢ Bocock, Charles Hanslope, The Elms, Ashley, Newmarket. 

1912 Bopkxtn, G. C., Govt. Entomologist, Georgetown, British Guiana. 

1903 ' Bogus, W. A., The Bank House, Watchet. 

1911 Borrav, H., 99, Rue de la Cote St. Thibault, Bois de Colombes, 
Seine, France. 

1891 Booru, George A., F.Z.S.,M.B.0.U., The Hermitage, Kirkham, Lanes. 

1902 ¢ Bostock, E. D., Oulton Cross, Stone, Staffs. 

1913 Bowater, Captain William, 20, Russell-road, Moseley, Birmingham. 

1888 { Bownr, Benjamin A.,- Langley, Willow Grove, Chislehurst. 

1894+¢Bow ts, E. Augustus, M.A., Myddelton House, Waltham Cross. 

1912 + Bowrtna, C. Talbot, Hoithow, Hainan, S. China. 

1919 ¢ Box, Lieut. L. A., 35, Great James-street, W.C. 1. 

1916 Box, Leonard Charles, F.R.H.S., Dominion Experimental Station, 
Fredericton, New Brunswick. 

1910 Boyp, A. Whitworth, Frandley House, nr. Northwich. 


(i xa 1) 


1905 Bracken, Charles W., B.A., 5, Carfrae Terrace, Lipson, Plymouth. 

1919 Brapury, Prof. J. Chester, M.Sc., Asst. Prof. of Systematic 
Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A. 

1917 Breiger, Dr. H. G., Ph.D., Director of the Transvaal Museum, 
Pretoria, Transvaal, S. Africa. 

1870 { Briaes, Thomas Henry, M.A., Rock House, Lynmouth S.0.,N.Devon. 

1894 { Bricut, Percy M., Cheriton, 26, Portchester-road, Bournemouth. 

1909 Brirren, Harry, 22, Birch-grove, Levenshulme, Manchester. 

1902 { Broueuron, Major T. Delves, R.E., Mhow, India. 

1878 * Broun, Major Thomas, Chev. Legion of Honour, Mount Albert, 
Auckland, New Zealand. 

1904 { Brown, Henry H., Tower House, 8, Bruntsfield-terrace, Edinburgh. 

1919 Brown, James Meikle, B.Sc., F.1.S., F.C.S., 176, Carterknowle-road, 
‘Millhouses, Sheffield. 

1910 Browne, Horace B., M.A., Kenilworth, Scratcherd- eine Morley, 
Yorks. 

1911 Brurzer, Rev. Henry W., Upton Vicarage, Peterborough. 

1909 { Bryant, Gilbert E., 89, Westbowrne-terrace, Hyde Park, W. 2. 

1898 + BucHan-Hepporn, Sir Archibald, Bart., J.P., D.L., Smeaton- 
Hepburn, Prestonkirk. 

1917 Buckury, Dr. George Granville, M.D., F.S.A., Rye Croft South, 
Manchester-road, Bury, Lanes. 

1919 Buckuourst, A. 8., 9, Sowldern-road, W. 14. 

1916 Buenton, Prof. E., La Luciole, Aix-en-Provence, France. 

1907 Bute, Arthur, F.S.A., Wimboro, Midsomer Norton, Somer'setshire. 

1919 ¢ Bunnert, E. J., M.A., 9, London-road, Forest Hill, 8.E. 23. 

1896+ ¢BuRrR, Malcolm, D.Sc., F.LS., F.Z.S., F.G.S., A.R.S.M., (V.-Prezs., 
1912 ; Councin, 1903, 4, 1910-12), United University Club, Pall 
Mall East, 8.W. 1. 

1909 { Burrows, The Rey. C. R. N., The Vicarage, Mucking, Stanford-le- 
Hope, Essex. 

1868} {BourLer, Arthur G., Ph.D., F.L.8., F.Z.8., (Src., 1875; Counc, 
1876), The Lilies, Beckenham-road, Beckenham. 

1883 { Borner, Edward Albert, B.A., B.Se., (Councrn, 1914-16), 14, 
Drylands-road, Hornsey, N. 8. 

1902 { Burier, William E., Hayling House, Oxford-road, Reading. 

1905 + BurrERFIELD, Jas. A., B.Sc., Ormesby, 21, Dorville-road, Lee, S.E. 

1914 + BurreRFIELD, Rosse, Curator, Corporation Museum, Keighley, Yorks. 

1912}{Buxton, Patrick Alfred, M.B.0.U., Fairhill, Tonbridge; and 
Trinity College, Cambridge. 

1904 { Byarr, Sir Horace A., K.C.M.G., B.A. Government House, Dar-es- 
Salaam, E. Africa. 


1917 Cameron, Dr. Alfred E., M.A., D.Sc., University of Saskatchewan, 
Saskatown, Canada. 

1902 { CamEROoN, Surgeon-Commander Malcolm, M.B., R.N., (Counci, 
1919-  ), 7, Blessington-road, Lee, 5.E. 


© “xiii '}) 


1885 CampsBenL, Francis Maule, F.L.8., F.Z.S., ete, Kilronan, S. 
Nutfield, Surrey. 

1898 CanprzE, Léon, Mont St. Martin 75, Liege. 

1880 CanspaLE, W. D., Sunny Bank, South Norwood, S.E. 25. 

1889 ¢ Cant, A., 33, Festing-road, Putney, 8.W. 15. 

1910 Carter, E. Wace, M.D., F.R.S.E., Morningside, Granville-road, 
Dorridge, and The University, Birmingham. 

1892 + CarpenteR, The Honble. Mrs. Beatrice, 22, Grosvenor-road, 
S.W.1. 

1919 Carpenter, Cyril F., 7, Cranbrook-road, Redlands, Bristol. 

1910 CarPEnTER, Geoffrey D. H., D.M., B.Ch., c/o Prof. Poulton, 
University Musewm, Oxford. 

1895 { Carpenter, Prof. George H., B.A., D.Sc., Royal College of Science, 
Dublin. 

1898 { Carpenter, J. H., Redcot, Belmont-road, Leatherhead, 

1915 Carr, Professor John Wesley, M.A., F.L.S., F.G.S., Professor of 
Biology, University College, Nottingham. 

1915 Carr, William, B.Sc., Station-road, Bentham, Lancaster. 

1911 * Carson, George Moffatt, Entomologist to the Government of New 
Guinea, Port Moresby, Papua, vid Australia. 

1895 Carter, Sir Gilbert, K.C.M.G., Greycliffe, Lower Warberry-road, 
Torquay. 

1912 Carrer, Henry Francis, Assistant Lecturer and Demonstrator in 
Medical and Economic Entomology, Liverpool School of Tropical 
Medicine, University of Liverpool. 

1906 ¢ Carter, H. J., B.A., Garrawillah, Kintore-street, Wahroonga, 
Sydney, N.S.W. 

1900 Carter, J. W., 15, Westfield-road, Heaton, Bradford. 

1889}{Cave, Charles J. P., Ditcham Park, Petersfield. 

1900 CHAMBERLAIN, Neville, Westbourne, Edgbaston, Birmingham. 

1871 { Campion, George C., F.Z.S., A.L.S., Liprartan, 1891— (Councit, 
1875-7); Heatherside, Horsell, Woking; and 45, Pont-street, 
mete ke 

1914+ CHampion, Harry George, B.A., Assistant Conservator of Forests, 
W. Almora, U.P., India. 

1891 { CHapman, Thomas Algernon, M.D., F.R.S., F.Z.S., (V.-PREs., 1900, 
1904-5, 1908, 1916-17 ; CouncrL, 1898-1900, 1903-5, 1907-9, 
1916-18), Betula, Reigate. 

1919 CHarreRJEE, Nibaran Chandra, B.Se., Forest Research Institute, 
Dehra Dun, United Provinces, India. 

1897 { CHawner, Miss Ethel F., Forest Bank, Lyndhurst S.0., Hants. 

1913 ¢ CuEavin, Capt. W. H.S., F.C.S., F.R.M.LS., F.N.P.S., Demonstrator, 
Chemistry Dept., Middlesex Medical College, Middlesex Hospital 
Medical School, W. 1. 

1919 CuHrEEsMAN, Miss L. Evelyn, Entomological Dept., a gical Society, 
Regent's Park, N.W. 8 

1889 Curisty, William M.,-M.A., F.L.S., Watergate, Hmsworth. 


C giv. \) 


1914 Curystat, R. Neil, B.Sc., 277, First-avenue, Ottawa, Canada. 

1909 Ctark, Lt.-Col. C. Turner, F.Z.S., Hillcrest, St. Augustine’s-avenue, 
S. Croydon. 

1908 Curark, Edgar L., 34, Smith-street, Durban, Natal. 

1914 Crearen, IL. D., Dept. of Science and Agriculture, Georgetown, 
British Guiana. 

1914 CreGHoRN, Miss Maude Lina West, F.L.S., 14, Alipore-road, 
Calcutta, India. 

1908 CxLurreRBucK, Charles G., Heathside, 23, Heathville-road, Gloucester. 

1908 Cx3urrERBucK, P. H., Indian Forest Department, Naini Tal, United 
Provinces, India. 

1904 ¢ Cockayng, Edward A., M.A., M.D., F.R.C.P., (Councim, 1915-18), 
65, Westbourne-terrace, W. 2. 

1917 CockrretL, Prof. T. D. A., University of Colorado, Boulder, 
Colorado, U.S.A. 

1917 ¢ Cocks, Frederick, 26, Crown-street, Reading. 

1914 Coneman, Leslie C., Dept. of Agriculture, Bangalore, Mysore, 
India. 

1899 t Cottin, James I., F.Z.S., (V.-PRes., 1913; Councin, 1904-6, 
1913-15), Sussex Lodge, Newmarket. 

1906 Coxtiner, Walter E., D.Sc. (St. And.), M.Sc. (Birm.), F.LS., 
Research Fellow of the University of St. Andrews, The Gatty 
Marine Laboratory, St. Andrews, Scotland. 

1918 Comstock, Dr. John Adams, c/o the South-Western Museum, 
Marmion-way and Avenue, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. 

1913 ¢ Conny, Miss Blanche A., The Poplars, Pucklechurch, Gloucestershire. 

1919 ConsTaBLE, Miss Florence B., 17, Colville Mansions, W. 11. 

1919 ¢ Corser, H. H., 3, Thorne-road, Doncaster. 

1916 CornrorD, The Rev. Bruce, 18, Havelock-road, Portsmouth. 

1911 Corron, Sidney Howard, 14, Chesterfield-street, Mayfair, W. 1. 

1913 Cowarp, Thomas Alfred, F.Z.S., 36, George-street, Manchester. 

1895 CraprrEE, Benjamin Hill, Holly Bank, Alderley Edge, Cheshire. 

1913 Craae, Capt. F. W., M.D., LM.S., Central Research Institute, 
Kasauli, Punjaub, India. 

1919 Crampton, Prof. E. Chester, Massachusetts Agricultwral College, 
Amherst, Mass., U.S.A. 

1909 ¢ Crawieny, W. C., B.A. (Counc, 1917-19), 29, Holland Park-road, 
W. 4. 


1890 Crewe, Sir Vauncey Harpur, Bart., Calke Abbey, Derbyshire. 

1880*}+Crisp, Sir Frank, LL.B., B.A., J.P. 

1907 Crorr, Edward Octavius, M.D., 12, North Hill-road, Headingley, 
Leeds. 

1908 Cunprin, Millais, M.B., F.R.C.S., Stydersgate, Loughton, Essex. 

1919 ¢Cummrine, Bernard Douglas, Royal Hauchange Assurance, Royal 
Exchange, E.C. 3. 

1908 Curtis, W. Parkinson, Drake North, Sandringham -road, Parkstone, 
Dorset. 


( xv ) 


1901 { Dapp, Edward Martin. 

1900 DaterisH, Andrew Adie, 7, Keir-street, Pollokshields, Glasgow. 

1886 { Dannart, Walter, St. Lawrence, Guibal-road, Lee, 8.E. 

1911 Davey, H. W., Inspector of Department of Agriculture, Melbourne, 
Victoria, Australia* 

1912 Davipson, James, M.Sc., Institute of Plant Pathology, Rotham- 
sted, Harpenden, Herts. 

1905 Davipson, James D., 32, Drumsheugh Gardens, Edinburgh. 

1912 Davis, Frederick Lionel, J.P., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., Belize, British 
Honduras. 

1910 ¢ Dawson, William George, 44, London-road, Bromley, Kent. 

1903 Day, F. H., 26, Currock-terrace, Carlisle. — 

1898 Day, G. O., Sahlatston, Duncan’s Station, Vancower Island, British 
Columbia. 

1917 ¢ DicksEx, Arthur, 24, Lyford-road, Wandsworth Common, 8.W. 18. 

1875 ¢ Distant, William Lucas, (V.-Pres., 1881, 1900; Src, 1878- 
80; Councin, 1900-2), Glenside, 170, Birchanger-road, South 
Norwood, 8.E. 25. 

1887 { Drxey, Frederick Augustus, M.A., M.D., F.R.S., Fellow and Bursar 
of Wadham College, (PrEs., 1909-10; V.-Prus., 1904-5, 1911; 
CounciL, 1895, 1904-6), Wadham College, Oxford. 

1909 + Dosson, Thomas, 33, The Park, Sharples, nr. Bolton. 

1905 Dopp, Frederick P., Kuranda, vid Cairns, Queensland. 

1912 + Dore, Major Kenneth Alan Crawford, R.A.M.C., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., 
Hook Heath, Woking. 

1906 * DoLLMAN, Hereward, Hove House, Newton-grove, Bedford-park, W. 4. 

1906 ~ Doncaster, Leonard, M.A., The University Museum of Zoology, 
Cambridge. 

1891 { DonisrHorrE, Horace St. John K., F.Z.8., (V.-Pres., 1911; 
Councin, 1899-1901, 1910-12), Dwrandesthorpe, 19, Hazlewell- 
road, Putney, S.W. 15. 

1913 ¢ Dow, Walter James, 5, Great College-street, Westminster, S.W. 1. 

1910 Dowyes-SHaw, Rev. Archibald, Scotton Rectory, Gainsborough. 

1884 + Drucr, Hamilton H. C. J., F.Z.S. (Councizt, 1903-5), 26, South 
Hill Park, Hampstead, N.W. 3. 

1900 Drury, W. D., Clarendon, Laton-road, Hastings. 

1894 Duperon, G. C., 1, Zetland House, Cheniston-gardens, Kensington, 
W. 8. 

1913 Durrienp, Charles Alban William, Stowting Rectory, Hythe, and 
Wye College, Kent. . 

1906 { DuxryFieLp Jongs, E., Custro, Reigate. 

1883 £ Durrant, John Hartley, (V.-PREs., 1912-13; Counctn, 1911-13, 
1919— ), Merton, 17, Burstock-road, Putney, S.W. 15; and British 
Musewm (Natural History), Cromavell-road, S. Kensington, S.W. 7. 


1910 ¢ Kaues-Wurre, Capt. J. Cushny, 49, Chester-tervace, Eaton-sq., S.W.1. 
1912 $ Kart, Herbert L., M.A., 12, Avondale-road North, Southport, Lancs. 


(‘awa’) 


1865 { Eaton, The Rev. Alfred Edwin, M.A., (Counctt, 1877-9), Rich- 
mond Villa, Northam S.0., N. Devon. 

1902 ¢ EpetstEn, Hubert M., The Elms, Forty Hill, Enfield, Middlesex. 

1919 Epwarpes, Capt. Tickner, R.A.M.C., The Red Cottage, Burpham, 
Arundel, Sussex. 

1911 { Epwarps, F. W., 56, Norton-road, Letchworth. 

1886 Epwarps, James, Colesborne, Cheltenham. 

1884 + Epwarps, Stanley, F.L.S., F.Z.S. (Counc, 1912-14), 15, St. 
Germans-place, Blackheath, 8.E. 3. 

1913 Epwarps, William H., Natural History Dept., The Museum, 
Birmingham. 

1916 t EFFALATOUN, Hassan, Shoubrah-avenue, Cairo, Egypt. 

1900 ¢ Exniorr, E. A., 41, Chapel Park-road, St. Leonards-on-Sea. 

1900 ¢ Exuis, H. Willoughby, F.Z.S. (Councm, 1916-18), 3, Lancaster- 
place, Belsize Park, N.W. 3. 

1919 Eston, Albert H., Delemont, Childers-street, N. Adelaide, 
Australia. 

1903 { ErrrineHAM, Harry, M.A., D.Sc., F.Z.S. (V.-Prus., 1914, 1918 ; 
CounciL, 1913-15, 1918- _), Woodhouse, Stroud, Gloucestershire , 
and Hope Department, University Museum, Oxford. 

1878 Etwes, Henry John, J.P., F.R.S., F.LS., F.Z.S. (Pres., 1893-4 ; 
V.-PREs., 1889-90, 1892, 1895 ; CounciL, 1888-90), Colesborne, 
Cheltenham. 

1903 Erxerrings, Robert, Curator, Australian Museum, Sydney, N.S.W. 

1908 Eustace, Eustace Mallabone, M.A., Wellington College, Berks. 

1919 Evans, Lt.-Col. Wm. Henry, D.S.0., R.E., c/o Messrs. Cox & Co., 
16, Charing Cross, W.C, 2. 


1919 Fauconer, William, Wilberlee, Slaithwaite, Huddersfield. 

1907 Fraruer, Walter, Kibwezi, British Hast Africa. 

1900+ FerrHam, H. L. L., Mercantile Buildings, Swmmonds-street, 
Johannesburg, Transvaal. 

1861 t Fenn, Charles, Hversden House, Burnt Ash Hill, Lee, 8.E. 12. 

1910 Fernyrs, A., M.D., 170, North Grange Grove-Avenue, Pasadena, 
California, U.S.A. 

1918 Frrauson, Anderson, 22, Polworth-gardens, Glasgow, W. 

1889 FERNALD, Prof.C. H., c/o H.T. Fernald, Esq., Amherst, Mass., U.S.A. 

1900 Firs, J. Digby, F.L.S., Boys’ Modern School, Leeds. 

1900 || FLemyna, The Rev. Canon W. Westropp, M.A., Coolfin, Portlaw, co. 
Waterford. 

1898 ¢ FiercueER, Prof. T. Bainbrigge, R.N., Agricultural Research Institute, 
Pusa, Bihar, India. 

1883 + Frercumr, William Holland B., M.A., Aldwick Manor, Bognor. 

1905 FrorrsHErm, Cecil, 16, Kensington Court Mansions, 8.W. 

1885 Foxxer, A. J. F., Zierikzee, Zeeland, Netherlands. 

1914 ForpHam, William John, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., 20, Spring View- 
road, Sheffield. 


( iiavn 9) 


1913 Foster, Arthur H., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P.(Eng.), M.B.0.U., Sussex 
House, Hitchin, Herts. 

1900 Fourkss, P. Hedworth, B.Sc., Harper-Adams Agricullural College, 
Newport, Salop. 

1898 ¢ Founrainn, Miss Margaret, 804, lizabeth-street, Paradeua, 
California, U.S.A. 

1880 ¢ Fowner, The Rev. Canon, D.Sc., M.A., F.L.S., (Pres., 1901-2 ; 
V.-Pres., 1903 ; Suc., 1886-96), Harley Vicarage, near Reading. 

1908 Frassr, Frederick C., Capt., M.D., I.M.S., Bombay Natural History 
Society, 6, Apollo-street, Bombay, India. 

1896 FreEKr, Percy Evans, Southpoint, Limes-road, Folkestone. 

1888 ¢ Fremury, H. Stuart, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., Markwith, Nether-street, 
North Finchley. 

1910 ¢ Frissy, G. E., 31, Darnley-roud, Gravesend. 

1908 Frogcart, Walter W., F.L.S., Government Entomologist, Agri- 
cultural Musewm, George-strect North, Sydney, New Sowh 
Wales. 

1891 ¢ Fronawk, F. W., Uplands, Thundersby, Essex. 

1906*}F ry, Harold Armstrong, P.O. Box 46, Johannesburg, Transvaal. 

1900 ¢ FryEr, H. Fortescue, The Priory, Chatteris, Cambs. 

1907 ¢ Fryer, John Claud Fortescue, M.A. (Councin, 1916-18), Board 
of Agriculture and Fisheries, 4, Whitehall-place, 8.W. 1. 

1876+ Funter, The Rev. Alfred, M.A., The Lodge, 7, Sydenham-hill, 
Sydenham, 8.1, 26. 

1898 || FuLiur, Claude, Government Entomologist, Pietermaritzburg, Natal. 


1887 +GanHan, Charles Joseph, M.A., D.Sc., Vick-PRESIDENT (PRES., 
1917-18; V.-PreEs., 1916; Skc., 1899-1900; Councin, 1893-5, 
1901,1914-19), 8, Lonsdale-road, Bedford Park, W.4; and British 
Museum (Natural History), Cromwell-road, 8.W.7. 

1890 Garpyer, John, Laurel Lodge, Hart, West Hartlepool. 

_1901F+¢GarpnNER, Willoughby, F.LS., F.S.A., Deganwy, N. Wales. 

1913 ¢ pe Gays, J. A., King’s College, Lagos, S. Nigeria. 

1919 { Gepyr, Alfred Francis John, P.O. Box 216, Nairoli, British East 
Africa. 

1899 ¢ GetparRt, William Martin, M.A., 10, Chadlington-road, Oxford. 

1913 ¢ Gres, Lachlan, 38, Blackheath Park, Blackheath, S.E. 3. 

1915 Grpson, Arthur, Entomological Branch, Dept. of Agriculture, 

Ottawa, Canada. 

1908 GirraRD, Walter M., P.0. Box 308, Honolulu, Hawaii. 

1907 Gites, Henry Murray, Head Keeper of Zoological Gardens, South 
Perth, W. Australia. 

1904+ Ginur1atT, Francis, B.A., Windham Club, St. James’s-square, 
Piccadilly, S.W. 1. 

1919 GimineHamM, Conrad Theodore, O.B.E., F.1.C., Lynwood, Long 
Ashton, Bristol. 

1914 Goprrry, E. J., Education Dept., Bangkok, Siam. 

b 


(pew?) 


1865*}GopMaN, Frederick Du Cane, D.C.L., F.R.S., F.L.S., F.Z.S, (PRES., 
1891-2; V.-Prus., 1882-3, 1886, 1889-90, 1902 ; CouncIL, 1880-1, 
1900), South Lodge, Lower Beeding, Horsham ; and 45, Pont- 
street, S.W. 

1904 Goopwin, Edward, Canon Court, Wateringbury, Kent. 

1898 { Gorpon, J. G. McH., Corsemalzie, Whauphill S.O., Wigtownshire. 

1898 t Gorpon, R. S. G. McH., Drumblair, Inverness. 

1855 Goruam, The Rev. Henry Stephen, F.Z.S., (Counctn, 1882-3), High- 
croft, Great Malvern. 

1913 Gouen, Lewis, Ph.D., Entomologist to the Govt. of Egypt, Dept. of 
Agriculture, Cuiro. 

1909 Gowpbey, Carlton C., B.Se., Biological Laboratory, P.O. Box. 5, 
Kampala, Uganda, E. Africa. 

1918 Gracnr, George, B.Sc., A.R.C.Sc., 23, Alexander crescent, Ilkley, 
Yorks. 

1914 Gravetry, F. H., The Indian Musewm, Calcutta. 

1911 { Graves, Major P. P., Turf Club, Cairo, Egypt. 

189i¢{GreEEN, E. Ernest, F.Z.S. (V.-Pres., 1915; Councrt, 1914-16), 
Way's End, Beech-avenue, Camberley. 

1910 GREEN, Herbert A., The Central Fire Station, Durban, Natal. 

1894 GreeEN, J. F., F.Z.S., City of London Club, Old Broad-street, H.C. 2. 

1893 | GREENWOOD, Henry Powys, F.L.S., Whitsbury House, Salisbury. 

1888 GrirFitHs, G. C., F.Z.S., Penhurst, 3, Leigh-road, Clifton, Bristol. 

1894 | Grimsuaw, Percy H., Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh. 

1905 Grist, Charles J., The Croft, Curol Green, Berkswill, Coventry. 

1906 GuRNEY, Gerard H., Keswick Hall, Norwich. 

1910 Gurney, William B., Asst. Govt. Entomologist, Department of 
Agriculture, Sydney, Australia. 


1912 Hacker, Henry, Butterfield-street, Bowen Bridge-road, Brisbane, 
Queensland: 

1919 Hapwen, Dr. Seymour, D.Vet.Sci., Biological Central Hxperi- 
mental Farm, Ottawa, Canada. 

1906 { Haun, Arthur, 7, Park-lane-mansions, Croydon. 

1890ttHaun, Albert Ernest, ¢/o City Librarian, Surrey-street, Sheffield. 

1885 { Haut, Thomas William, Wood Grange, Shire-lane, Chorley Wood, 
Herts, 

1912 Hauuerr, ‘Howard Mountjoy, 64, Westbowrne-road, Penarth, 
Glamorganshire. 

1898 || Hamuyn-Harris, R., D.Sc, F.L.S., F.Z.8., F.R.M.S., Director of 
the Queensland Museum, St. Ronans, Wilston, Brisbane, Australia. 

1915 Hamm, Albert Harry, 22, Southfield-road, Oxford. 

1891 ¢ Hansury, Frederick J., F.L.S., Brockhurst, E. Grinstead. 

1905 | Hancock, Joseph L., 5454, University-avenue, Chicago, U.S.A. 

1916 * Hannyneton, Frank, Shorebank, Bognor, Sussex. 

1917 Harpine, William G., Christ Church, Oxford, and Junior Army 
and Navy Club, Whitehall, S.W. 1. 


() xe») 


1903 ¢ Hares, E. J., 4, New-square, Lincoln’s Inn, W.C. 2. 

1904 ¢ Harris, Edward, 58, Wilson-street, Finsbury, H.C. 

1910 ¢ Harwoop, Philip Bernard, 2, Fern Villas, Melford-road, Sudbury. 

1919 Hawker-Surru, William, Speedwell Cottage, Hambledon, Godalming, 
Surrey. 

1910 ¢ Hawxsnaw, J. C. 

1913¢¢Hawksuaw, Oliver, 3, Hill-street, Mayfair, W. 1. 

1919 | Haywarp, H.C., M.A., Repton, Derby. 

1910 ¢ Hepaes, Alfred van der, Stoke House, Stoke Mandeville, Bucks. 

1919 Hemuine, Arthur Francis, Oxford and Cumbridge Club, Pall Mall, 
8.W., and Cambridge Lodge, Horley, Surrey. 

1910 Henperson, J., c/o Messrs. Osborne & Chappel, Ipoh, Perak, 
Federated Malay States. 

1898 Herov, Francis A., B.A., 9, Park House, Highbury Park, N. 5. 

1918 Herrrop-HempsaLh, Joseph, Orchard House, Stockingstone-road, 
Initon, Beds. 

1903 Herrrop-Hempsatt, William, W.B.C. Apiary, Old Bedford-road, 
Luton, Beds. 

1908 Hewrrr, C. Gordon, D.Sc., Dominion Entomologist, Dept. of 
Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada. 

1913 Hewirr, John, B.A., Director, Albany Museum, Grahamstown, 
S. Africa. 

1913 Hint, Gerald F., Veterinary School, University of Melbourne, 
Parkville, Victoria, Australia. 

1876  HittmMan, Thomas Stanton, Hastgate-street, Lewes. 

1907 { Hoar, Thomas Frank Partridge, Mercia, Albany-road, Leighton 
Buzzard. 

1917 Hockin, John W., Castle-street, Launceston. 

1914 Hoper, The Rev. Canon Edward Grose, The Rectory, Birmingham 

1912 Hopes, Harold, 91, Highbury-place, N. 5. 

1888 Hopson, The Rev. J. H., B.A., B.D., Rhyddington, Clifton Drive, 
Lytham. 

1902 Hots, R.S., c/o Messrs. King and Co., Bombay. 

1910 { Hotrorp, H. O., Elstead Lodge, Godalming, Surrey. 

1887 Hottanp, The Rev. W. J., D.D., Ph.D., Carnegie Museum, 
Pittsburgh, Penn., U.S.A. 

1898 Hotman-Hunt, C. B., Asst. Entomologist, Department of Agri- 
culture, Kuala Lumpur, Federated Malay States. 

1910 ¢ Hotes, Edward Morrell, Ruthven, Sevenoaks. 

1901 { Hopson, Montagu F., L.D.S., R.C.S.Eng., F.LS., 7, Harley-street, 
Pe 

1897 Horne, Arthur, Bonn-na-coile, Murtle, Aberdeenshire. 

1919 DE Horrack-Fournier, Mme., 90, Boulevard Malesherbes, Paris, 
and Chateau de Voisins, Louveciennes, Seine et Oise, France. 

1903 Hovuceuron, J. T., 1, Portland-place, Worksop. 

1907 + Howarp, C. W., Canton Christian College, Canton, China. 

1900 Howes, W. George, 259, Cumberland-street, Dunedin, New Zealand. 


( xx ) 


1907 ¢ Howzert, Frank M., M.A., Wymondham, Norfolk. 

1865}+tHupp, A. E., 108, Pembroke-road, Clifton, Bristol. 

1888 Hupson, Geauge Vernon, Hill View, Karori, Wellington, New 
Zealand, 

1919 Huan, Williams, J.P., Tresaison, Cloverdale, British Columbia. 

1907 Huauss, C. N., 178, Clarence Gate-gardens, Regent’s Park, N.W. 1. 

1912 Huir, Miss Lily, Hollywood, Colinton-road, Edinburgh. 

1917 Hunver, David, M.A., M.B., The Coppice, Nottingham. 


1897 ¢ Imaaz, Prof. Selwyn, M.A., (Councit, 1909-11), 78, Parkhurst-road, 
Camden-road, N. 7. 

1912,{Imus, A. D., D.Sc, M.A., F.L.S., (Councin, 1919- ), Rothamsted 
Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts. 

1908 || IrRBy, Col, Leonard Paul, Evington-place, Ashford, Kent. 

1918 Isaacs, P. V., Assistant Het deecient Madras Ag sriculiee College 
and Tsaaeh Institute, ane India. 


1907 Jack, Rupert Wellstood, Government Entomologist, Department 
of Agriculture, Salisbury, Rhodesia. 

1917 ¢ Jackson, Miss Dorothy J., Swordale, Evanton, Ross-shire. 

1907 { Jackson, P. H., 112, Balham-park-road, S.W. 12. 

1911 ¢ Jacons, Major J. J., R.E., Holmesleigh, Burgess Hill, Sussex. 

1910 || Jacoss, Lionel L., c/o Algoma Steel Corporation, Sault Ste. Marie, 
Ontario, Canada. 

1914 Jawnsz, A. J. T., 1st-street, Gezina, Pretoria, 8S. Africa. 

1869 + Janson, Oliver E., 44, Great Russell-street, Bloomsbury, W.C. 1. ; 
and Cestria, Claremont-road, Highgate, N. 6. 

1898 Janson, Oliver J., Cestria, Claremont-road, Highgate, N. 6. 

1912 || Jarpine, Nigel K., The Glenan, Helensburgh, Dumbartonshire. 

1919 Jans, Miss Gertrude M., Penn Court, 54, Cromwell-road, S.W. 7. 

1886 JENNER, James Herbert Augustus, Hast Gate House, Lewes. 

1909 JxEpson, Frank P., Peradeniya, Ceylon. 

1917+ Jermyn, Col. Turenne, Highcliffe, Weston-super-Mare, and 41, 
Norland-square, W. 11. 

1886 JoHN, Evan, Llantrisant S.0., Glamorganshire. 

1907 JoHnson, Charles Fielding, West Bank, Didsbury-road, Heaton 
Mersey. 

1917 JoHNsSON, Jesse, 16 and 17, Marston-road, Stafford. 

1889 Jounson, The Rev. W. F., M.A., Acton Rectory, Poyntz Pass, 
co. Armagh. 

1908 Jotcny, James J., The Hill, Witley, Surrey. 

1888 { Jonzs, Albert H., (V.-PREs., 1912, 1918; TRras.,1904-17; CounciL, 
1898-1900, 1904-1918),. Shrublands, Eltham, 8.E. 9. 

1894¢t¢Jorpan, Dr.. K., (V.-PRes. 1909; Councin, 1909-11), The 
Museum, Tring. 

1910 ¢ Josepn, E, G., 23, Clanricarde-qaitdens, W. 2. 

1910 ¢ Joy, Ernest Cooper, Eversley, Dale-road, Purley. 


( ime) 


1902 t Joy, Norman H., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., Theale, Berks. 
1919 JuRRIAANSE, J. H., Schickade, 75, Rotterdam, Holland. 


1911 Kannan, Kunhi, M.A., Asst. Entomologist to the Govt. of Mysore, 
Bangalore, South India, 

18767 {Kay, John Dunning, Leeds. 

1896 + Kayz, William James, (Councin, 1906-8), Caracas, Ditton Hill, 
Surbiton. 

1907 || Ketiy, Albert Ernest McClure, Division of Entomology, Department 
of Agriculture, Pretoria, S. Africa. 

1890 + Kenrick, Sir George H., Whetstone, Somerset-road, Hdgbaston, 
Birmingham. 

1904 KersHaw, G. Bertram, Ingleside, West Wickham, Kent. 

1906 Keynes, John Neville, M.A., D.Sc., 6, Harvey-road, Cambridge. 

1900 Kxys, James H., 7, Whimple-street, Plymouth. 

1919 KHare, Jagamath Layman, Lecturer in Entomology, Agricultural 
College, pes India. 

1912 Krvye, Harold H., Govt. Entomologist, Gordon College, Khartoum, 


Sudan. 
1889 Kuna, Prof. James J. F.-X., 1, Athole Gardens-terrace, Kelvinside, 
Glasgow. 
1913 Kirey, W. Egmont, M.D., Hilden, 46, Sutton Court-road, Chiswick, 
W. 4, 


1917 { Kirkpatrick, Thos. W., The Deanery, Ely, and Room 270, War 
Office, Whitehall, 8.W. 1. 

1887 | Kunin, Sydney T., F.LS., F.R.AS., Lancaster Lodge, Kew 
Gardens, Surrey. 


1916 { Laine, Frederick, Natural History Musewm, Cromwell-road, 8.W. 7. 

1910 ¢ Lakin, C. Ernest, M.D., F.R.C.S., 105, Harley-street, W. 1. 

1911+ LaMBorN, W. A., M. RC. S., LR. P., The Mularia Bureau, Kuala 
Lampur, Feder el Maka States. 

1919 Lamont, Sir Norman, Bart,, 4, Queen-street, Mayfair, W. 1, and 

Palmiste, Trinidad, B.W.LI. 

1917 Laneuawm, Sir Charles, Bart., empo Manor, Co. Fermanagh. 

1916 Lara, Prof. Robert, D.Phil., University of Glasgow. 

1912 Larvour, Cyril Engelhart, Bore of Spain, Trinidad, British West 
Indies. 

1895 Larrer, Oswald H., M.A., Charterhouse, Godalming. 

1899 Lea, Arthur M., Government Entomologist, Musewm, Adelaide, 
S. Australia. 

1914 Leecuman, Alleyne, M.A., F.L.S., F.C.S., Corpus Christi College, 
Oxford ; and St. Hubert’s, Main-street, Georgetown, British Guiana. 

1910 Leriax, H.S8., The University, Manchester. 

1900 LeicH-Puiuips, Rev. W. J., Burtle Vicarage, Bridgwater. 

1903}iLeverr, The Rev. Thomas Prinsep, Frenchgate, Richmond, Yorks. 

1876 ¢ Lewis, George, F.L.8., (Councin, 1878, 1884), 30, Shorncliffe-road, 
Folkestone. 


(iat) 


1908 + Lewis, John Spedan, Grove Farm, Greenford Green, South Harrow ; 
and 277, Oxford-street, W. 

1892 Lieatroot, R. M., South African Musewm, Cape Town, Cape of 
Good Hope. , 

1914 ¢ Lister, J. J., St. John’s College, Cambridge; and Merton House, 
Svtchieater, Cambs. 

1903 LirrLEr, ea M., Box 114, P.O., Launceston, Tasmania. 


1865 ¢ Liunrwetyy, Sir Tohm Talbot Dilly Bart., M:A., ae 


Penllergare, Swansea. 

1881 + Luoyp, Alfred, F.C.S., Zhe Dome, Bognor. 

1919 Luoyp, Llewellyn, Chief Entomologist in N. Rhodesia, Cartref, 
Slingsby, Malton, Yorks. 

1885} {Luioyp, Robert Wyle, (Councit, 1900-1), I, 5 and 6, Albany, 
Piccadilly, W. 1. 

1903 LorrHousE, Thomas Ashton, The Croft, Linthorpe, Middlesbrough. 

1908 ¢ Lonespon, D., The Flower House, Southend, Catford, S.E. 6. 

1904;{Loncstarr, George Blundell, M.A., M.D., (V.-Pres., 1909, 1915, 
1917 ; Councin, 1907-9, 1915-17), lighlands, Putney Heath; 
5, W. ia: : 

1899 || LounsBury, Charles P., B.Se., Government Entomologist, Box 513, 
Pretoria, S. Africa. 

1893 Lower, Oswald B., Pinarro, South Australia. 

1901 Lower, Rupert S., Bartley-terrace, Wayville, S. Australia. 

1898 { Lucas, William John, B.A., (Councin, 1904-6), 28, Knights Park, 
Kingston-on- Thames. 

1903 LyeE.t, G., Gisborne, Victoria, Australia. 

1912 Ly.x, George Trevor, 7, Scrope-terrace, Cambridge. 

1909 Lyon, Francis Hamilton, 89, Clarence Gate-gardens, Upper Baker- 
street, N.W. 1. 


1887 M‘Doucatt, James Thomas, St. Lawrence, Isle of Wight. 

1910 MacpouGatt,R. Stewart, M.A.,D.Sc.,F.R.S.E., Edinburgh University. 

1919 McLrop, Murdoch Campbell, The Rainyielada, Cobham, Surrey, and 
McLeod & Son, Calcutta, India. 

1900 Mackwoop, The Hon. F. M., M.L.C., Colombo, Ceylon. 

1919 MackwortH-PRAeED, Cyril Winthrop, Dalton Hill, Albury, Surrey. 

1899}{Matrn, Hugh, B.Sc., (Counctn, 1908-10), Almondale, Buckingham- 
road, South Woodford, N.E. 

1914 Matuzock, J. Russell, State Entomologist’s Office, Urbana, Illinois, 
U.S.A. 

1905 Mauuy, Charles Wm., M.Se., Dept. of Agriculture, Cape Town, 
S. Africa. 

1892 $ MansBrinGE, William, Dunraven, Church-road, Wavertrec, Liverpool. 

1894+¢MaRsHALL, Alick. 

1895 } MarsHaLt, Guy Anstruther Knox, D.Sc., F.Z.S., Vick-PREsIDENT, 
(CounciL, 1907-8, 1919- ), 6, Chester-place, Hyde Park-square, 
W. 2 


(sx. ~) 


1896 MarsHatt, P., M.A., B.Sc, F.G.S., University School of Mines, 
Dunedin, New Zealand. 

1897 Martinravu, Alfred H., Barum, Crewkerne, Somerset. 

1919 Marumo, N., Zoological Institute, Agricultural College, Imperial 

, University, Komaba, Tokyo, Japan. 

1895 Massey, Herbert, Ivy-Lea, Burnage, Didsbury, Alanchester, 

1865 Martuew, Gervase F., F.L.S., Paymaster-in-chief, R.N., (CouncIL, 
1887), Lee House, Dovercourt, Harwich. 

1887 Marruews, Coryndon, Stentaway, Plymstock, S. Devon. 

1912 Mauvutx, Prof., Department of Zoology, University of Calcutta, 
Calcutta, India. 

1900 ¢ Maxwe.u-Lerroy, H., Imperial College of Science and Technology, 
South Kensington, 8.W. 

1916 | May, Harry Haden, Blackfriars House, Plymouth. 

1913 ¢ Maven, Louis, Melbourne, Dyke-road, Preston, Brighton. 

1919 Mettiows, Charles, M.A., The College, Bishop’s Stortford. 

1885 Metvitt, James Cosmo, M.A., F.L.S., Meole Brace Hall, Shrewsbury. 

1907 { Metvitir, Mrs. Catharine Maria, Kapai, Elburton, S. Devon. 

1914 Menon, J. R., B.A., Vrichur, Cochin State, S. India. 

1887 { Merririecp Frederic, (PREs., 1905-6 ; V.-PRes., 1893, 1907 ; Sxc., 
1897-8 ; CounctIL, 1894, 1899), 14, Clifton-terrace, Brighton. 

1912 Merrcaurs, Rev. J. W., The Vicarage, Ottery St. Mary, Devon. 

1880 { Meyrick, Edward, B.A., #.R.S., F.Z.S., Thornhanger, Marlborough. 

1883 { Mines, W. H., e/o E. Step, Esq., 158, Dora-road, Wimbledon Park, 
S.W. 19. 

1913 Muiuurr, I’. V. Bruce, Livingston, N. Rhodesia, Africa. 

1919 Minus, Herbert William, N.D.A., The Gardens, Lydney Park 
Glos. 

1905 ¢ Mirrorp, Robert Sidney, C.B., Thornlea, Weybridge. 

1914 Miyaxet, Dr. Tsunekata, The Agricultural College, Tokyo Imperial 
University, Komaba, Tokyo, Japan. 

1879 || Monretro, Dr. Antonio Augusto de Carvalho, 70, Rua do Alecrinar, 
Lisbon. 

1902 + Monrcomery, Arthur Meadows, 34, Shalimar Gardens, Pembridge- 
road, North Acton, W. 11. 

1899 ¢ Moore, Harry, 12, Lower-road, Rotherhithe. 

1916 Moors, Ralph Headley, B.A., Heathfield, Plymstock, Devon. 

1886 Morean, A.C. F., F.LS., 135, Oakwood-court, Kensington, W. 14. 

1889+ +Moricu, The Rev. F. D., M.A., F.Z.S., Fellow of Queen’s College, 
Oxford, VicE-PRESIDENT, (PRES., 1911, 1912, V.-PReEs., 1902, 
1904, 1913; Councin, 1902-4, 1918— ), Brunswick, Mount 
Hermon, Woking. 

1895} ¢Mortey, Claude, F.Z.S., Monk Soham House, Suffolk. 

1893 Morron, Kenneth J., 13, Blackford-road, Edinburgh. 

1910 $ Mosgeny, Martin E., 94, Camden Hill-road, Kensington, W. 8. 

1882 Mosuey, 8. L., The Museum and Technical College, Huddersfield. 

1911 ¢ Moss, Rey. A. Miles, c/o Messrs, Booth & Co., Para, Brazil, 


() saae } 


1907¢{Movutton, John C., O.B.E.,° M.A., B.Sc., F.Z.8., &c., Director, 
Raffles Museum and Library, Singapore, Straits Settlements, and 
The Hall, Bradford-on-Avon. 

1911 Movnsey, J. Jackson, 24, Glencairn-crescent, Edinburgh. 

1901f{Murir, Frederick, H.S.P.A. Haperiment Station, Honolilu, Oahu, 
Pi Be i 

1912 +} Mutray, Jal Phirozshah, M.A., F.L.S., F.Z.S., Professor of Biology, 
St. Xavier's College, Lamington-road, Grant Road Post, Bombay, 
India. 

1869} Mixer, Albert, F.R.G.S., (Councrt, 1872-3), c/o Herr A. Miiller- 
Mechel, Grenzacherstrasse 60, Basle, Switzerland. 

1918 Munro, Lieut. James W., R.A.M.C., Forestry Commission, 23, 
Grosvenor-crescent, S.W_ 1. 

1914 Murray, George H., Government Station, Kikori, Detta Division, 
Papua. 

1917 Muscuamp, Percy A. H., Charterhouse School, Godalming. 

~1909 Musuam, John F., 48, Brook-street, Selby, Yorks. 


1903 ¢ Neave, 8. A., M.A., D.Sc., F.Z.S., Secretary, 1919- (V.-PREs., 
1918 ; CounciL, 1916-— ), 88, Queen’s Gate, S.W.7, and 24, de 
Vere-gardens, Kensington, W. 8. 

1919 { Nexn, Louis, Imperial Bureau of Entomology, British Museum 
(Nat. Hist.), S. Kensington, 8.W. 7. 

1919 Newson, William George Frazer, 6, Craven Hill, W. 2. 

1901 { Nevinson, E. B., Morland, Cobham, Surrey. 

1907 { Newman, Leonard Woods, Bexley, Kent. 

1913 Newman, Leslie John William, Bernard-street, Claremont, 
W. Australia. 

1909 NewstxaD, Alfred, The Grosvenor Museum, Chester. 

1890 NewstEaD, Prof. Robert, M.Sc. F.R.S., A.L.S., Hon. F.R.HS., 
Dutton Memorial Professor of Entomology, The School of Tropical 
Medicine, University of Liverpool. 

1914 | NicHotson, Charles, 35, The Avenue, Hale-end, Chingford, E. 4. 

1909 ¢ NicHoson, Gilbert W., M.A., M.D., (Counc, 1913-15), Oxford 
and Cambridge Club, Pall Mall, 8.W. 1. 

1918 ¢ Nimmy, Ernest William, 210, Whippendell-road, Watford, Herts. 

1906 Nix, John Ashburner, Tilgate, Crawley, Sussex. 

1916 Nontra, Akio, Tchijoji, Otagigun, Kyoto, Japan. 

1914 Norris, Frederic de la Mare, The Agricultwral Department, Kuala 
Lumpur, Federated Malay States. 

1915 Norrucorg, Dr, A. B., Blenheim House, Monkgate, York. 

1878 * NortipGe, Thomas, Ashford, Kent. 

1895 Nurs, Lt.-Colonel C. G., Authors’ Club, 2, Whitehall-court, S.W. 1. 


1877 Oxsertuiir, René, Rennes (Ille-et-Vilaine), France. 
1893 + OcLxE, Bertram §., Steeple Aston, Oxfordshire. 
1910  OLpAKER, Francis A., M.A., The Red House, Haslemere. 


(see 37) 


1918 O’Nen, Rev. Fr., 8.J., Salisbury, Rhodesia. 
1913 ¢ Ormiston, Walter, Kalupahani, Haldummulle, Ceylon. 


1895 t Pac, Herbert E., (Councin, 1918- ), Bertrose, Gellatly-road, St. 
Catherine’s Part, S.E. 15. 

1916 Patmer, Arthur Raymond, Ingleholme, Norton Way, Dettindor th, 
Herts. 

1919 Paravictnt, Louis, Villa Aleucita, Arlesheim, Bale, Switzerland. 

1918 Parris, R. Stanway, 6 High-street, Bishop's Stortford. 

1918 Parsons, Dr. Allan Chilcott, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., D.Ph., etc., 
School of Army Sanitation, Aldershot. 

1912 * Paterson, Edward J., Fuirholme, Crowborough. 

1919 Parron, Major W. J., I.M.S., Stoke St. Gregory, wr. Taunton. 

1913. Pracock, Alexander David, Armstrong College, Newcastle-on- Tyne. 

1911 { Pearson, Douglas, Chilwell House, Chilwell, Notts. 

1916 { PeeBLes, Howard M., 13, Chesham-street, S.W. 1. 

1919 Prep, John, Whittlesey, Cambs. 

1915 Prmx, Major Harry Diamond, I.M.S., c/o Alliance Bank of Sind, 
Peshawar, India. 

1914 PENDLEBURY, Major Wm. J. von Monté, Broadlands, Shrewsbury, 
and Keble College, Oxford. 

1883 P&érRinGuEY, Louis, D.Sc., F.Z.S., Director, South African Museum, 
Cape Town, South Africa. 

1903 + Perkins, R. C. L., M.A., D.Sc., F.Z.S., Park Hill Hotise, Paignton, 
Devon; and Board of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, 
Honolulu, Hawaii. 

1907 + Perrins, J. A. D., 3rd Seaforth Highlanders, Davenham, Malvern. 

1897 ¢ Puitiips, Capt. Hubert C., M.R.C.S., L.S.A., 17, Hereford-road, 
Bayswater, W. 2 

1903}¢Purmttrs, Montagu A., F.R.G.S., F.Z.8., Devonshire House Prepara- 
tory School, Reigate. 

1917 ¢ Prckarp-CampripcE, Arthur D., M.A., Balliol College, Oxford. 

1891 ¢ Prercr, Frank Nelson, The Old Rectory, Warmington, Oundle, 
Northants. 

1913 Prarr, Ernest Edward, 403, Essenwood-road, Durban, Natal. 

1885 Port, J. R. H. Neerwort van der, Poste restwiute, Geneva, Swwitzer- 
land. 

1919 Pomeroy, Arthur W. Jobbins, Government Entomologist in Nigeria, 
Ibadan, S. Nigeria, and Kneesworth House, 78, Elm Park-road, 
S. Kensington, 8.W. 3. 

1870} ¢PorRirT, Geo. T., F.L.S., (Councit, 1887), Elm Lea, Dalton, 
Huddersfield. 

1884+¢Poutton, Professor Edward B., D.Sc., M.A., F.R.S., F.L.S., F.GS., 
F.Z.S., Hope Professor of Zoology in the University of Oxford, 
(Prus., 1903-4; V.-PReEs., 1894-5, 1902, 1905 ; CouNcIL, 1886-8 
1892, 1896, 1905-7), Wykeham House, Banbury-road, Oxford. 

1905 Powett, Harold, 7, Rue Mireille, Hyéres (Var), France. 


(ei) 


1908 { Prarr, William B., 10, Lion Gate Gardens, Richmond, Surrey. 

1878 Pricer, David, 48, West-street, Horsham. 

1908 + Prrpeavx, Rober M., (CounciL, 1917), Woodlands, Brasted Chart, 
Sevenoaks. 

1904 { Priskg, Richard A. R., 9, Melbowrne Avenue, West Ealing. 

1893 ¢ Provr, Louis Seen (Councit, 1905-7), 84, Albert-road, 
Dalston, E. 8. 

1910 Punnert, Professor Reginald Crundall, M.A., Caius College, 


Cambridge. 

1900 * Rarnpow, William J., The Australian Musewn, Sydney, 
N.S.W, 

1912 Rarr-SmitH, W., Hollybrook, Rose Heyworth- road, Abertillery, 
Moan weatar el 


1914 Ramaxrisuna, T. V. Aiyar, B.A., F.Z.S., The Agricultural 
College, Coimbatore, S. India. 

1913 Rao, H. Ananthaswamy, Curator of the Government Musewn, 
Bangalore, India. 

1916 Rao, Yelseti Ramachandra, M.A., The Agricultural College, Coim- 
fietore. S. India. 

1907 { Raywarp, Arthur Leslie, 52, Addiscombe-road, Croydon. 

1898 Reurer, Professor Enzio, Helsingfors, Finland. 

1910 { DE Rui Paiuipr, G. W. V., Chief Examiner of Accounts, North- 
Western Ry., Abbott- -road, Lahore, India. 

1912 { Riney, Capt. Norman Denbigh, 94, rahe field-road, Upper Tooting, 
S.W. a8 and British Museum ae al History), S. Kensington, 
=. Wend 

1908 ¢ Rirron, cee M.A., 28, Walton-str Bie Oxford. 

1917 Rosperts, A. W. nee M.A., Rotem Experimental Station, 
Harpenden. 

1905 Roptnson, Herbert C., Curator of State Museum, Kuala Lumpur, 
Selangor. 

1904 { Roprnson, Lady, Worksop Manor, Notts. 

1869 + Roptnson-Dovaras, William Douglas, M.A. F.LS. F.R.G.S., 
Orchardton, Castle Douglas. 

1908 Rogers, The oa K. St. Aubyn, M.A., Church Missionary Society, 
Wen ened British Hast Africa. 

1907 { Rosensere, W. F. H., 57, Haverstock-hill, N.W. 3. 

1868 { Rorunery, George Biecander James, Pembury, Tudor-road, Upper 
Norwood, 8.E. 

1888++Roruscnrtp, The Right Honble. Lord, D.Se., F.R.S., F.L.S., FZ. 5.) 
(Counctn, 1900), Zoological Mian ane 

1894; ¢Roruscuinp, The Honble. Nathaniel Charles, M.A., F.L.S., F.Z,8., 
(Pres., 1915-16 ; V.-Pres., 1914, 1917; Counc, 1904, 1913~ 
17), Arwndel-house, Kensington Palace Gardens, W. 8. 

1890 { Rourteper, G. B., Tarn Lodge, Heads Nook, Carlisle, 

1913 { Rowpen, Alfred Oliver, 3, Archibald-road, Exeter. 


( xxv ) 


1887 ¢ Rowzanp-Brown, Henry, M.A., (V.-PrREs., 1908, 1910; Szc., 
1900-10 ; Counctn, 1914-16), Oxhey-grove, Harrow Weald. 

1910 Rupes, Charles Henry. 

1892 ¢ Russet, 8. G. C., Monk’s Wood, Heatherside, Park-road, Woking. 


1919 Sr. AuByn, Capt. John G., c/o Sir Charles McGrigor & Co., 39, 
Panton-street, Haymarket, S.W.1. 

1905 Sr. Quintin, W. H., Scampton Hall, Rillington, York. 

1906 Sampson, Colonel F. Winn, 115, Tannsfield-road, Sydenham. 

1910 { Saunpers, H. A., St. Ann’s, Reigate. 

1901 Scuaus, W., F.Z.S.,U.S. National Musewm, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. 

1907 { ScumassMANN, W., Beulah Lodge, London-rcad, Enfield, N. 

1912 Scuunck, Charles A., Hwelme, Wallingford. 

1911 ¢ Scorer, Alfred George, Hill Crest, Chilworth, Guildford. 

1909 {Scorr, Hugh, M.A., Sc.D., Curator in Entomology, University 
Museum of Zoology, Cambridge. 

1911 Setovus, Cuthbert F., M.D., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., Sleaford, Penn 
. Hill, Parkstone, Diese: 

1911f{Sennert, Noel Stanton, 24, de Vere-gardens, Kensiny gton, W. 8. 

1862 ¢ SHarp, David, M.A., M.B., F.R.S., F.L.S., F.Z.S., (Pres., 1887-8 ; 
V.-PRES., 1889, 1891-2, 1896, 1902-3 ; Sc., 1867 ; CouNctL, 
1893-5, 1902-4), Lawnside, Brockenhurst, Hants. 

1902 *Suarp, W. E., (Councit, 1912 13), The Bungalow, Crawthorne, 
Berks. 

1915 Suaw, Dr. A. Eland, c/o R. Kelly, Esq., Solicitor, 59, Swanston- 
street, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 

1886 SHaw, George T. (Librarian of the Liverpool Free Public Library), 
William Brown-street, Liverpool. 

1905 { SHELDON, W. George, F.Z.S., (TREASURER, 1918— ), Youlgreave, 
South Croydon. 

1900} {SHEPHEARD-Watwyn, H. W., M.A., Dalwhinnie, Kenley, Surrey. 

1887} {Sicw, Alfred, (CounciL, 1910-12), Corney House, Chiswick, W. 4. 

1911 ¢Smes, James A., Greenacres, Woodside-road, Woodford-green, 
Essex. 

1904 { Smumonps, Hubert W., Sussex View, Cumberland-gardens, Tunbridge 
Wells. 

1913 SrrweELt, Capt. F., Wooler, Northwmberland. 

1902 ¢StapEn, Frederick William Lambart, 44, Gwynne-avenue, Ottarwa, 
Canada. 

1902 { Storer, Gerard Orby, F.Z.8., J.P., Badminton Club, Piccadilly, W.1. 

1907 + Sty, Heald Baker, 16, Ce -square, Brighton. 

TE ¢ SMALLMAN, Raleigh S, Eliot Lodge, Albemarle-road, Beckenham, 
Kent. 

1916 Smarr, Capt. H. Douglas, R.A.M.C., Shelley, Huddersfield. 

1915 { Smirn, Adam Charles, Horton, Mornington-road, Woodford Green. 

1901 Swiru, Arthur, County Museum, Lincoln. 

1911 { Smiru, B. H., B.A., Frant Court, Frant, Tunbridge Wells. 


( xxviii -) 


1918 Smrrx, Patrick Aubrey Hugh, Sconner House, St. German's, Corn- 
wall, and 28, Bruton-street, Berkeley-square, W. 

1912 + Smiru, Roland T., 131, Queen’s-road, Wimbledon, S.W. 19. 

1919 Swmrrn, S. Gordon, Estyn, Boughton, Cheshire. 

1918 + SmrrH, 2nd Lieut, William Proctor, F.Z.S., Haddon House, Ashton- 
on-Mersey. 

1898 Sopp, Erasmus John Burgess, F.R.Met.S., 34, Ferndale-road, Hove. 

1885 t Sours, Richard, (Councin, 1890-1), 4, Mapesbwry-court, Shoot-wp 
Hill, Brondesbury, N.W. 2. 

1916 ¢ Sowmrsy, Lieut. F. W., R.N.D., 94, Ainslie-street, Grimsby. 

1908 ¢ Speyer, Edward R., Ridgehurst, Shenley, Herts. 

1919 Sraninanp, L. N., Trewint, Coppett’s-road, Muswell Hill, N. 10. 

1910 Sranuey, The Rev. Hubert George, Marshfield Vicarage, Cardiff. 

1919 SransrieLp, Capt. Leslie Rawdon, R.G.A., c/o Army and Navy 
Club, Pall Mall, 8.W. 1. 

1898 || Starnes, C.L.B., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., The Limes, Swanley Junction, 
Kent. 

1910 ¢ Srenron; Rupert, St. Edward’s, St. Mary Church, Torquay. 

1918 ¢Srirr, Rev. Alfred T., All Souls’ Vicarage, Brighton. 

1910 Stonrnam, Hugh Frederick, Capt. Ist Batt. E. Surrey Regt., 
Stoneleigh, Reigate. 

1913 Srorry, Gilbert, Dept. of Agriculture, Cairo, Eqypt. 

1915 { Srorr, Charles Ernest, Haton, London-road, Reigate. 

1896 ¢ SrrickianD, T. A. Gerald, Southcott, Poulton, Fairford. 

1900 * Srupp, E. A. C., P.O. Box 906, Vancouver, British Columbia. 

1895 || Srupp, E. F., M.A., B.C.L., Oxton, Exeter. 

1908 Swrerstra, Corn. J., 1st Assistant, Transvaal Museum, Pretoria. 

1884 SwrygHoxr, Colonel Charles, M.A., F.L.S., F.Z.S., (V.-PRzEs., 1894 ; 
CounciL, 1891-3 ; 1902-4), 4, Gunterstone-road, West Kensing- 
ton, W. 14. 

1894 t Swinnosr, Ernest, 4, Gunterstone-road, West’ Kensington, W. 14. 

1876 { Swinton, A. H., Oak Villa, Braishfield, Romsey, Hants. 

1911 ¢Swynnervoy, C. F. M., Gungunyana, Melsetter, S.-E. Rhodesia. 


1910 Tarr, Robt., junr., Roseneath, Harborough-road, Ashton-on-Mersey. 

1908 { TaxBor, G., 138, Arthenden-road, Brockley, S.E. 4, 

1918 Tapp, Mrs. Eleanor Eva, Loos, 88, Wickham Way, Beckenham, Kent. 

1918 Tapp, Capt. William Henry, F.R.A.S., F.R.G.S., Loos, 88, Wickham 
Way, Beckenham, Kent. 

1916 TarcHEeLL, Leonard Spencer, 438, Spratt Hall-road, Wanstead, 
E. 11. 

1911 ¢ Taurz, P. H., Cranleigh, Pinner, Middlesex. 

1911 Taynor, Frank H., Dalmally Station, via Roma, Queensland. 

1903 Taytor, Thomas Harold, M.A., Yorkshire College, Leeds. 

1914. TEMPERLEY, Reginald, Sharpe House, Wiveliscombe, Somerset. 

1919 ¢ TEMPLE, Major Watkin, East Mersea, Essex. 

1910 + THEOBALD, Prof. F. V., M.A., Wye Court, Wye, Kent. 


(is sexing’ }} 


1901 THompson, Matthew Lawson, 40, Gosford-street, Middlesbrough. 

1892. THoRNLEY, The Rev. A., M.A., F.L.S., Hughenden, Coppice-road, 
Nottingham: 

1907 Tinnyarp, R. J., M.A., D.Sc., F.L.S., Linnean Macleay Fellow in 
Zoology, Kuranda, Mount Errington, Hornsby, New South Wales 

1911 ¢ Topp, R. G., 54, Hornsey-lane, Highgate, N. 

1897 Tomuty, J. R. ie B., M.A. » (Councin 1911-3), Lakefoot, Hamilton- 
road, Reading. 

1907 ¢ Toner, Alfred Ernest, (CounctL, 1915-17), Aincroft, Reigate, Surrey. 

1914 pE LA TorRE Bueno, J. R., 25, Broad-street, New York, U.S.A, 

1907 TrRaAGARDH, Dr. Ivar, The University, Upsala, Sweden. 

1919 Toute, Austin Augustus, The Hill Museum, Witley, Surrey. 

1906 { TuLLocH, Col. B., The King’s Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, 
Crown Hill Hutment Camp, Plymouth. 

1895 ¢ Tunauey, Henry, Castleton, Searle-road, Farnham. 

1910 TurRatt, Conte Emilio, 4, Piazza S. Alessandro, Milan, Italy. 

1898+ Turner, A. J.. M.D., The Manor War Hospital, Epsom, and 
Wickham Terrace, Brisbane, Australia. 

1893 { TurNER, Henry Jerome, (Councrt, 1910-12), 98, Drakefell-road, 
New Cross, 8.E. 14. 

1906 { TurNER, Rowland E., (Counct1, 1909-10), Br itish Musewm (Natwral 
Histor a S. Kensington, 8.W. 7. 

1915 TyttrrR, Col. H. C., c/o Mrs. Tytler, Messrs. Grindlay & Co., 
Parliament-street, 5.W. 1. 


1893 Unicu, Frederick William, C.M.Z.S., Port of Spain, Trinidad, 
British West Indies. 


1904¢¢VauaGuaN, W., The Old Rectory, Beckington, Bath. 

1914+ VertcH, Robert, Entomologist, c/o C.S.R. Co., Lantoka Mills, 
Lantoka, Fiji Islands. 

1909 VuipiER, Leopold A., The Carmelite Stone House, Rye. 

1911 Vuirauis DE Satvaza, R., Loang, Prakang, Indo-China. 


1895 * Wacuer, Sidney, F.R.C.S., Dane John, Canterbury. 

1897 t Wainwaicat, Colbran J., (Counctt, 1901, 1912-14), 139, Hamstead- 
road, Handsworth, Bir ngitins 

1918 WatrForp, Lionel J olen The Cavalry Club, Piccadilly, W. 

1878 + WaLKeER, James J., M.A. R.N., F.L.S., Presment, (V.-PREs., 
1916; Suc. 1899, 1905-1918 ; Counert, 1894), Aorangi, Lonsdale- 
road, Summertown, Oxford. 

1912 Watuacr, Henry 8., 6, Kayll-road Villas, Sunderland. 

1914 Watsu, Mrs. Maria Ernestina, Soekaboemi, Java, Dutch East Indies. 

1866*+{WatsincHAM, The Right Honble. Lord, F.R.S., (PREs., 1889-90 ; 
V.-Pres., 1882, 1888, 1891-2, 1894-5; Councrn, 1896), British 
Musewm (Natural History), Cromwell-road, S.W. 7. 

1919 Warp, James Davis, Limehurst, Grange-over-Sands, Lanes. 

1910 ¢ Warp, John J., Rusinurbe House, Somerset-road, Coventry. 


ae me | 


1908 + WarRREN, Brisbane C. §., Pikescot, Pike’s Hill-avenwe, Lyndhurst. 

1901 + WateRHOUSE, Gustavus A., B.Sc. F.C.S., Allonrie, Stanhope-road, 
Killara, New South Wales, Australia. 

1914+ WavERston, Capt. the Rev. James, B.D., B.Sc., 21, Arlington Park 
Mansions, Chiswick, W. 4. 

1919 Warson, E. B., The Grange, Winthorpe, Newark. 

1918 Warson, John Henry, 70, Ashford-road, Withington, Manchester, 

1914 Warr, Morris N., St. John’s Hill, Wangonui, New Zealand. 

1893 ¢ Wess, John Cooper, 89, Dulwich Village, S.E. 21. 

1876+{Wesrern, E. Young, 27, Pembridge-square, Notting Hill Gate, W. 2. 

1906 { WHEELER, The Rev. George, M.A., F.Z.S., Srcrerary, 1911- ; 
(V.-PRES., 1914), 37, Gloucester-place, W. 1. 

1910 ¢ Ware, Major Edward Barton, M.R.C.S., Welsh Metropolitan War 
Hospital, Whitchurch, Cardiff. 

1918 Wuirer, Ronald Senior, Suduganga Estate, Matale, Ceylon. 

1913¢{Wauuriey, Percival N., Brantwood, Halifax; and New College, 
Oxford. 

1913 + WHirraKkeER, Oscar, Ormidale, Ashlands, Ashton-wpon-Mersey. 

1911 Wautrrrvanam, Ven. Archdeacon W. G., Glaston Rectory, Uppingham. 

1919 Wuurrie, F. G., 7, Marine-avenue, Southend-on-Sea. 

1917 { WickHam, Rev. Prebendary A. P., Hast Brent Vicarage, High- 
bridge, Somerset. 

1906 Wickwar, Oswin §., Woodford, Maitland Crescent, Colombo, Ceylon, 

1903 { Wicerns, Clare A., M.R.C.S., Watcombe, Park Town, Oxford. 

1896 | WinEMaN, A. E., Lane End, Westcott, Dorking. 

1911 | Wixu1aMs, C. B., M.A., Port of Spain, Trinidad, and 20, Slutey-road, 
Birkenhead. 

1915 Wruurams, Harold Beck, 131, Queen’s-road, Wimbledon, S.W. 19. 

1919 Witson, Lt.-Col. R. S., Governor of Western Desert Province, 
Mersa Matruh, Egypt. ‘ 

1915 Winn, Albert F., Library of McGill Oniversity, Westmount, 
Montreal, Canada. 

1919 WinrteRscaLE, J., Sungei Klah Estate, Sungkai, Perak. 

1894 * Wo.tuEy-Dop, F. H., Millarville P.O., Alberta, N.W.T., Canada. 

1919 Woop, H. Worsley, 31, Ayate-road, Hammersmith, W.6. 

1905 Woopsriner, Francis Charles, Briar Close, Latchmore-avenue, 
Gerrard’s Cross S.O0., Bucks. 

1914 { WoopForDE, Francis Cardew, B.A., c/o University Musewm, Hope 
Department, Oxford. 

1918 Wooprurre-PEacock, Rev. E. Adrian, F.L.S., F.G.S., Cadney 
Vicarage, Brigg, Lincolnshire. 

1919 Wyrsman, R., Quatre Bras, Tervueven, Bruxelles, Belgium. 


1892 Youpatx, William Henry, F.R.M.S., 21, Belle Isle-street, Workington. 


( Vaaedky} 


ADDITIONS TO THE LIBRARY 


Durine THE YEAR 1919. 


Anpotrr (W.S.). [See McInpoo (N. E.).] 
ALEXANDER (C. P.). [See Report of the Ganadian Arctic Expedition, 
1913-18. ] 
Aurtivitiius (Chr.). Hine neue Bienen-Art aus Nord-Schweden. 
[Ent. Tidskrift, 1914.] 
Neue oder wenig bekannte Coleoptera Longicornia. 14, 15, 16. 
[Arkiv for Zool., Band 8, 9, 10, 1914, 1916]. 
New species of African Lasiocampidae and Striphnopterygidae 
from English collections. 
[Arkiv for Zool., Band 9, No. 11, 1915.] 
Diagnosen neuer Lepidopteren aus Afrika. 10, 
[Arkiv for Zool., Band 10, No. 14, 1916. ] 
Neue Cerambyciden aus der Sammlung G. van Roon. 
[‘lijdschr. voor Ent., LIX, 1916. ] 
-——— Results of Dr. E. Mjéberg’s Swedish Scientific Expeditions to 
Australia, 1910-1913. 12. Cerambycidae. 
[Arkiv for Zool., Band 10, No. 23, 1917.] 
—— Svensk Insektfauna. 1. Aculeata. 
[ Vespidae, Scoliidae, Mutillidae, Sapygidae, 1918. | 
Svensk. Insektfauna. 2. Orthoptera. 1918. 
Svensk. Insektfauna. 9. Coleoptera. Phytophaga. Uppsala, 
1917. The Author. 


———— [See Lampa (Sven). | 
Back (H. A.) and Pemperron (C. H.). The Mediterranean Fruit-fly (Cera- 
titis capitata Wied.) in Hawaii. 
LU. 8. Dept. Agric., Bull, No. 536, Jan. 1918.] U.S. Dept. Agric. 
Bacot (A.). Lice: The Diseases carried by them and the Measures available 
for the Protection of Children and Civilians. 
[School Hygiene, March 1919.] 
—-— The Fleas found on Rats and their Relation to Plague. 
[Journ. Roy. Sanit. Institute, Vol. XL, 1919.] 
—— — Danger of Disease through Lice. 
[Pamphlet issued by the London County Council, 1919. | 
The Author. 
and Linzett (L.). The incubation period of the eggs of Haema- 
topinus asint. 
[ Parasitology, Vol. XI, 1919. ] The Authors. 
Baker (A. ©.) and Turner (W. F.). Apple-grain Aphis. 
[Journ. Agric. Research, Vol. X VIII, No. 6, Dec. 1919. ] 
U.S. Dept. Agric. 
Baker (A. W.). [See Report of the Canadian Arctic Expedition, 1913-18. ] 
BaxeEr (C. F.). Ichneumonoid parasites of the Philippines, I. Rhogadinae 
(Braconidae), I. 
[Philippine Journ. Sci., Vol. XII, No. 5, 1917.] 
——— A Philippine Aphrastobracon. 
[ Philippine Journ. Sci., Vol. XII, No. 4, July 1917.] 
Ichneumonoid parasites of the Philippines, II. Rhogadinae (Braco- 
nidae), IL: The genus Rhogas. 
[Philippine Journ. Sci., Vol. XII, Nov. 1917.] The Author. 
Banks (N.). [See Report of the Canadian Arctic Expedition, 1913-18. | 


( sox) 


BarBer (G. W.). [See Carrrey (D. J.).] 


BarKER (C.N.). Ctcindela bertolonti Horn, and the South African members 
of the brevicollis group. 
[Ann. Durban Mus., Vol. II, Oct. 1919.] The Durban Museum. 
BEMMELEN (J. IF’. van). The value of generic and specific characters tested 
by the wingmarkings of Sphingides. 
[Koninkl. Akad. Wet. Amsterdam, Proc. Vol. XXI, 1918.] 
The Author. 
BERNHAUER (M.). [See Coleopterorum Catalogus. | 
BEVERIDGE (Colonel W. W, O.). [See Durrant (J. H.).] 
BickHarpt (von H.). [See Wyrsman’s Genera Insectorum. | 
Bopxrin (G. E. B.). Plant diseases and pests notes. 
[Journ. Board Agric. Brit. Guiana, Vol. XII, April 1919.] 
Board Agric., Brit. Guiana. 
Botivar (I.). [See Wytsman’s Genera Insectorum. | 
BorcuMann (F.). [See Coleopterorum Catalogus. | 
Borven (A. D.). [See Sasscer (E. R.).] 
Brirrain (W. H.). An infestation of Apple-sucker, Psylla mali Schmidt, 
in Nova Scotia. 
[Agric. Gazette of Canada, Vol. VI, July 1919.] 
Canad. Dept. Agric. 
——-— and Goop (C. A.). The Apple Maggot (Rhagoletis pomonella 
Walsh) in Nova Scotia. 
[Nova Scotia Dept. Agric., Bull. No. 9, Jan. 1917.] 
Nova Scotia Dept, Agric. 
BrocHEr (F.). Recherches sur la Respiration des Insectes aquatiques adultes. 
I. La Népe cendrée. II. L’Hydrophile. 
[Bull. Soc. Zool. Genéve, 1908. ] 
——-— Importance des phénoménes capillaires dans la biologie aquatique. 
[Rev. Suisse de Zool., Tome XVIT, 1909.] 
—-— Métamorphoses de l’ Hemerodromia praecatoria Fall. 
[Ann. Biol. lacustre, Tome IV, 1909.] 
——— Métamorphoses du 7%pula lunata Lin. 
[Ann. Biol. lacustre, Tome IV, 1909.] 
—— Recherches sur la Respiration des Insectes aquatiques adultes. 
Les Dyticidés. 
[Ann. Biol. lacustre, Tome IV, 1911.] 
——— Observations biologiques sur quelques Insectes aquatiques. 
[Ann. Biol. lacustre, ‘Tome IV, 1911. ] 
——-— Recherches sur la Respiration des Insectes aquatiques adultes. 
Les Elmides. 
[Ann, Biol. lacustre, Tome V, 1911.] 
— Le travail au microscope et |’accommodation. 
[Archiv. Sciences Physiques et Naturelles (4). Tome XXXIJ,1911.] 
—-——— Recherches sur la Respiration des Insectes aquatiques adultes. 
Les Haemonia. 
[Ann. Biol. lacustre, Tome V, 1911. ] 
Observations biologiques sur quelques Curculionidés aquatiques. 
[Ann. Biol. lacustre, Tome V, 1911 (1912).] 
Recherches sur la Respiration des Insectes aquatiques (imagos). 
Népe, Hydrophile, Notonecte, Dyticidés, Haemonia, Elmidés. 
[Soc. Entom. Jahrg. 27, 1912. ] : 
L’appareil stridulatoire de ?Hydrophilus piceus et celui du Berosus 
aericeps. 
[Ann. Biol. lacustre, Tome V, 1912. ] 
—- Recherches sur la Respiration des Insectes aquatiques adultes. 
L’Hydrophile. Etude physiologique et anatomique. 
[ Ann. Biol. lacustre, Tome V, 1912 (1913). | 


¢ xe )) 


BrocuEr (F.). Etudes anatomiques et physiologiques du systéme respira- 
toire chez les larves du genre Dyticus. 
[Ann. Biol. lacustre, Tome VI, 1913.] 
——— — Recherches sur la Respiration des Insectes aquatiques adultes. La 
Notonecte (2"™° Article). 

[Zool. Jahrb., 1913. ] 

Les Dyticidés (Second Article), suivi @une notice sur les mouve- 

ments respiratoires de l’Hydrophile. 

[Ann. Biol. lacustre, Tome VII, 1914. ] 

———— Physiologie de la Respiration chez les Insectes imagos. 

[Archiv. Zool. Exper., Tome LIV, 1914. | 
——— Observations biologiques sur les Dyticidés. 
[Ann. Biol. lacustre, Tome, VI 1914. ] 
— Recherches sur la Respiration des Insectes aquatiques. 
[Revue Suisse de Zool., Tome, XXIII, Dec. 1915. ] 
—-— Nouvelles observations biologiques et physiologiques sur les 
Dyticidés. 
[Archiv. Zool. Expér., ‘Tome LV, Jan. 1916. ] 
————la Népe cendrée. 
[Archiv. Zool. Expér., Tome LV, May 1916. 
———— [La Respiration des Insectes aquatiques imagos. 
[Revue critique, Genéve, 1916. | 
——-— Nouvelles observations sur la respiration des Dyticidés (4™° Article.) 
[Archiv. Zool. Expér., Tome LVI, fase. 1, Sept. 1916. | 
———— Ktude expérimentale sur le fonctionnement du vaisseau dorsal et 
sur la circulation du sang chez les Insectes. 
[ Archiv. Zool. Expér., Tome LVI, fase. 6, May 1917.] 

-_——— Etude expérimentale sur le fonctionnement du vaisseau dorsal et 
sur le circulation du sang chez les Insectes. IIe Partie: Les 
larves des Odonates. 

[Archiv. Zool, Expér., Tome LVI, fasc. 10, Oct. 1917.] 

———— Observations sur le développement et la vie larvaire du Pseudagenia 
carbonaria (Scop.). 

[Bull. de l'Institut. Nat. Genevois, Tome XLITI, 1918. ] 

———\ Les Organes pulsatiles méso- et métatergaux des Lépidoptéres. 

[Archiv. Zool. Expér., Tome LVIII, Feb. 1919.] = Lhe Author. 

———— [See Fore (F. A.).] 

Brue (8. L.). De Parasitaire Protozoén van den Menschelijken Darm. 

[ Batavia, 1918. ] The Author 

BuGnion (E.). Les Métamorphoses du Ditoneces pubicoruis Walk. (Avec 
une note supplémentaire par J. Bourgeois.) 

(Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr., LX XVI, 1907. ] 

Les faisceaux spermatiques doubles des Ténébrions et des Mylabres. 

[Compt. rend. de l'Assov. de Anatomistes, Neuviéme Réunion, Lille, 
1907. ] 

Valeur numérique des faisceaux spermatiques. Deuxiéme liste 
comprenant quelques animaux observés & Ceylan. 

[Comp. rend. de l’Assoc. des Anatomistes, Neuvieme Réunion, Lille, 
1907.] 

Les glandes ciriéres de la Fulgorelle potre-laine des Indes et de 
Ceylan. 

[Bull. Soc. Nat. d’Acclimatation de France, 55° Année, Dec. 1908. ] 

———— Les Metamorphoses de  Eumorphus pulchripes Gerst. de Ceylan. 

[Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr., LX XVIII, 1909. ] 


———— [a structure anatomique du Trigonalys hahni Spin. 
[Mitteil. Schweiz. ent. Ges., XII, heft 1, 1910. ] 
——— Recherches anatomiques sur Aulacus striatus Jur. (Hymenopt.) 


[ Bull. Soc. Ent. Suisse, XII, 2, 1911.] 
Cc 


( texan )) 


Buenion (H.). Le Termitogeton umbilicatus Hag. (de Ceylan). 
[Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr., LX XXIII, 1914.] 


Liste des Publications. Zausanne, 1914. 


Les parties buccales de Wacerda melanura L. 
[Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr., LXX XV, 1916.] 
——-— Instructions destinées aux collectionneurs de Termites. 
[Bull. Soc. Nat. d’Acclimatation de France, Déc. 1917. ] 
———— Les Cellules Sexuelles et la Théorie de l’Hérédité. 
[Riviera Scientifique. Bull. de Assoc. Naturalistes de Nice et des 
Alpes-Maritimes, 5me Année, No. 2—2me trimestre, 1918.] 
———— L’accroissement des antennes chez Empusa egena. 
[Mém. Soc. Zool. Fr., 1917 (1918). ] The Author. 
Burt (B. C.), and Hamper (N. ). Cawnpore-American Cotton : An Account 
of Experiments in its Improvement by Pure Line Selection 
and of Field Trials, 1913-1917 (1919). 
[Agric. Res. Institute, Pusa, Bull. No. 88, 1919. ] 
The Resear ch Institute, Pusa. 
Carsar (L.) and Ross (W. A.). The Apple Maggot (Rhagoletis pomonella 
Walsh). 
[Ontario Dept. Agric., Fruit Branch, Bull. No. 271, May 1919. ] 
Canad. Dept. Agric. 
Carrrey (D. J.) and Barper (G. W.). The Grain Bug (Chlorochroa sayi 
Stal) 


[U. 8. Dept. Agric., Bull. No. 779, June 1919.] 
U, S. Dept. Agric. 

Cameron (A. E.). [See HapweEn (8.). | 

CaupEtt (A. N.). [See Wyrsman’s Genera Insectorum. | 

CHAMBERLIN (R. V.) [See Report of the Canadian Arctic Expedition, 
1913-18. | 

CuampPion (G. C.). The Malacoderm Genera Prtonocerus and Jdgia, and 
their Sexual Characters. 

[Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 9, Vol. II, April 1919.] 

————Some Indian Coleoptera (1). 

[Ent. Monthly Mag., Vol. LV, Oct. 1919.] 

—-— Notes on the African and Asiatic species of Melyris Fab. (sensu 
lato), with an Account of their Sexual Characters, and 
Supplementary Note. 

[Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 9, Vol. IV, Oct. and Nov. 1919. ] 
The Author. 
CHITTENDEN (F. H.). The Rice Moth (Corcyra cephalonica Stainton). 
[U.S. Dept. Agric., Bull. No. 783, July 1919.] 
The Bean Ladybird and its control (Epzlachna corrupta Muls.) 
[U.S. Dept. Agric., Farmer’s Bulletin 1074, 1919.] 
U.S. Dept. Agric. 

Curystat (R. N.). The Poplar Borer, Saperda calcarata Say. 

[Reprinted from the Agric. Gazette of Canada, Vol. VI, April 1919. ] 
Canad. Dept. Agric. 

CLAVAREAU (H.). [See Coleopterorum Catalogus. ] 

CirarE (L.D.). Mosquitoes. How they live, how they spread disease, and 
how to destroy them. 

[Journ. Board Agric. Brit. Guiana, Jan. 1919. ] The Author. 

CocKkERELL (F. D. A.). Some Halictine Bees in the United States National 
Museum. 

[ Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash., Vol. XX, 1918.] 


—-— Bees from British Guiana. 
[Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., Vol. XX XVIII, Dec. 1918. ] 


A new Bee (Anthophora coelestina) from Natal. 
[Ann. Durban Mus., Vol. II, March 1919. | 


(: xaxv J 


CockERELL (F. D. A.). Some Fossil Parasitic Hymenoptera. 
[Amer. Journ. Science, Vol. XLVII, May 1919.] The Author. 


—-—— Bees in the Collection of the United States National Museum.—3. 
[Proc. U. 8. Nat. Mus., Vol. LV, 1919.] 
The Smithsonian Institution. 
——_—— Natal Bees. 
{Ann. Durban Mus., Vol. II, Oct. 1919.] The Author. 


[See Huoxer (Sir Joseph). ] 


CoLEoPpTERORUM CaTaLocus. Junk (W.) editus a Schenkling (S.). 
Pars. 59. Clavareau (H.). Chrysomelidae: 11. Eumolpinae. 
», 61. Méquignon (A.). Rhizophagidae. 
,, 62. Spaeth (F.). Chrysomelidae; Subfam. Cassidinae. 
,, 63. Csiki (E.). Mordellidae. 
», 64. Schenkling (S.). Derodontidae, Lymexylonidae, Micro- 
malthidae. 
5, 65. Schenkling (S.). Oedemeridae. 
,, 66. Ohaus (F.). Scarabaeidae: Euchirinae, Phaenomerinae, 
Rutelinae. 
» 67. Bernhauer (M.) et Schubert (K.). Staphylinidae, V. 
», 68. Weise (J.). Chrysomelidae: 12. Chrysomelinae. 
», 69. Borchmann (F.). Meloidae, Cephaloidae. 1914-1917. 
Purchased, 
Comstock (J. H.). The Wings of Insects. Ithaca, N.Y., 1918. 
The Author. 
CrAIGHEAD (F. C.). Protection from the Locust Borer (Cyllene robiniae 
Forst.). 
[U.S. Dept. Agric., Bull. No. 787, June 1919. ] 
U.S. Dept. Agric. 
Csrx1 (H.). [See Coleopterorum Catalogus. ] 
Cutor (J.). Noctuelles et Géométres d’Europe. Iconographie compléte de 
toutes les Espéces européennes. 
1, Noctuelles. Vols. I, II, 1909-1917. 
2. Géometres. Vol. III, 1917-1919. Genéve. Purchased. 
Cover (J. J.). A Study of Compsilura concinnata, an imported Tachinid 
parasite of the Gipsy moth and the Brown-tail moth. 
[U.S. Dept. Agric., Bull. No. 766, July 1919.] 
U.S. Dept. Agric. 
Curtis (John). MS. Calendar (Entomological Diurnal) kept by John Curtis, 
F,L.S., chiefly between the years 1840 and 1854. Purchased 
from his widow, after his death, by Prof. J. O. Westwood. 
Dr. W. Hackett-Jackson. 
CusuMANn (R. A.). Descriptions of North American Ichneumon-flies. 
[Proc. U. 8. Nat. Mus., Vol. LV, 1919.] 


—-—— Notes on certain genera of Ichneumon flies, with descriptions of a 
new genus and four new species. 
[Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., Vol. LVI, 1919.] 


The Smithsonian Institution. 
Dati (W.H.). Spencer Fullerton Baird. A Biography. Philadelphia and 
London, 1915. The Author. 
Datta Torre (K. W. von). [See Lepidopterorum Catalogus. | 
Davipson (W. M.). Life History and Habits of the Mealy plum Aphis 
(Hyalopterus arundinis F.). 
LU. 8. Dept. Agric., Bull. No. 774, April 1919.] 
U.S. Dept. Agric. 
Doenin (P.). Hétérocéres nouveaux de Amérique du Sud. Fase. XV, 
XVI, XVII, Feb., March, Dec. 1919. The Author. 


( xxv" ) 


DonisTHORPE (H.). Myrmecophilous notes for 1818. 
[Entom. Record, Vol. XX XI, Nos, 1 and 2, 1919.] 
The Author. 
——— The Myrmecophilous Lady-bird, Coccinella distincta Fald., and its 
Life History and association with ants. : 
[Ent. Record, Vol. XXXI, No. 12, and XXXII, No. 1, 1919-1920.] 
The Author. 
Durrant (J. H.) and Bevertpce (Colonel W. W. O.). Report of the 
temperature reached in army biscuits during baking, especially 
with reference to the destruction of the imported flour-moth, 
Ephestia kiihniella Zeller. 
[Reprinted from the Journ. Royal Army Medical Corps, Vol. 20, 
June 1913 (1918). ] Trustees British Museum. 
DustTan (A. G.).. [See Sanpers (G. E.).] 
Dyar(H.G.). [See Report of the Canadian Arctic Expedition, 1913-18. ] 
HxirrincHam (H.). [See Wyrsman’s Genera Insectorum. | 
Emerton (J.H.). [See Report of the Canadian Arctic Expedition, 1913-18.] 
Emery (W. T.). [See Puitiies (W. J.).] 
Facan (M. M.). [See RoHwer (8. A.).] 
Favvet (A.). Voyage de M. le Dr. Ed. Bugnion au Venezuela, Colombie et 


aux Antilles. Staphylinides. 
[Revue d’Ent., 1901.] E. Bugnion. 


Fenyes (A.). [See Wyrsman’s Genera Insectorum. | 
Ferris (G. F.). [See Report of the Canadian Arctic Expedition, 1913-18. ] 


FisHer (W.S.). Five new species of Ptinid beetles. 


[Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. LV, 1919. ] 
The Smithsonian Institution. 


Forson (J. W.). [See Report of the Canadian Arctic Expedition, 1913-18. ] 
Foret (A.). Quelques Formis de Madagascar récoltées par le Dr. Friederiche 


_ et quelques remarques sur l’autres fourmis. 
[Bull. Soc. Vaud. Sci. Nat., Vol. LIT, 1918. ] 


Deux Fourmis nouvelles du Congo. 
[Bull. Soc. Vaud. Sci. Nat., Vol. LIT, 1918.] The Author. 


(F. A.). Le Naturaliste, Obituary notice of, with portrait. 
[Ann. Biol. lacustre, Tome V, 1912.] 
The Writer, F. B. 


Fox, (H.). Field notes on Virginia Orthoptera. 
[Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., Vol, LII, March 1917. ] 
The Smithsonian Institution. 


Frey-GEssner (E.). Obituary notice of, by Dr. Th. Steck. 


[Verhandl. Schweiz. Nat. Ges., 1918.] Th. Steck. 
Froacatr (W. W.). Notes on Australian Sawflies (Tenthredinidae). 
[Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. XLITIT, 1918.] The Author. 


———— The Apple-leaf Jassid (Empoasca australis). 
[Agric. Gazette N.S.W., Misc. Publ., No. 2,029, Aug. 1918. ] 
The Author. 


and Froaearr (J. L.). Sheep-maggot Flies. No. 4. Report of 
work carried out in the North-west, during 1917-18, at the 
Government Sheep-fly Experiment Station, at Kooroogama, 
Moree. 

[Dept. Agric. N.S.W., Farmer’s Bulletin, No. 122, Dec. 1918. ] 

The Azxchors. 

Gauan (A. B.). Notes on some generaand species of Chalcid-flies belonging 
to the Aphelininae with description of a new species. 

[Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., Vol. LV, 1919.] 

New reared parasitic Hymenoptera, with some notes on synonomy- 

[Proc. U. 8. Nat. Mus., Vol. LV, 1919.] 


( exmwir =) 


Ganan (A.B.). Report on a small collection of Indian parasitic Hymenoptera. 
[Proc. U. 8S. Nat. Mus., Vol. LVI, 1919.] 
The Smithsonian Institution. 

Greson (A.). The Entomological Record for 1917. 

[Reprinted from Forty-eighth Annual Report Ent. Soc. Ontario, 
1917.] The Society. 

Common garden insects and their control. 

[Canad. Dept. Agric., Entom. Branch, Circular No. 9, 1917. ] 

—— The Greenhouse leaf-tyer (Phlyctaenia ferrugalis Hbn.). 

[Agric. Gazette, Canada, Vol. VI, No. 7, 1919.] 
Canad. Dept. Agric. 

——(E.H.). Hemiptera collected by the Yale Dominican Expedition 
of 1913. 

[Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., Vol. LV, 1919.] 

——_—— A Review of the Leafhoppers of the genus Gypona north of 

Mexico. 
[Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. LVI, 1919.] 
The Smithsonian Institution. 

GopMAN (F. D.). Obituary notice of, with portrait, by G. C. Champion. 

[Ent. Monthly Mag., Vol. LV, 1919.]. G. C. Champion. 

Goon (C. A.). [See Brirrain (W. H.).] 

GREEN (E. E.). A list of Coccidae affecting various genera of plants. 

[Ann. Applied Biology, Vol. V, Nos. 3 and 4, April 1919.] 
The Author. 

Hapwen (8.) and Cameron (A. E.). A Contribution to the knowledge of 
the Bot-flies, Gastrophilus intestinalis de G., G. haemor-’ 
rhoidalis L. and G. nasalis L. 

[Bull. Ent. Research, Vol. IX. Sept. 1918.] The Authors. 

Harper (N.). [See Burr (B. C.).] 

Hernricn (C.). Note on the European Corn-borer (Pyrausta nubilalis 
Hiibner), and its nearest American allies, with descriptions of 
larvae, pupae, and one new species. 

[Journ. Agric. Research, Vol. XVIII, No. 3, 1919.] 
U.S. Dept. Agric. 

———— [See Hottoway (F. E.).] 

Hewitr (C. Gordon). Suggestions to prevent waste of coarse flours, meals 
and cereals by insect pests. 

[Pamphlet issued by the Canada Food Board, Ottawa, July 1918.] 
Canad. Dept, Agric. 

Hitt (G.F.). Report of the Walter and Eliza Hall Fellow in the Melbourne 

University Veterinary Research Institute. 
[Proc. Royal Soc. Victoria, 31 (N.S.), part 1, 1918.] 

HorrMan (F. L.). A plea and plan for the eradication of malaria through- 
out the Western Hemisphere. 

[An address read before the Southern Medical Association, Tenth 
Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, Nov. 14, 1916.] 
The Author. 

Hottoway (T. E.), Lorrin (U. C.), and Hrryricn (C.). The Sugar-cane 

moth borer (Diatraea saccharalis crambidoides Grote). 
[U.S. Dept. Agric., Bull. No. 746, April 1919. ] 
U.S. Dept. Agric. 

Hooker (Sir Joseph). Obituary notice of, by T. D. A. Cockerell. 

[Reprinted from Science, N.S., Vol. XLIX, June 1919.] 
T. D. A. Cockerell. 

Imus (A. D.). On the structure and biology of Archotermopsis, together 
with descriptions of new species of Intestinal Protozoa, and 

general observations on the /soptera. 


[Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond., Ser. B., Vol. CCIX, 1919.] 
The Author. 


' 


(+ Xxxvill) 


JANET (C). Sur la Phylogénése de l’Orthobionte. Limoges, 1916. 
The Author. 
JANSE (A. J.T.]. South African Bagworms: a new Subgenus and Species 


of the Genus Acanthopsyche, and a Redescription of Trichocossus 
arvensis Janse. 


[Ann. Natal Mus., Vol. IV, May 1919.] 


-——— — Notes on the Hepialid genera Gorgopis and Dalaca, with descrip- 
tions of six apparently new South African species. 


[Records Albany Mus., Vol. III, No. 3, Sept. 1919.] 


The Author. 
JoRDAN (K.). [See Wyrsman’s Genera Insectorum. ] 


JURRIAANSE (J. H.). Lepidoptera from South-East Celebes. 
[Verslag van de Vier-en-zeventigste Zomervergadering der Nederl. 
Ent. Vereeniguig, 1919. The Author. 


Keitin (D.) and Nurraty (G. H. F.). Hermaphroditism and other 
abnormalities in Pediculus humanus. 
[Parasitology, XV, 1919.] The Authors. 
Kuincxowstrom (A. F. v.). Ueber die Insekten- und Spinnenfauna Islands 
und der Faeroer. 
I. Insecta: 
1. Coleoptera, and 2. Hemiptera, by R. Poppius; 3. Hymeno- 
ptera, by A. Roman; 4. Lepidoptera, by Chr. Aurivillius ; 
5. Orthorrhapha Brachycera,by W.Uundbeck ; 6. Wemato- 
cera Polyneura, by M. P. Riedel; 7. Siphonaptera, by EH. 
Wahlgren; 8. Trichoptera, by G. Ulmer; 9. Mallophaga, 
by E. Mjoberg ; 10. Orthoptera. 
II. Arachnoidea, by R. de Lessert, L. G. Neumann-T'oulouse, and 
I. Tragardh. 
[Arkiv for Zool., Band 8, No. 12, 1913.] The Author. 


LAMEERE (A.). Revision des Prionides. Premiére Partie. Parandrines, 
Anoplodermines, Spondylines, Sténodontines, Macrotomines 
Mécosarthrines, Callipogonines, Titanines. 

[Mém. Soc. Ent. Belg. 1902-1905. ] 
——-— — Revision des Prionides. Seconde Partie. Megopis, Dérancistrines, 
Prionines, Anacolines, Addenda et Corrigenda: 
[Mém. Soc. Ent. Belg. 1909-1912.] The Author, 
-— [See Wyrsman’s Genera Insectorum. | 
Lampa (Sven). Obituary notice, with portrait, by Dr. Chr. Aurivillius. 
(Ent. Tidskrift, 1915.] Dr. Chr. Aurivillius. 

Lane (W. D.). A Map showing the known distribution in England and 
Wales of the Anopheline Mosquitoes, with explanatory text and 
notes. 

[Issued by the British Museum (Natural History), London, 1918.] 
: Trustees Brit. Museum. 

Lerroy (H. Maxwell). Insecticides. Mixtures and Recipes for Use against 

Insects in the Field, the Orchard, the Garden and the House. 
[ Agric. Research Institute, Pusa, Bull. No. 23, 1911.] 
The Research Institute, Pusa. 

LEPIDOPTERORUM CaTALoGcus. Junk (W.) editus a Wagner (H.). 

Pars 20. Dalla Torre (K. W. von). Thyrididae. 
» 21. Wagner (H.). Sphingidae: Subfam. Philampelinae. 
», 22. Strand (E.). Arctiidae: Subfam. Arctiinae. 
», 23. Wagner (H.). Sphingidae: Subfam. Choerocampinae. 
1915-1919. 


Purchased. 
LiyneELt (J.). Natural History of Reigate and its Vicinity. List of 
Coleoptera, Part III, 1899. O. E. Janson. 
LrinZELt (L.). [See Bacor (A.).] 


(\ xxmx 4 ) 


Lortin (U. C.). [See Hotioway (T. E.).] 
Lutz (K. G.), Edmund Rerrrer, Fauna Germanica die Kafer des Deutschen 
Reiches. .V. Stuttgart, 1916. Purchased. 
Mattocu (J.R.). [See Report of the Canadian Arctic Expedition, 1913-18. } 
McDunnoveu (J. H.). Directions for collecting and preserving insects. 
[Canad. Dept. Agric., Entom. Branch, Circular No. 12, Sept. 1919.] 
Canad, Dept. Agric. 
McINpoo (N. E.), Stzevers (A. F.), and Assorr (W. 8.). Derris as an 
insecticide. 
[Journ. Agric. Research, Vol. XVII, 1919.] 
The Smithsonian Institution. 
Meaquienon (A.). [See Coleopterorum Catalogus. | 
Meyrick (E.). [See Wytsman’s Genera Insectorum. | 
—— —— Exotic Microlepidoptera, Vol. II, Pts. 8, 9, Aug. and Nov. 1919. 
The Author. 
Miyake (T.). Studies on the Fruit-flies of Japan. Contribution 1.— 
Japanese Orange-fly. 
[Bull. Imp. Centr. Agric. Exper. Station in Japan, Vol. II, No. 2, 
Feb. 1919. ] 
—— Brief History of Entomology in Japan. 
[Reprinted from Dr. T. Miyake’s “ Konchugaku Hanron” (General 
Treatise on Entomology, Vol. II, Tokyo, 1919).] 
The Author. 
M’LaryeE (L. 8.). The European Corn-borer, Pyrausta nubilalis Hubner. 
[Reprinted from the Agric. Gazette, Entom. Branch, May 1919. | 
U.S. Dept. Agric. 
Norman (H.). Coleoptera Illustrata, Vol. I, No. 4 (? 1918). 
The Author. 
Nurraty (G. H. F.). (See Kern (P.).] 
—— — [See Report of the Canadian Arctic Expedition, 1913-18. ] 
Ouaus (F.). [See Coleopterorum Catalogus. ] 
O’Netn (J, A.). Notes on some Rhodesian Moths of the family Saturniidae 
and their Larvae. 


[Ann. Durban Mus., Vol. IT, Oct. 1919.] 
The Durban Museum. 


Ormiston (W.). Notes on Ceylon Butterflies. Part II. 


[Spolia Zeylanica, Vol. XI, 1919. ] The Author. 
ParkKER (J. B.). A Revision of the Bembecine Wasps of America north of 
Mexico. 


[Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., LII, 1917.] 
The Smithsonian Institution. 
PEMBERTON (C. E.). See Back (EH. A.).] 
——— and Witrarp (H. F.). A Contribution to the biology of fruit-fly 
parasites in Hawaii. 
[Journ. Agric. Research, Vol. XV, Nov. 1918. ] 
U.S. Dept. Agric. 
Puttires (W. J.) and Emery (W.T.). A Revision of the Chaleid-flies of the 
genus Harmolita of America north of Mexico. 
[Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. LV, 1919.] 
The Smithsonian Institution. 
Poutton (E. B.). The Hereditary transmission of small variations and the 
origin of Butterfly mimicry. 
[Address delivered at Anniv. Meeting Linn. Soc. Lond., May 24, 


1916. ] The Author. 
Raymunpvo (Benedicto). Noticia sobre alguns Lepidopteros serigenos do 
Brasil. Rio de Janeiro, 1919. The Author. 


Rerrrer (E.), [See Lurz (K. G.).] 


( xl ) 


Reporr of the Agricultural Department of the Government of the Gold 
Coast for the year 1918 (1919). 
[Includes the Report of the Entomologist. ] 
The Agric. Dept. of the Gold Coast, Aburi. 
Report of the Canadian Arctic Expedition, 1913-18. Issued in 1919. Vol. 
III: Insects. 
Part A. Collembola, by Justus W. Folsom. 
3, B. Neuropterous Insects, by Nathan Banks. 
C, Diptera, by C. P. Alexander, H. G. Dyar, and J. R. Malloch. 
D. Mallophaga, by A. W. Baker. 
Anoplura, by G. F. Ferris and G. H. F. Nuttall. 
» EF. Hemiptera, by Edward P. Van. Duzee. 
H. Spiders, by J. H. Emerton. 
Acarina, by N. Banks. 
Chilopoda, by Ralph V. Chamberlin. 
The Canadian Government. 
Report of the Entomologist for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1919. 
[United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology. | 
U.S. Dept. Agric. 
Report of the Government of Madras, Home Dept. (Education) [Includes 
some notes on Insects], July 30, 1919, No. 940. 
Gov. of Madras. 
Rouwer (S. A.) and Facan (M. M.). Additions and corrections to ‘‘ The 
Type-species of the genera of the Cynipoidea or the Gall- 
wasps and parasitic Cynipoids. 
[Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., Vol. LV. 1919.] 
The Smithsonian Institution. 
Ross (W. A.). The Pear Psylda. 
[Reprinted from the Agric. Gazette of Canada, Vol. V, Dec. 1918. ] 


— The Rose-midge in Ontario. 
[Reprinted from the Agric. Gazette of Canada, Vol. VI, Feb. 1919. ] 
Canad. Dept. Agric. 


-- [See Carsar (L.).] 
Runner (G. A.). The Tobacco beetle [Zasioderma serricorne F.]: an 
Important pest in tobacco products. 
[U. 8. Dept. Agric., Bull. No. 737, March 1919.] 
U.S. Dept. Agric, 
Sanpers (G. E.) and Dusran (A. G.), The Apple-bud moths and their 
control in Nova Scotia. X 
[Canad. Dept. Agric., Entom. Branch, Bull. No. 16 (Technical 
Edition), March 1919.] 
——— The Fruit-worms of the apple in Nova Scotia. : 
[Canad. Dept. Agric., Entom. Branch, Bull. No. 17 (Technical 
Edition), March 1919.] Canad. Dept. Agric. 


Sasscer (E. R.) and BorpEn (A.D.). The Rose-midge (Dasynewra rhodophaga 
C 


oq. 
LU. S. Dept. Agric., Bull. No. 778, May 1919.] f 
U.S. Dept. Agric. 
ScHENKLING (S.). [See Coleopterorum Catalogus.] 
Scuunert (K.), [See Coleopterorum Catalogus. | 
ScrentTIFICc Reports of the Agricultural Research Institute, Pusa, for 1918- 
1919, The Institute. 
Sentor-Warte (R.). Toxorhynchites minimus (Theob.) 
[Spolia Zeylanica, Vol. XI, 1919.] 
A note on Lymantria ampla (Walker), with a coloured plate. 
[Spolia Zeylanica, Vol. XI, 1918.] The Author. 
SHEATHER (A. L.). A Malarial parasite in the Blood of a Buffalo. 
[Agric. Research Institute, Pusa, Bull. No. 90, 1919.] 
The Research Institute, Pusa. 


( xii ) 


Sievers (A. F.). [See McInvoo (N. E.).] 


Sitvestri (F.). Notizie sulla Tignola del melo [Hyponomeuta malinellus | 
esul Verme delle mele [Carpocapsa pomonella}. 
[R. Labor. Ent. Agraria in Portici, Bollett. No. 7, 1917.] 
———— Gli insetti africani contro la mosca olearia. 
[ Boll. Soc. Nazionale degli Olivicoltori, Anno XII, 1918.] 
———— II Ceroplaste (0 cocciniglia) cinese degli agrumi [Lepidosaphes 
becktr]. 
[R. Labor. Ent. Agraria in Portici, Bollett. No. 2, 1919.] 
——-—— II Ceroplaste (0 cocciniglia) del fico [Ceroplastes rusci L.). 
[R. Labor. Ent. Agraria in Portici, Bollett. No. 3, 1919.] 
The Author. 
Snypzr (T. E.). Injury to Casuarina trees in Southern Florida by the 
Mangrove-borer (Chrysobothris tranquebarica Gmelin). 
[Journ. Agric. Research, Vol. XVI, No. 6, Feb. 1919.] 
U.S. Dept. Agric. 
Spaetu (F.). [See Coleopterorum Catalogus. ] 


Spray Calendar for Nova Scotia Apple Orchards for 1919. Prepared by 
G. E. Sanders and W. H. Brittain. 
[Issued by the Canad. Dept. Agric., Entom. Branch, 1919. | 
Canad. Dept. Agric. 
Srranp (E.). [See Lepidopterorum Catalogus. | 


Swatne (J. M.). The Tent caterpillars (JZalacosoma americana Fabr., and 
M. disstria Hiibn.). 
[Canad. Dept. Agric., Entom. Branch, Circular No. 1 (Revised 
Edition), Issued Sept. 21, 1918.] 


—-—- The Balsam injury in Quebec and its control. 
[Reprinted from the Agric. Gazette of Canada, Vol. VI, March 
1919. ] Canad. Dept. Agric. 
SWELLENGREBEL (N. H.), EHenige voor Nederl.-Indié nieuwe Anophelinen. 
[Geneeskundig Tijdschr. voor Nederlandsch-Indié, Deel 59, 1919. | 
The Nederl.-Indié Association. 
Tuomas (C. C.). Seed disinfection by formaldehyde vapor (preliminary 
paper). 
[Journ. Agric. Research, Vol. XVII, April 1919. ] 
U.S. Dept. Agric. 
Tittyarp (R. J.). Studies in Australian Neuroptera. No. 8. Revision of 
the Family Ithonidae, with descriptions of a new genus and two 
new species, ~ 
[Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. XLIV, 1919.] 
———— A Fossilinsect belonging to the new Order Paramecoptera, ancestral 
to the Trichoptera and Lepidoptera, from the Upper Coal 
Measures of Newcastle, N.S.W. 
[Proc. Linn, Soc. N.S.W., Vol. XLIV, 1919.] 
——— On the Morphology and_ systematic position of the Family 
Micropterygidae (Sens. lat.). Introduction and Part I (The 
Wings). 
[Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. XLIV, 1919. ] 
————— Mesozoic insects in Queensland. 
[Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. XLIV, 1919.] 
———— Mesozoic insects of Queensland. No.5. Mecoptera, the new Order 
Paratrichoptera, and Additions to Planipennia. 
[ Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. XLIV, 1919.] The Author. 
TIMBERLAKE (P. H.). Revision of the Parasitic Chalcidoid Flies of the 
genera Homalotylus Mayr and Jsodromus Howard, with 
descriptions of two closely related genera. 
[Proc. U. 8. Nat. Mus., Vol. LVI, 1919.] 
The Smithsonian Institution. 


( shi) 


Toruint (J. D.). Some notes on natural control of the Oyster-shell scale 
(Lepidosaphes ulmi UL. ). 
[Bull. Ent. Research, Vol. IX, March 1919. ] 
—-— Some new species of Tachinidae from India. 
[ Bull. Ent. Research, Vol, IX, May 1918.] The Author. 
TowNnsENpD (C. H. T.). New genera and species of Muscoid flies. 
[Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., Vol. LVI, 1919.] 
The Smithsonian Institution. 
TREHERNE (R. C.). The History of the Codling moth in British Columbia. ° 
[Reprinted from the Agric. Gazette of Canada, Vol. VI, Jan. 1919.] 
Canad. Dept. Agric. 
TryBom (F.). Obituary notice of, with portrait, by Chr. Aurivillius. 


[Ent. Tidskr. Arg. 35, 1914. ] Chr, Aurivillius. 
TuRNER W.F.). [See Baker (A. C.).] 
Urpauns (T. D.). Life-history observations on four recently described 
parasites of Bruchophagus funebris. 
’ [Journ. Agric. Research, Vol. XVI, No. 6, 1919.] 
The Smithsontan Institution. 
Van Duzer (E. P.). [See Report of the Canadian Arctic Expedition, 
1913-18.] 4 
Wacner (H.). [See Lepidopterorum Catalogus. | 
WarninG, the European corn-burer. A Poster issued by the Canadian 
Department of Agriculture (undated, ? 1919). 
Canad. Dept. Agric. 
WriskE (J.). [See Coleopterorum Catalogus. | 
Wuirts (G. F.). Nosema disease [of adult honey bees]. 
[U. S. Dept. Agric., Bull. No. 780, June 1919. ] 
U.S. Dept. Agric. 
Wittarp (H.F.). [See PEMBERTON (C. E.).] 
Wirurams (C. B.). Plant diseases and pests. Notes on some Trinidad 
Thrips of economic importance. 
[Trinidad and Tobago Bulletin, Vol. XVII, 3, 1918. ] 
The Author. 
Wytsman (P.). Genera Insectorum, Fase. CLXIV-CLX XIII, 1914-1919. 
E. A. Elliott. 


( xliii_ ) 


Periodicals and Publications of Societies. 


AFRICA. 


DursBan. Annals of the Durban Museum. Vol. II, Part 4, 1919. 
T. D, A. Cockerell. 


AMERICA (NORTH). 
CANADA. 


Lonpon, ONTARIO. The Canadian Entomologist. Vol. LI, 1919. 
By Exchange. 


Orrawa. Royal Society of Canada.) List of Officers and Minutes of 
Proceedings. 1918. The Society. 


UNITED STATES. 


New York. New York Entomological Society. Journal. Vol. XX VII, 1919. 
Purchased. 


PHILADELPHIA. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Proceedings. 
Vol. LXX, Part 3, 1918; Vol. LXXI, Part 1, 1919. 
By Exchange. 
Entomological News, Vol. XXX, 1919. By Exchange. 
WasHincron. United States National Museum. Annual Report, 1918, 1919. 


AMERICA (SOUTH). 
BRAZIL. 


Sio Pauto. Revista do Museu Paulista. Tome X, 1918. 
The Museum. 


WEST INDIES. 


Barpapos. West Indian Bulletin. The Journal of the Imperial Agricul- 
tural Department for the West Indies. Vol. XVII, No. 3, 1919. 


Agricultural News. Vol. XVIII, 1919. 
The Agricultural Department. 


ASIA. 


INDIA. 


BomsBay. Natural History Society. Journal. Vol. XX VI, Parts 2, 3, 1919. 
By Exchange, E 

Catcurta. Agricultural Research Institute, Pusa. Report, 1918-15. 1919. 

Cotomso. Spolia Zeylanica, Vol. XI, Parts 40, 41, 1918, 1919. 

Manpras. Report of Government Museum, July 1919. The Museum. 


Pusa. Agricultural Journal of India. Vol. XIV, Parts 1-5, 1919. 
India Office. 


C Sacinw, ) 


AUSTRALASIA. 


ADELAIDE.’ Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of South 
Australia. Vol. XLII, 1918. 
By Exchange. 
Records of the South Australian Museum. Vol. I, No. 2, 1919. 
The Museum. 


BrisBANE. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum. Vol. VI, 1918. 
The Museum. 


Sypnry. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales. 
Vols. XLI, Parts 3, 4, 1916; XLII, Parts 1-4,1917; XLIITI, 
Parts 1-4, 1918. By Exchange. 


EUROPH. 


BELGIUM. 
Brussers. Annales de la Société entomologique de Belgique, Vol. LIX, 
Parts 1-8, 1919. : 


Bulletin de la Société de Belgique. Vol. I, Part 1-8, 1919. 
By Exchange. 


DENMARK. 
KigBENHAVN. Entomologiske Meddelelser. Trettende Bind, Fgrste Hefte 
Andet Hefte, 1919. Purchased. 
FRANCE. 


Paris. Société entomologique de France. Annales, Vol. LXXXVII, Parts 
: 3 and 4, 1918, 1919. 


Bulletin. 1918, No. 21; 1919, Nos. 1-18. By Exchange. 


* GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. 
Dusuin. Irish Naturalist. Vols. XX V-XXVIII, 1916-1919. 
The Rev. W. F, Johnson. 
Lonpon. Aunals and Magazine of Natural History. 1919. Purchased. 
Bulletin of Entomological Research. Vol. IX, Parts 3 and 4, 


1918; Vol. X, Parts 1-3, 1919. Purchased. 
Entomologist (The). 1919. R. South. 
Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine. 1919. The Editors. 
Entomologist’s Record and Journal of Variation. Vol. XXXI, 

1919. ‘ Purchased. 
Entomological Society of London. ‘Transactions, 1918, Part 5; 

1919, Parts 1-4. Ent. Soc. London. 


Linnean Society of London. Zoology, Journal and Proceedings. 
1919. By Exchange. 
London Natural History Society. Transactions, 1918. 

: The Society. 


Naturalist (The). 1919. By Exchange. 
Nature. 1919. The Publishers. 
Quekett Microscopical Club. Journal. Nos. 84, 85, 1919. 
The Club. 
Review of Applied Entomology. Series A, Agricultural. Vol. VII, 
1919. Purchased. 


Review of Applied Entomology. Series B, Medical and Veterinary. 
Vol. VII, 1919. Purchased. 


(yale ys) 


Lonvon. Royal Agricultural Society. Journal. Vol. LX XIX, 1918, 
The Society. 
Royal Microscopical Society. Journal. 1919. By Exchange. 


Royal Society. Proceedings. 1919. By Exchange. 
Royal Society. Philosophical Transactions. 1919. 
By Exchange. 
South London Entomological and Natural History Society, Pro- 
ceedings, 1918-19. The Society. 
Zoological Society. Proceedings. 1919. By Exchange. 
MAncHESTER. Lancashire and Cheshire Naturalist. Vol. XII, No. 1, 
July 1919. Wm. Tattersall. 
HOLLAND. 
Tur Hacur. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie. 1919, Eerste en Tweede 
Aflevering. By Exchange. 
ITALY. 
Frrenze. Bullettino della Societa’ Entomologica Italiana. Vol. XLIX, 
1917 (1919). _ By Exchange. 
Porticr. Bollettino del Laboratorio di Zoologia Generale e Agraria. Vol. 
XIIT, 1919. By Exchange. 
PORTUGAL. 


Braca. Broteria Revista Luso-Brazileira. Vol. XVII, 1919, Fase. 1, 2. 
Purchased. 


SWITZERLAND. 


Genitve. Mémoirs de la Société de Physique et d’Histoire naturelle. Vol. 
XXXVI, 1919. The Society. 


(- xiyi ’) 


BENEFACTIONS. 


List of Donations of the amount or value of Twenty pounds 
and upwards. 


1861. 
H. T. Srainton, £25.* 

1862. 
Rey. F. W. Hors, his library. 

1864. 
J. W. Dunnine, £123 5s. 

1867. 


The same, towards cost of publications, £105. 


1868. 


H. J. Fust, towards the cost of his paper on Geographical 
Distribution, £25. 


The Royat Society, for the same, £25. 
1869. 
J. W. Dunnine, £50. 


W. W. Saunpers, cost of drawing and engraving 24 plates for 
Pascoe’s ‘‘ Longicornia Malayana.” 


1870. 
J. W. Dunnine, £20. 


The same, the entire stock of eight vols. of the Transactions. 


1872. 


The same, towards cost of publications, £50. 


1875. 
The same, cost of removal of Library and new book-cases, £99 
17s. 4d. 
1876. 


The same, towards cost of publications, £50. 


1879. 
H. T. Srarinton, £20 10s. 6d. 


* It has not been always possible to find the exact purpose for which the 
earlier money gifts were intended, but they appear to have been usually in 
support of the publications. It is also probable that the list is incomplete, 
and the Secretary will be grateful for additions or corrections. 


(, slvr!) 


1880. 
The same, £20. 
1881. 
J. W. DunninG, towards cost of publications, £40. 
H. T. Srarnton, for the same, £25. 
1882. 
The same, £30. 
1883. 
The same, £35. 
1884. 


J. W. Dunnine, £50. 
H. T. Srarnton, £40. 
W. B. Spence, his late father’s library. 


1885. 
J. W. Dunnine, £35. 


The same, the whole cost of the Society’s Charter. 


1893. 


The same, towards cost of publishing the Library Catalogue, £25. 


1894. 
The same, £45. 


The Misses Swan, £250 for the ‘‘ Westwood Bequest,” the 
interest to be used for plates in the Transactions. 


F. D. GopMman (in this and subsequent years), ‘‘ Biologia Centrali- 
Americana.” 


1898. 
Mrs. StTarnton, about 800 volumes and pamphlets from H. T. 
Stainton’s Library. 
1899 
S. STEVENS, legacy, £100. 
1902. 


G. W. Patmer, M.P., towards cost of printing G. A. K. Marshall’s 
paper on the Bionomics of African Insects, £30. 


Prof. E. B. Poutton, towards cost of plates, £65. 


1903. 


H. J. Etwes, cost of plates to illustrate his paper on the Butterflies 
of Chile, £36 18s. 2d. 


F. D. Gopman, cost of plates to illustrate his paper on Central and 
S. American Hrycinidae. 


( xlviii_) 


1904. 
H. L. L. Fevruam, towards cost of plates for R. Trimen’s paper on 
S. African Lepidoptera, £20. 
ix 1906. 
The same towards cost of plates for R. Trimen’s paper on African 
Lepidoptera, £20. 
1908. 


K. A. Exxiort (in this and subsequent years), Wytsman’s ‘‘ Genera 
Insectorum.”’ 


1909. 
Ch. OBERTHUR (in this and subsequent years), his ‘‘ Lépidoptér- 
ologie comparée.” 
1910. 


. Dr. T. A. CHapman, towards cost of plates for his papers on Life- 
histories of Lepidoptera, £25. 


1911. 


Sir G. Kenrick, Bart., cost of plates for his paper on Butterflies of 
Dutch New Guinea, £54. 


1912. 
Dr. T. A. CHAPMAN, cost of plates for his papers on Life-histories 
of Lepidoptera, £35 6s. 5d. 
1918. 


The Royat Socrety, towards the publication of D. Sharp’s paper 
on the Genitalia of Coleoptera, £60. 


1914. 
F. D. Gopman, cost of plates for G. C. Champion’s papers on 
Mexican and Central American Coleoptera, £22 7s. 6d. 


G. T. BerHuNE-BakER, cost of 12 plates illustrating his Presidential 
Address. 


1915. 


J. J. Joicey, cost of plates for his papers on Lepidoptera from 
Dutch New Guinea, £82 11s. 


Dr. G. B. Lonestar, cost of plates for Dr. Dixey’s paper on New 
Pierines, £32. 


Prof. R. Me.pona, legacy (subject to the life-interest of Mrs. 
Meldola), £500. 
1917. 
Mrs. Metpota, for books for the Library, £31 10s. 


EK. E. Green, large binocular microscope. 


1919. 


Dr. T. A. CHapman, F.R.S., cost of plates to illustrate his papers, 
£56 19s. 3d. 


TRANSACTIONS 


OF THE 


ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY 


LONDON 


For: THE. YEAR 1919. 


I. Butterfly Vision. By H. Evrrineuam, M.A., D.Sc., F.Z.8, 


[Read December 4th, 1918.] 
PuaTes [-V. 


So much has already been written on the structure and 
function of the compound or facetted eye of Arthropods, 
that the worker who is unequipped with a profound know- 
ledge of optics, mathematics and other sciences, may well 
feel some hesitancy in adding to the already voluminous 
literature of the subject. Nevertheless, since most works 
on insects in general give but a very imperfect summary 
of existing knowledge, whilst comparatively few papers 
on the insect eye are written in English, it is hoped that 
the observations here recorded will not be regarded as 
altogether superfluous. 

If my examination of the matter appears to have resulted 
in but little that is new, at least I can claim to have 
repeated many of the known experiments and thus helped 
to remove at least some of the uncertainty which has 
hitherto tended to make the subject of insect vision an 
unstable compound of opposing theories. My attention 
was first called to the subject by the articles on the sense 
of sight written by Hess, in the “ Handbuch der vergleich- 
ender Physiologie,” in which he describes very extensive 
and elaborate experiments on animal vision. As the result 
of these he announces that all insects, or at least those on 
which he experimented, are totally colour-blind. 

How many of us have not been first attracted to the 
study of insects by their beautiful colours and their asso- 

TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PARTS I, II. (JULY) B 


2 Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 


ciation with flowers? So far as butterflies are concerned, 
colour would seem to be inseparably associated with their 
very existence, and to be told, with an alleged weight of 
evidence, that their own colours and those of their sur- 
roundings have for them no existence, 1s to receive a rude 
shock to our most cherished traditions, however clearly we 
may realise the obvious fact that the existence of colours 
is no proof that they were intended to be seen. 

My original intention then was to try to carry out a 
series of experiments on the question of colour vision only, 
but closer acquaintance with existing works on insect 
vision convinced me that there was scope for a somewhat 
wider examination of the subject, in spite of the fact that, 
given the power of sight, by whatever means this power 
may be exercised, the histological structure of the crea- 
ture’s eyes is but little likely to demonstrate or disprove 
the power to distinguish colours. 

The present paper resolves itself, therefore, into two 
parts, the nature and position of the image in the eye, 
together with the character of the supposed organs of 
perception, and secondly, the evidence for and against a 
capacity for distinguishing those differences in the wave- 
lengths of ight which we ourselves speak of as colours. 

Rather for the latter purpose than the former I have 
chosen as a type the insects referred to in the title, since 
the question, Do insects distinguish colours? is about as 
vague as an inquiry as to whether birds are black. There 
are many species of insects which can have no use whatever 
for a sense of colour, apart from the many which we know 
to be blind. Nevertheless,in examining the subject of insect 
sight we shall have to refer to insects of other orders and 
even to animals which are not insects at all. 


THE STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION OF FACETTED EYEs. 


So far as the histological structure of the compound 
eye is concerned, the difficulties, though considerable, are 
not so great as those which appertain to the nature of 
their function. The extent of our knowledge of the vision 
of any creature will always have certain limits, though in 
the case of the vertebrate eye we feel able to attain to more 
nearly final conclusions, owing to our personal knowledge 
of our own visual powers and the known homology of 
other vertebrate eyes. Thus we know that in our own 


Dr. H. Eltrmgham on Butterfly Vision. 3 


eyes there is a lens which can, and in fact does, project 
an image of external objects on to a sensitive layer, the 
retina, in the same way as the lens of a photographic 
camera throws an image on to the sensitive plate at the 
back. There are minor differences, such as the curved 
surface of the retina, the method of focal adjustment, etc., 
but the general principle is the same. The image is sharp 
and complete, and as in the camera it is upside down. 
That we are unconscious of the latter fact is merely due to 
interpretation based on experience. Objects viewed in a 
flat mirror appear to us to be laterally reversed though not 
inverted. Such operations as we habitually perform with 
the aid of a mirror are done with perfect facility and proper 
co-ordination of movement, whilst those which are not 
generally done by reflection, such as writing or drawing, are 
found, when attempted, to be extremely difficult. Nor are 
we normally conscious of the fact that owing to the 
possession of two eyes we see two images, those of near 
objects differing considerably, whilst those of more distant 
ones are less diverse. Our perceptive faculties combine 
the two images into one, at the same time utilising their 
differences to obtain an estimate of distance. The well- 
known stereoscopic photograph is adapted to this faculty 
and gives an apparently solid picture from two rather 
different flat ones. Examination of other vertebrate eyes 
shows their structure to be so similar that we are justified 
in assuming that theit action is the same, though there 
are a few exceptions, such as the chamaeleon, whose eyes 
can be moved quite independently, and cannot be supposed 
to give a stereoscopic image except when they both happen 
to be looking in the same direction.* Also most fishes’ 
eyes would seem to be so placed that both can hardly see 
the same object at once. 

So far, then, we may claim to know something of the 
nature of our own eyes and of those which are similarly 
formed. The knowledge does not carry us very far. An 
image optically described as.a real image, as opposed to 
what is known as a virtual image, seen in certain lens com- 
binations, is projected on to a highly complicated nervous 
tissue, the retina. How that image in all its intricacy of 
form and colour is conveyed to and perceived by the 
brain, we do not know. 


* As Prof. Poulton reminds me, the chamaeleon’s eyes are always 
co-ordinated at the moment of striking. 


4 Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 


In the Invertebrata we find many types of eyes, 7. e. 
organs whose function is to perceive ight. In lower forms 
such organs are of so simple a character as to preclude the 
possibility of their doing more than detecting the differ- 
ence between light and darkness. All stages of complica- 
tion and multiplication are found. Some molluscs have 
hundreds of such organs, many of them capable of pro- 
ducing images, though in many cases the existence of a 
nervous mechanism capable of perceiving such images 
seems doubtful, and the value of so many eyes to creatures 
of such sedentary habit is rather obscure. 

In other invertebrate creatures, and notably in spiders 
and insects, we find what are known as simple eyes or 
ocelli each having a single lens producing an inverted image, 
though to what extent such image is perceived by the 
animal’s consciousness it is difficult clearly to define. 

The most remarkable form of invertebrate eye is, however, 
the compound or facetted eye of insects and Crustacea. 

Before summarising the various views and theories which 
have been advanced on the subject of the vision of the 
compound eye, it will be well to give some description of 
its structure, so that the references of former workers to 
its various parts may be more easily understood. 

Plate I shows a section through the eye of an ordinary 
Small Tortoise-shell butterfly (Vanessa urticae) which may 
conveniently be taken as a type. The outer part of the 
eye presents the surface of rather more than a quarter of 
a sphere, and faces in all directions except inwards and 
backwards. It is separated from the corresponding eye 
of the other side by a hard chitinous framework, very 
narrow above and in front, but wider beneath, where a 
somewhat larger space is required for the palpi and the 
proboscis. The external layer of the eye is of fairly hard 
chitin divided into a great number of hexagonal elements, 
the facets, in V. wrticae about 5000-6000 on each side. A 
facet consists of a minute lens, generally if not invariably 
colourless in the centre, but often yellow or brownish round 
the edges. This layer is called the corneal layer. In 
V. urticae and many other butterflies there are hairs pro- 
jecting from sockets between the facets. As these are all 
radially arranged they do not interfere with the vision any 
more than do the eyelashes of vertebrates. In transverse 
section the lenses are more or less biconvex, and frequently, 
especially in butterflies, there lies beneath the lenses a 


Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 5 


layer of transparent material which has been called the 
processus corneae. Beneath this layer and corresponding 
to the number and position of the corneal facets are found 
the structures known as “ommatidia.” The form of the 
ommatidium varies within rather wide limits. In V. urticae 
it is as follows— 

Adjacent to the inner surface of the processus corneae is 
a highly refractive body of a chitinous nature and having 
a conical shape. It is known as the crystalline cone, or 
shortly, the cone. In life it is entirely transparent and 
apparently structureless, though in prepared microscopic 
specimens it is seen to consist of four cells whose contact 
surfaces lie parallel to the long axis cf the cone. At the 
outer end or base of each cell is a nucleus, the so-called 
Semper’s nucleus. The whole conical body appears in 
stained preparations as a cone enclosed in a sheath like 
a nut in its shell, and in differential staining the sheath, 
and sometimes the nuclei, take that stain which indicates 
a lesser degree of chitinisation, the cone itself usually 
taking the same stain as the corneal facets. At the inner 
or apical end the cone sheath is continued as a long trans- 
parent rod, forming the central part of the ommatidium. 
This rod is known as the “rhabdom” (PI. II, fig. 2, 1.). 
Surrounding it but not, in V. urticae, reaching quite to the 
cone apex, there are several (eight in V. urticae) elongated 
cells known as the retinulae, or visual cells (PI. IJ, fig. 1, ret.). 
These extend backwards from near the cone apices to a 
transverse septum in the depth of the eye, called the 
“basal membrane.” In butterflies, or at least in those I 
have examined, the rhabdom does not reach the basal 
membrane, but stopping abruptly just short of it, leaves an 
interval which is partly occupied by a highly refractive 
chitinous body which is a development of the tracheal 
system. Of this structure, which has been observed but 
hitherto incorrectly interpreted, I shall have more to say 
later. As regards the relationship of the rhabdom to the 
retinulae, most observers are of the opinion that the former 
is really a complex structure formed from the secretion by 
each retinula cell of a chitinous rod along its inner surface, 
and I am inclined to support this view. In more primitive 
eyes the rhabdom is incomplete and irregular and seems to 
be little more than a supporting structure. In more highly 
developed eyes it would appear to be of optical importance. 
In addition to the structures already mentioned we find 


6 Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 


in the eye several series of cells containing pigment 
granules. Their precise number and arrangement varies 
greatly in different eyes. In V. wrticae there are two very 
conspicuous cells occupying the space between the apex 
of the cone and the outer ends of the retinulae; they form 
a dense black collar round the cone apex and the distal 
end of the rhabdom. Between the cones there are series of 
secondary pigment cells which extend processes towards the 
basal membrane, these meeting similar processes from 
pigment cells attached to, or extending from, the basal 
membrane. There are also pigment granules in the 
retinulae cells, and in or around the nerves and nerve cells 
beneath the basal membrane. 

It has already been stated that the retinulae cells extend 
backwards to the basalmembrane. The latter is perforated, 
and through the openings there pass eight nerve fibres, one 
to each retinula (Pl. II, fig. 1, .). Below the basal mem- 
brane these nerve fibres (PI. II, fig. 4, m.) are arranged more 
or less symmetrically round a large nucleated cell through 
the centre of which passes a small tracheal tube (PI. II, fig. 
4, t.). Passing backwards into the head, these nerve fibres 
are seen to occur in bundles, each bundle containing fibres 
‘appertaining to more than one set of retinulae. The bundles 
are separated by what appear to be large spaces. These 
are the lumina of a tracheal network lying horizontally in 
this part of the eye. Below this layer are several well- 
marked strata of nerve tissue, notably three ganglionic 
bodies named by Hickson (Quart. Jour. Micr. Sci. p. 215, 
etc., 1885), counting from within outwards, the “ opticon,” 
the “ epi-opticon,” and the “ peri-opticon.” In the peri- 
opticon the individuality of the ommatidia seems to be 
preserved, since transverse sections show a more or less 
regular geometrical arrangement. (See Pl. II, fig.3). One 
might fancifully compare it with a telephone switch-board 
in which all wires or nerves arrive at their proper sockets, 
though traversing the intervening space, the tracheal area, 
in apparently haphazard bundles. 

Beyond this area I have not so far attempted to trace 
the course of the fibres, since in the depths of the brain or 
ganglia the phenomena of sense transmission and percep- 
tion constitute more of a psychological than a physiological 
problem, and a study of the inner ganglia is not calculated 
to throw much light on the visual capacity of the insect. 

I have already spoken of a highly refractive body lying 


Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 7 


at the inner end of the rhabdom. Jonas (Zeit. Wiss. Zool. 
1911) seems to have been the first to notice this, and 
strangely enough observed it in only one species of butterfly. 
He gives a small text figure and states that he is unable 
to offer any explanation of it. I have observed it in all the 
butterflies I have examined, and have studied it especially 
in Vanessa urticae and Ganoris brassicae. It is, as above 
stated, a part of the trachaeal system and has a some- 
what remarkable structure. There passes through the 
basal membrane to each ommatidium a fine trachaeal tube 
(see Pl. II, fig. 1, ¢.) which immediately increases consider- 
ably in diameter, and the usual spiral thickening of its 
walls can be distinctly seen. This widened portion of the 
tube contains the refractive body already referred to. 
Judging by the manner in which it stains it is strongly 
chitinised. In longitudinal section it is cylindro-conical 
(see Pl. Il, fig. 1, ¢f), but in transverse section it is 
cruciform. Fig. 5, Pl. If shows a transverse section of 
four ommatidia, passing through these bodies near their 
basal or outer (distal) ends. It will be seen that the 
four arms of the cruciform section come outwardly into 
contact with the widened portion of the trachaeal tube, so 
that four spaces remain. A little higher up, fig. 6, each 
of these four spaces is divided into two, so that eight spaces 
are now seen, and these are the lumina of the eight trachaeal 
tubes which shortly afterwards pass outwards to the sur- 
face of the ommatidium and extend forwards towards the 
corneal layer, ending blindly not far from the crystalline 
cones. A similar arrangement appears in V. to and 
probably in other Vanessidae. In G. brassicae the structure 
is different. Instead of the conical body there is a thick 
chitinous septum which divides the trachaeal tube into two 
divisions only, and these pass forward to be again divided 
into two, but at a higher level than in V. urtzcae, ultimately 
resulting in only four trachaeal tubes. We may, I 
think, conveniently call this structure the ‘‘ trachaeal 
distributor.” . 

I have already pointed out that the nerves pass through 
the basal membrane into the retinulae or visual cells. 
They can still be seen in transverse sections, as eight small 
circles lying outside the eight branches of the trachacal 
system (PI. II, fig. 6, ret.). Negative results in research 
are rarely satisfactory, and a recital of the efforts I have 
made to trace the course of these nerve fibres would make 


8 Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 


long and profitless reading. Thousands of preparations 
have been made, and various processes which seemed 
to be indicated have been tried in vain, and I am forced 
to the conclusion that the nerve does not continue as 
fibrils into the body of the ommatidium, but that the 
retinulae are themselves merely large elongated nerve- 
end cells. Workers on the Crustacea claim in certain 
cases to have observed nerve fibrils passing from the 
retinulae horizontally into the rhabdom. So far as my 
researches go no such structure can be seen in the eyes of 
butterflies, nor in those of many other insects which I have 
examined. It will be seen later that certain other workers 
claim to have seen nerve fibres in various positions, such as 
the rhabdom and in and around the cones. I have repeated 
their methods and experimented with many others, but 
I have never succeeded in tracing the nerves as recognisable 
fibres further than a short distance beyond the basal 
membrane. That they do undoubtedly pass through that 
membrane there is no question whatever, and this fact 
should be remembered in connection with Lowne’s theory 
to be mentioned later. 

Some time after I had arrived at these conclusions in 
regard to the nature of the retinulae they received apparent 
confirmation by the work of Domingo Sanchez on the 
development of the retinal elements in G. brassicae (Trab. 
del Lab. de Investig. Biol. de Madrid, 1916-17). 

My attention was called to this work by my friend Mr. 
J. Bronté Gatenby of the Department of Physiology at 
Oxford. Sanchez worked on the pupa of G. brassicae and 
succeeded, apparently by Cajal’s modification of Golgi’s 
silver chromate impregnation, in demonstrating the purely 
nervous nature of the retinulae cells. The process is very 
capricious in its action, and though I had already tried it 
without result, I made still further efforts, and after a time 
succeeded in obtaining a differentiation of the retinulae cells 
indicating their nervous nature. 

The optical and primarily receptive layers are evidently 
to be sought between the basal membrane and the corneal 
layer, and having noted the general structure of the eye, 
we may now proceed shortly to review some of the theories 
which have been advanced in regard to the method and 
quality of vision of which such an eye may be deemed 
capable. 

The theory which is at the same time the oldest and 


Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 9 


most generally accepted is that of Miiller (Zur vergleichen- 
den Physiologie des Gesichtsinnes der Menschen und der 
Thiere, 1826) and may be freely translated as follows— 

“Tf light from a particular part of the object can only 
reach a particular part of the retina, all other parts of the 
retina will be excluded from this particular light, and so 
an image is formed. This happens in the composite eyes 
of insects and Crustacea by means of the cones which 
lie between the corneal facets and the fibres of the visual 
nerves, united to each at their extremities and clothed 
laterally with pigment. Hach of these cones peripherally 
placed round a convex nerve mass passes, to the individual 
nerve endings with which it is united at its apex, only 
that light which falls directly through the axis of the cone. 
All other rays emanating from the same point and falling 
obliquely on the cornea will fail to reach the lower extremity 
of the cone and so will not come to the perception of the 
other fibres of the visual nerves. They will be absorbed, 
if they fall obliquely, by the pigment-covered walls of the 
cones, these being transparent only in their axes.” 

Further :—‘‘ The convexity of the corneal facets will 
guide the light in the direction of the axis, and cause a 
greater concentration in the depth of the eye. So it may 
happen that the whole light passing through the cone will 
be concentrated at the apex where the nerve fibres are 
attached, in the form of a point, whereby the brightness 
of the image must be much increased. The refraction of 
the outer surface of the cornea is, however, not so great 
that it can form a special small image for each facet. If 
it did no image could be produced, for if one were formed 
in the focal distance of the lens, it would necessarily be 
reversed. Not the whole field would be reversed, but the 
picture formed by each of the facets respectively and 
unnaturally. As also the facets in the compound eyes of 
insects frequently show little or no convexity, we can 
attribute to the peripheral convex surface no other func- 
tion than the concentration of the light towards the pointed 
apices of the cones.” 

This is what is known as the “ mosaic” theory of the 
sight of the compound eye, and may shortly be enunciated 
thus. 

Each facet registers on a sensitive layer a spot of light 
corresponding in quality to the average of the light re- 
flected, normally to the facet, by that part of the object 


‘ 


10 Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 


within the facet’s field of view. Hence an erect image will 
be formed made up of such spots of light in the form of a 
mosaic. Miiller was of course mistaken in stating that the 
facets could not form an image. 

The first to throw doubt on Miiller’s theory was R. Wag- 
ner (Archiv. f. Naturgesch. p. 372, 1835), who considered 
the sheath of the cone as the true nerve expansion. Will 
(Leipzig, 1840) regarded the compound eye as an aggregate 
of simple eyes. Gottsche (Beit. sur Anat. u. Physiolog., 
etc., Miiller’s Archiv. p. 483-92, 1852) reobserved the images 
formed by the facets of an insect’s eye with the inside 
removed, and calculated the focal distance of the image. 
He considered that his work disproved Miiller’s theory, 
and certainly it was the cause of its temporary displace- 
ment. Leydig in various papers expressed the view that 
the cones were the nervous elements, forming with their 
thread-like continuations a perceptive element comparable 
with the retina of vertebrates. He thought all the small 
images were in some way conveyed to the brain and com- 
bined into one large picture. Claparéde (Zur Morph. 
der Zusamm. Augen, etc., Zeit. Wiss. Zool. p. 191, 1859) 
points out that Miiller’s theory makes the definition of 
the object dependant on the number of the facets and 
states that bees can see the hive entrance at great distances. 
It hardly requires Grenacher’s refutation to remind us 
that there is no proof that bees can see the hive any more 
than that carrier pigeons can see their pigeon-house, and 
indeed we know from many experiments that bees do not 
return to the hive door by sight, since they will return 
infalhbly to the place where the door was if the hive be 
turned round. Claparéde suggests that each facet sees a 
definite image and the view is made up of the sum of these 
images, the physiological difficulty of multiple inverted 
images being in his opinion no greater than in the case of 
several simple eyes. He regarded the cone as an optical 
and percipient element combined. 

Ruete (1861) thought that not only the axial rays 
affected the nerve elements but many rays affected many 
neighbouring elements. Here we seem to have an antici- 
pation of Exner’s “superposition image.” Dor (1861), 
examining the subject from an optical point of view, made 
out that the image was formed at the hinder end of the 
cone and condemned Leydig’s theory of the nervous 
constitution of that body. He regarded the cone sheath 


Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 11 


as the retina, and in reply to the difficulty of its shape for 
receiving a picture points out that the human retina is not 
truly spherical. 

Schiiltze (Untersuch. uber zusammenges. Aug. Bonn, 
1868) held that the mosaic theory was physically unten- 
able, as also Leydig’s view of the nervous nature of the 
cones, these latter being in his view a purely dioptric 
apparatus for the production of the image. Schiiltze’s 
monograph is one of the most interesting of the older works 
on the compound eye, since it enters into great detail on 
the question of the nerve distribution. According to that 
author the central rod or rhabdom of the ommatidium is 
the nerve rod, formed of several fibres in a common sheath. 
He claims to have seen these fibres very distinctly. They 
are said by him to have a laminated structure as though 
made up of a great number of small plates transversely 
superimposed. At the outer or distal end they divide and 
enter the cone, to the number in some cases of eight, being 
then apparently lost in the substance of the cone. Schiiltze’s 
figures and descriptions are very convincing, and one feels 
almost inclined to believe that he saw the structures he 
describes, though Grenacher, who spent years in examining 
these eyes, does not appear to have found the nerve fibres, 
and indeed professes to doubt their existence. He states 
that Schiiltze found them only in a very few cases, and 
himself confessed that he was unable to find them in the 
majority. Boll (1871) pointed out the unimportance of 
Leuwenhoek’s images, reobserved by Gottsche, these being 
an incidental consequence of the lenses of the facets. He 
also pointed out the lack of accommodation in the insect 
eye, and the impossibility of combining an endless number 
of images into one picture. 

In 1879 appeared Grenacher’s great work on the Arthro- 
pod eye (Untersuch. uber der Arthrop., etc., Gottingen, 
1879). For beauty of illustration this work has probably 
not been surpassed. It will be necessary to review at 
some length that author’s conclusions. In the course of 
his introduction, from which I have extracted part of the 
foregoing summary, he remarks that the perception of a 
number of inverted images need not at once be dismissed in 
view of the simple Arthropod and the Vertebrate eye, but its 
probability will depend on the nature, and especially on the 
number. of the percipient elements belonging to each corneal 
facet. If, where the light rays fall, there be only a single 


12 Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 


percipient organ, it must either perceive only a small 
portion of such picture, or else, if large enough to take 
in the whole, it will only record a mixture having the 
general luminosity of the picture. The difficulty of the 
reversed image is not in his view a good reason for rejecting 
it, since spiders with six to eight simple eyes, certain water- 
beetle larvae with twelve, and other creatures must have 
inverted images. 

He proceeds to classify the two main theories as first, 
Miiller’s theory of mosaic vision, and second, “ the little 
picture theory.” Miiller’s theory provides that only a 
single perceptive element occurs behind each facet, one 
nerve element being joined to each cone. In opposition 
thereto the picture theory will be upheld when a multi- 
plicity of such elements, serving as a retina, can be demon- 
strated. In all fairly well-developed visual organs in the 
animal kingdom are found structures of a quite specific 
kind, the rods, in a wide sense, which are to be regarded 
as the percipient end organs. In the simple Arthropod 
eye, and especially in the stemma of insects and spiders, 
these rods have been recognised. In their main agreement 
with those of other animals we must claim for them the 
same signification, the more so since other retinal elements 
which could be substituted for them are sought in vain. 
If we accept the projection on the retina of, for example, 
a spider’s eye, of an inverted image, we must also agree 
that the external object can only be distinctly seen when 
its rays come to a focus on the rod-bearing region of the 
retina. For the sight with equal distinctness of objects 
at varying distances, the vertebrate eye possesses an 
accommodation or focussing apparatus of which there is 
no trace in the Arthropod eye. It may perhaps find a 
partial substitute in the relatively great length of the 
rods, so that distant objects whose images fall more on 
the distal ends of the rods, act more on those ends, while 
nearer objects focussed more in the depth of the retina 
may specially stimulate the hinder end. I may here remark 
in parenthesis that this remark has been made by other 
investigators, as for instance Patten (vide infra), and 
Avebury has raised the objection that the nerves which 
are first reached by the light would surely be affected by 
it. As against this objection, it may be urged that in our 
own experience the attention is more easily focussed on a 
defined image than on a blurred one, and thus the percep- 


Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 13 


tive power might act in a selective manner. We shall see 
later, however, that probably neither action is called upon 
in the perception of the image. Grenacher further points 
out that the image projection must take place in any case 
only a short distance behind the distal ends of the rods, 
for it is here that they are surrounded by pigment. He 
considers that it is for obvious reasons established that the 
physiological region of the area of light perception lies 
between the distal and proximal ends of the rods. The 
same applies to the compound eye. In “acone” eyes * 
of Tipula and Ctenophora the light perception is associated 
with the seven rods, of which, especially in the latter, the 
central is much longer than the peripheral, so that the 
central must have a deeper zone of perception. He then 
considers those facetted eyes in which the central rod is 
drawn out into an axial rhabdom, as in Orthoptera, Hymen- 
optera, Lepidoptera, etc., where the rhabdom is extended 
into the whole length of the. retinula. In these the sec- 
tional area is reduced to a minimum, namely the cross 
section of the rhabdom. Hence it reaches a very consider- 
able depth, and there is nothing to prevent the nervous 
stimulus acting throughout its entire length. The visual 
area of the single facet will be reduced the more it departs 
from the structure of the simple eye. As to the acuity 
of vision we may come to some conclusion, in for example 
the spider’s eye, by taking into account the distance apart 
of the percipient elements in different forms. An eye with 
a great number of small rods on the retinal surface will see 
more clearly than one sparsely provided. Thus the front 
eye of Epeira will surpass the hinder in this respect, for 
the former has an incomparably greater number of rods 
than the latter. On the contrary, the posterior eye has a 
larger visual field than the anterior. In the compound 
eye we may compare the number of elements in the 
retinulae. Dytiscus has only four, Melolontha seven. 
Whether or not the former is compensated by a smaller 
field, we know that the water-beetle is actively voracious 
and gives the impression of having a greater visual power 
than the cockchafer. The discovery of a single perceptive 


* Grenacher divides Arthropod eyes into “‘ acone,” those which 
have no crystalline cones or any substitute for them; ‘‘ pseudocone” 
eyes, those which have in place of the cone a more or less cylindro- 
conical membrane with fluid or semifluid contents; and “‘ eucone ” 
eyes, those which possess a true crystalline cone. 


14 Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 


element behind each facet would have been overwhelmingly 
in favour of Miiller’s theory, but since we know there are 
more, it remains to ask whether this fact invalidates 
Miiller’s theory. 

If Gottsche’s image theory is to be supported it must be 
true for all facetted eyes; furthermore the image must be 
projected in the plane where the percipient elements lie, and — 
there must be a retinal layer with many percipient elements 
to receive it. The formation of a reversed image will depend 
on the spherical surfaces of the refractive media acting as 
lenses. This condition is in most cases supplied. It is 
not to be excluded that the cones may serve this purpose 
through their convex anterior surfaces. The second con- 
dition demands that the image shall be projected where 
we know the percipient elements to lie, and behind the 
cones. The Gottsche experiments demanded that the 
image should pass unaltered through the cone to where 
the sensitive layer must lie. The material used by Gottsche 
was very ill adapted to illustrate the effect of the cones, 
since his flies were insects with pseudocone eyes, the cones 
of which must have been inevitably destroyed, and, 
shortly, the experiments do nothing more than show that 
the corneal lenses act in the same way as would lenses 
of glass. Grenacher proceeds to recount how he has tried 
similar experiments with the eyes of nocturnal moths, im 
spirit specimens of which the internal parts of the eye can 
be removed and the pigment destroyed by nitric acid. 
Such an eye so placed as to make it possible to look through 
it from the back, shows no images at the bases of the cones, 
but does show sharp images just behind the lenses, where, 
however, no sensitive elements lie. 

The third point which Grenacher brings forward is the 
question whether the image, if formed, has the necessary 
area. In general the cone is pointed posteriorly, and 
therefore we look in vain for a projection which has any 
size at all. If an image be possible where the rods do reach 
the hinder end of the cone, it is clearly impossible in those 
cases where the rods are drawn out to a thread-like struc- 
ture, often of considerable length. It is further impossible 
to suppose that an image produced at the forward part 
could be carried inwards like sound on a string. Grenacher 
then discusses the question of the existence of a retina, 
remarking that the reply depends very much on the number 
of elements necessary to form a tissue which can be so 


Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 15 


called. He suggests that what is known as the retinula 
may be regarded as a much-reduced retina having seven 
percipient elements. In certain acone and pseudocone 
eyes the perceptive elements are isolated, but it is to be 
noted that even if each were stimulated, seven elements 
could not impart to the sensorium an impression of 
every single object of the picture, nor could a number of 
pictures projected by neighbouring facets compensate for 
this deficiency. The difficulty is greater in those more 
developed eyes in which the rods are fused into a rhabdom, 
since the picture elements would be greatly reduced in size. 
From the close approach of the rods it must be doubtful 
if a single rod responds individually to any one stimulus 
_ without the co-operation of its neighbours. 

Summing up, he states that in isolated cases there is a 
lack of the necessary curved refractive medium. In other 
cases there may be an image, but far behind the eye. In 
still other cases an image has been seen, but far from where 
it could be effective. The more proximal projection of 
this image is precluded by the position of the pigment, 
added to which there is in most cases the proximal with- 
drawal of the percipient from the refractive media. In all 
cases, without exception, the sharpest projection of an 
image would be without effect owing to the inadequate 
number of the perceptive elements in each ommatidium, 
and there is not in any case, he holds, much ground for 
regarding them as more than a single perceptive entity. 
The picture theory is therefore untenable. He then proceeds 
to discuss the path of the light rays entering each facet. 
The angle at which these fall will determine whether they 
are to be more or less totally absorbed or reflected. The 
axial rays will have a simple and direct path to the rhabdom, 
and these will be the principal ones to affect the percipient 
elements. He reasserts his opinion that though the rod 
elements are multiple, they can only be regarded physio- 
logically as an entity. ‘‘ Kach set of rays will come rela- 
tively to the position they occupied in the outer world, 
and this constitutes the erect image of the compound eye.” 
He points out the insufficiency of the facet unit for the 
reception of the many elements which must be distin- 
guished to form a true image, the strong support which 
anatomical research gives to the mosaic theory, and the 
impossibility of understanding an aggregation of thousands 
of complete eyes, all perceiving images, the more so if each 


16 Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 


be inverted. He compares the simple and compound eye 
as starting from a primitive form, which developed on the 
one hand into an eye with better lens, and more perceptive 
elements (as in a spidez’s eye), on the other hand an indi- 
vidual retrogressive movement, compensated by great 
numbers of elements in definite arrangement and direction. 
By variation in form and co-operation of the pigment, they 
effect not, like the simple eye, the collection, but rather the 
isolation, of the separate rays. 

Grenacher undoubtedly makes out a good case for the 
mosaic theory of vision, both on general principles and in 
view of the structure of the eye, though we shall see that 
his theories have to undergo considerable modification in 
view of more recent research. 

Lowne’s view (Trans. Linn. Soc. Zool. 11, pt. ii, p. 389, 
etc., 1884) that the insect retina lies behind the basal 
membrane merits little consideration in view of our present 
knowledge. It is largely based on the assertion that there 
is no evidence that the nerves pass through the basal 
membrane. It is difficult to understand how the author 
could have made such a statement had he examined even 
a moderate number of sections. Moreover, as will be 
described later, we can under certain circumstances see 
the image in an insect’s eye, and that image certainly does 
not lie behind or even near the basal membrane. Hickson 
(l.c.) treats mainly of the eye of the Blow-fly, and more 
particularly with the nervous structure of the ganglia. 
He considers that the balance of opinion is in favour of 
regarding the retinulae as the true nerve-end cells. He 
states that the end elements of the human eye are only 
‘004 mm. apart, whilst the corresponding distance in 
Musca is ‘01 mm. 

Patten’s work (Eyes of Molluscs and Arthropods, Mit- 
theil. a.d. Stat. zu Neapel. V. 6, p. 542, etc.) has met with 
no general acceptance so far as it concerns the physiology 
of the compound eye. His main contention is that the 
cone is the seat of perception. He claims to have seen by 
his histological methods the nerve fibrillae which pass up 
the rhabdom, and, spreading out over the cone, end therein 
in minute horizontal branches. He is emphatically certain 
on this point, and one ‘gains the impression that nothing 
could be easier than to proceed by his methods and see 
these fibrillae without the least difficulty; nevertheless 
others, including the present writer, have not succeeded 


Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 17 


in demonstrating the presence of such fibrils, and there is 
in fact no real evidence of their existence. 

Jonas (l.c.) describes and figures the structure of many 
Lepidopterous eyes. In his description of the structure 
of the eye he insists on the transversely laminated struc- 
ture of the rhabdom, which he says is quite easy to see. 
The writer cannot agree with this statement. An apparent 
transverse lamination of the rhabdom is occasionally seen 
in osmic acid preparations, but as a rule it is not visible. 
Whether the rhabdom is actually laminated or not, I have 
been unable to decide. Certainly in many cases the fine 
pigment granules when very slightly out of focus have a 
tendency to suggest transverse lines, and I feel certain 
that in some cases at least this appearance has been thus 
misinterpreted. Jonas failed to discover any nerve fibrille, 
though in cross sections of the retinulae he saw clear spots 
which he thought might be sections of nerves. He quotes 
Wagner as describing how in Sphinx atropos “the nerve 
threads or visual nerve bundles surround the apex of the 
cone like a calyx, passing thence to its anterior surface, 
and reaching the cornea; the nerve forms a true retina 
which surrounds the cone like a sheath.” Leydig, as he 
says, took the same view, and he quotes Schiiltze’s minute 
description of the nerve fibrils entering the cone and 
surrounding the apex in a cup-like fashion. He then 
states :— 

“With the help of the apochromatic objective I have 
come to precisely the same results. . . . One almost gains 
the impression that the old authors were right in that 
they maintained that the cone sheath extends as a nerve- 
rod sheath as far as the basal membrane, but a definite 
opinion .cannot be formed until entire proof has been 
obtained by the study of development.” 

It may be noted that these views support those of 
Patten referred to later. 

Jonas, though asserting that he has come to the same 
conclusion as Schiiltze in regard: to the nerve terminals in 
the compound eye, does not figure them and also states 
that he could not find them. The value of his observa- 
tions is somewhat discounted by a very curious and isolated 
‘observation. He describes a “ cigar-shaped structure ”’ at 
the base of the rhabdom which he appears to have seen 
only in Coenonympha pamphilus. A small text figure 
shows the object as attached to the base of the rhabdom 

TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PaRTs I, II. (JULY) C 


18 Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 


by a thread, and he states that he has no explanation to 
offer for the structure. Why he should have seen it only 
in C. pamphilus is difficult to understand, as a homologous 
structure is so obvious in V. urticae, V. 1, and other 
diurnal Lepidoptera that it is a prominent feature in any 
good section. I have already described this feature and 
indicated its true nature as a part of the tracheal system. 
Kurt Bedau (Zeit. f. Wiss. Zool., xevii, 1911: Facettenauge 
der Wasserwanzen) states that his researches into the 
innervation of the retinula have not had much result. 
Even with a ;;-inch apochromatic and compensating 
ocular he has not been able to trace in the ommatidia the 
nerves which pass thence through the basal membrane. 
He has only been able to see with certainty that the 
number of nerve fibres corresponds to the eight visual 
cells. He criticises unfavourably Patten’s work and ex- 
presses the view that what that author took for nerve 
fibrillae in the crystalline cone were the intensively stained 
plasma edges of the four cells of the cone. Many other 
authors have dealt with various aspects of the subject, 
but with one exception I have probably given a sufficient 
resumé of previous work to illustrate the difficulty and 
complexity of the insect eye. The exception referred to 
is the work of Prof. 8. Exner (“ Die Physiologie der facet- 
tirten Augen von Krebsen und Insekten. Leipsig und 
Wien, 1891). To Exner falls the credit of having demon- 
strated ‘experimentally the existence and nature of the 
image in the facetted eye, or at least in certain types of 
that organ, and it is my intention here to set forth the 
conclusions arrived at in that admirable piece of research. 
It is the custom of many writers to quote from foreign 
works in the original, but while the practice may relieve 
them of any errors of interpretation, it is of ttle assistance 
to those readers who may not have had the opportunity 
of acquiring a knowledge of the languages in which such 
quotations are written. Exner’s work is of such import- 
ance, and the only English summary I have seen (“ Senses 
of Insects,” Forel; Eng. Trans., Yearsley. London, 1908) 
so inadequate, that I feel justified in endeavouring to 
give a more complete account of it than has hitherto 
been attempted. 

Exner first experimented with the eye of Hydrophilus 
piceus, and found that in such eyes the refraction of the 
rays by the dioptric portion is of a complicated character, 


Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 19 


due to the fact that the facets and cones are not homo- 
geneous bodies, but have a refractive index which con- 
tinually decreases from the axis to the outer wall. This 
form of refractive body he calls a lens cylinder. 

In order more easily to explain the action of such an 
apparatus I have made the two diagrams on Pl. II, 
which are similar to those given in Exner’s work. Fig. 7 
represents a lens cylinder, the actual length of which is 
the same as its focal length. Now the rays emanating 
from some external point, and represented by the lines 
cd, ef, are made to converge by the refractive action of 
the medium so that they come to a focus at the base of 
the cylinder.. Similarly rays from some other point, repre- 
sented by c’d’, ef’, come to a focus at the same level, 
and an inverted image is formed at the base of the 
cylinder. A peculiar difference between this action and 
that of a lens is, that whereas in the latter the central 
or chief rays, ab, ab’, emerge at an angie, in the lens 
cylinder the chief rays emerge parallel. Now in the case 
where such a lens cylinder is twice as long as its own focal 
length we have the effect diagrammatically shown in 
fig. 8. Here the inverted image occurs in the middle of 
the cylinder, and the lower half of the cylinder acting 
in the same way, rays which enter the cylinder on the 
right, as c’d’, e’f’, emerge again on the right, and the 
image is thus erected. In insect eyes both these optical 
effects occur with apparently varying results. According 
to Exner two kinds of image are formed in the compound 
eye. The first is the superposition image. A very perfect 
- example of this image is furnished by the eye of the male 
glow-worm, Lampyris noctiluca. In this insect the visual 
rods or retinulae do not extend forward so as to touch 
the ends of the cones, but are separated therefrom by a 
small space, filled with what in life is a doubtless trans- 
parent tissue. The pigment between the cones is not 
stationary, as in some other eyes we shall examine, but 
is capable of movement backwards or forwards according 
to the amount of light entering the eye. Thus if the 
hght is weak the pigment moves forward towards the 
corneal layer, and exposes a larger portion of the apex 
of each cone. Now, as Exner has shown, the corneal facet 
and the cone in this beetle act together as a lens cylinder 
of twice its own focal length. Hence the rays emerging 
from the cone apex form a little erect image of that 


20: Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 


part of the visual field opposite its own particular facet. 
If the corresponding visual rod were adjacent to the cone 
apex and separated from other visual rods by a sleeve 
of pigment, such rod would receive only the stimulus 
proceeding from its own facet unit (lens and cone). But 
we have seen that not only are the visual rods at some 
distance behind the cones, but also the pigment is, under 
weak light conditions, drawn forward so as to expose a 
considerable part, of the cone apex. The result is that 
each visual element receives not only the stimulus from 
its own facet unit, but also that of the peripheral rays 
from neighbouring facet units. The images it receives 
from such rays are superimposed upon those ‘thrown from 
its own cone and lens, and thus the image is made brighter 
and more of the light entering the eye is utilised. This is 
the true superposition image. If the external light be 
strong, the pigment moves backwards like a dark sleeve, 
cutting off more and more of the peripheral rays, thus 
decreasing the luminosity of the image, without interfering 
with its clearness. The pigment, in fact, has a similar 
function to that of the iris of the vertebrate eye. 

Owing to a peculiarity in the morphology of the glow- 
worm’s eye this image can be easily seen. The cones are 
so firmly attached to the facet lenses that in a fresh eye 
all the nervous apparatus can be brushed away from the 
inside of the eye, leaving a little hemispherical shell 
consisting of the cornea with its cones in position. 

If this little shell be mounted on a small drop of dilute 
glycerine (to reproduce the refractive effect of beetle 
blood) on a glass slide, and then viewed from the back ° 
through a medium-power objective, and using the plane 
mirror, any object placed between the corneal surface and 
the mirror can be distinctly seen as an erect image, allowing 
of course for the fact that it is inverted again by the 
microscope itself. 

The beauty and sharpness of this image are remarkable. 
If the microscope be tilted up, the mirror removed, and 
the whole apparatus pointed towards a distant landscape, 
trees and any other objects in the field of view are all 
seen with surprising precision. 

Exner succeeded in photographing such an image in an 
allied species, and I have repeated the experiment with 
the result shown on PI. IV, fig. 2, which is a portrait of 
my friend Prof. Poulton taken through a glow-worm’s eye. 


Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 21 


It has, of course, lost much of its sharpness. The prac- 
tical difficulties in making such a photograph are con- 
siderable. The exposure is prolonged, and whilst it is 
taking place the water is evaporating from the glycerine, 
altering all the time the refractive index, and thus affecting 
the clearness of the image. Moreover, small as the picture 
is, it is an enormously enlarged view of the optical image 
which in the actual eye has an area calculated roughly 
at ‘154sq.mm. Exner has given an elaborate mathematical 
proof of the formation of this image, but I have neither 
the space nor the mathematical knowledge to deal with 
that aspect of the matter. 

It should be noted that the picture is not a mosaic at 
all, but a continuous image, and doubtless perceived as 
such by the insect. Those who have examined the beetle 
will have noted how the whole head, including the eyes, 
is completely overshadowed above by an opaque chitinous 
projection. Evidently the insect can only see forwards 
and downwards. No doubt the natural eye shade it 
possesses helps to give it an additionally acute vision for 
objects on the ground, amongst which is to be found its 
main object in life, its mate. 

Exner points out that two features easily recognisable 
in the eyes of insects are, when present, especially adapted 
to the production of a superposition image. These are, 
first, the movement under varying light intensity of the 
“iris”? pigment, and secondly, the existence of a space 
between the cone apices and the visual rods, or the thickest 
part of them. 

Superposition images are found in all those insects which 
have to make the most of feeble light, and hence are 
specially characteristic of. nocturnal and crepuscular 
Lepidoptera. The exclusively apposition image, on the 
other hand, is found only in diurnal insects, such as butter- 
flies, flies, and dragon-flies. This form of image approxi- 
mates very closely, according to Exner, to that of the 
original mosaic theory of Miiller, in that the individual 
“image ” produced by each facet unit is of less importance 
as an image than as a spot of light. 

It is at this point that the results of my own researches 
in the case of butterflies, at any rate, lead me to con- 
clusions markedly different from those of Exner; but I 
will speak of these later. To continue, Exner describes how 
he cut off slices of the eyes of various insects which have 


22 Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 


the retinulae adjacent to the cones. Having obtained such 
a section as, when mounted in the manner already described, 
showed a series of small dots of light corresponding to the 
cone apices, he proceeded to endeavour to study the image 
there formed. 

In an ordinary humble-bee the light dots were so small 
that when he used two light spots as objects the brilliancy 
of the light dots was increased, but the two lght rays 
could not be separated. It was thus hopeless to expect 
to see an image. On the other hand, he succeeded in the 
case of Calliphora vomitoria in seeing the two dots sepa- 
rately, and in proving that the image at the cone apex 
is an inverted one. By measuring the distance between 
the two light images, and then wiping away the cones, 
and measuring again, he found that the distance was 
practically the same, from which he concludes that the 
cone in this insect has an inappreciable optical effect. 
He admits his surprise at this result. The main conclusion 
is, however, that the images produced by the facet units 
in diurnal insects having apposition images are inverted, 
and therefore the picture presented to the percipient layer 
of the insect’s eye is made up of a multitude of inverted 
images, or alternatively of mere light spots. One must. 
conclude from this that the elements composing the whole 
picture are not, as images, of any value, but merely act 
as light spots of the average quality of that emanating 
from the portion of the field recorded by each facet. 

If this be so, then the apposition image is, as an optical 
performance, very inferior to the superposition image, 
although nevertheless produced by a much more highly 
developed and intricate optical apparatus, at any rate in 
the case of eucone eyes. 

I have here endeavoured to give as concise an account 
as possible of the image formation in the compound eye 
as set forth by Exner. There is much more in his book, 
which is a record of by far the most complete research 
yet made on the physiology of the compound eye, and is 
of a value which even the occasional profound obscurity 
of expression peculiar to the German language fails entirely 
to hide. 


AUTHOR’S EXPERIMENTS 


It remains to describe some of my own experiments, 
and to record the extent to which they confirm or refute 


Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 23 


previous results. I have already stated that I was able 
to see and photograph the image in the glow-worm’s eye, 
and my observations on that insect convince me that 
there is no doubt whatever of the correctness of Exner’s 
conclusions, both practical and theoretical, in regard to 
the nature of the superposition image. 

The problem of the apposition image is much less easy 
to solve. Exner had already utilised the idea of freezing 
the eye in order to maintain the cones and other struc- 
tures in their relative positions. The same idea occurred 
independently to my friend Prof. Poulton, though with 
the additional complication of maintaining the eye in a 
frozen condition during examination. A large dragon- 
fly’s eye seemed to promise the greatest facility in handling, 
and I therefore designed and constructed a somewhat 
elaborate apparatus for carrying out the experiment. A 
special hollow stage was made, having a central aperture 
into which were fitted type-metal blocks pierced through 
the centre for light, and accurately cast to fit the eyes of 
various large species of dragon-flies. Small copper pipes 
attached to the stage conveyed and withdrew a freezing 
mixture of ice and ammonium chloride, which was kept 
circulating by means of a small gunmetal force-pump 
actuated by an electro-motor. The lower side of the 
freezing stage was fitted with a glass box having an annular 
space containing calcium chloride, so that the corneal layer 
of the eye should be in perfectly dry air and free from the 
obscuration caused by condensation. It was hoped by 
these means to maintain the eye in a frozen state whilst 
the nervous and other tissue was gradually brushed away 
from the back, until the level of the cone apices was 
reached. 

In its primary object the apparatus was entirely success- 
ful, the eye being completely frozen in a few minutes. 
T may also mention that both carbon dioxide and sulphur 
dioxide were tried as alternative freezing media, but the 
method described proved much superior to either. 

Unfortunately the results obtained with this apparatus 
were not commensurate with the time and labour expended 
in its construction and use. With the eye of Lnbellula 
depressa the apices of the cones could be seen as bright 
points of light, but no image, inverted or erect, could 
be observed. A pencil or other object moved in front 
of the eye caused a shadow, not well enough defined 


24 Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 


to be called an image, and this shadow moved, as one 
would have expected, in the same direction (allowing for 
the effect of the microscope) as the movement of the 
pencil. A similar experiment with an eye of Hemaris 
fuciformis gave a rather clearer shadow or image. In 
general the observations, which were numerous, merely 
confirmed the results obtained by Exner with a large 
dragon-fly. The apices of the cones are so small that by 
the means at our disposal it is very difficult to see the 
image, if any, which occurs there. Nevertheless on another 
occasion, having succeeded in obtaining a portion of the 
cornea of a Libellula with the cones still attached, I could 
see first of all the usual sharp inverted image caused by 
the corneal facet, and focussing backwards, there appeared 
to be, in the neighbourhood of the cone apices, a much 
smaller, much less distinct image, still inverted. I have 
already mentioned that in the blow-fly Exner claims to 
have seen at the cone apices the two light points used by 
him as objects, and to have satisfied himself that the 
image at the apex is an inverted one. I have examined 
flies’ eyes in the same way, and though the presence of 
an image at all, beyond that of the corneal facet, seems 
rather doubtful, there certainly seems no evidence that 
the cone reinverts the corneal image. 

We must, I think, conclude that in flies and dragon- 
flies the picture presented to the perceptive elements is 
a mosaic of light spots but little if at all modified from 
that supposed by Miiller. This may seem a disappointing 
performance for the enormous and complicated eye of a 
dragon-fly, but we must not forget the relative size of 
the eye. The sharpness of the view obtained with a 
mosaic of light dots obviously increases in proportion to 
the number of the elements making up the mosaic. If 
the rods and cones of the vertebrate eye are the separate 
elements of the visual apparatus, presumably each is 
stimulated by a minute bundle of rays which is in itself 
merely a light stimulus and not a picture, so that our 
own vision may be said to be a mosaic with exceedingly 
small elements, and the difference between this and the 
image of the facetted eye may be roughly compared with 
the difference between a half-tone block made with the 
very finest screen and the corresponding picture as repre- 
sented by the very coarse screening used in the common 
newspaper pictorial reproduction. 


Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 25 


Both flies and dragon-flies have pseudocone eyes, 7. e. 
the cone is merely a fluid body, and not, as in butterflies, 
a true “crystalline cone.” Presumably the latter is a 
higher development, whilst the former has persisted, at 
least in the dragon-flies, from great antiquity. It is 
when we turn to the butterfly eye that my observations 
do not confirm Exner’s conclusions as to the manner 
of formation of an apposition image. Here we have to 
do with a eucone eye, and I am convinced that in butter- 
flies at least there is at the apex of the cone a tiny erect 
image of that part of the field appertaining to each facet 
unit. I first saw this image in an eye of Gonepteryx rhamni 
which had been hardened in strong formol for twenty-four 
hours. A very thin slice was cut off and mounted on a 
drop of dilute glycerine on a cover slip and the whole set 
up on the microscope so that the objective was applied 
to the back of the section. Focussing down, in spite of 
the very small openings corresponding to the cone apices, 
the usual inverted image due to the corneal facets could 
be seen. Focussing up this image gradually disappeared 
and was replaced by a much less distinct but nevertheless 
erect image, 7. e. an image of a pencil or similar object 
moves the same way as the object itself is moved, making 
due allowance for the reversal due to the microscope. 

This peculiar effect is by no means easy to see. It is 
not due to the combined action of a large number of 
facet units, but is pecuhar to each facet. One must 
have a very favourable section, and frequently before 
the necessary delicate adjustments are made the minute 
drop of dilute glycerine has suffered from the evapora- 
tion of the water, and all has to be done over again. 
For some time after I first saw it I was unable to get 
it again, and began to think I had been deceived. Since 
then, however, I have repeatedly observed it in the 
eye of V. urticae, and I am convinced that the rays of 
light which reach the sensitive layers of the butterfly’s 
eye do so in their proper relations corresponding to their 
respective positions in the outer world. Let us now 
consider for a moment the difference which this fact may 
make in the acuity of the insect’s vision. I have drawn 
on a large sheet of paper a curve representing a section 
of the corneal layer of the eye of V. urticae, and marked 
it off into as many divisions as I found facets in an actual 
section. Then I drew across the paper straight lines each 


26 Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 


perpendicular to an imaginary facet, and these lines formed 
a great sheaf radiating from the eye, the space between 
the lines of course increasing as the distance from the 
eye increased. Then a line two inches long, drawn two 
inches away from the eye, and at right angles to the centre 
line of the sheaf, would represent an object two inches 
from the insect’s eye. Such a line cuts across a number 
of the other lines, and this number represents in linear 
fashion the number of facets which would be engaged in 
viewing an object two inches long, two inches from the 
eye. Another line of the same length but twelve inches 
from the eye cuts across a much smaller number of the 
lines, since here they are wider apart. From this diagram 
I obtained a number for the facets engaged in viewing an 
object two inches long but twelve inches away from the eye. 

I was thus able to calculate approximately the number 
of facets of a tortoiseshell butterfly’s eye which would be 
engaged in viewing another of the same species at distances 
of two and twelve inches respectively. I then made a 
drawing of the butterfly and divided it off into small 
areas equal to the number of facets at two and at twelve 
inches, and assuming that each facet unit conveys, not 
an image, but only a spot of light of the average value of 
that part of the field which it covers, I built up a drawing 
of the butterfly with spots of colour in number corresponding 
to the small areas into which my first drawing had been 
divided. I did this for both cases, the two-inch and the 
twelve-inch, and the result is shown on Pl. Ill. Fig. 1 
shows the tortoiseshell butterfly as it appears to our eyes, 
fig. 2 the same as it may be ‘supposed to appear if made 
up of little dots of hght corresponding to the number of 
facets engaged at a distance of two inches, and fig. 3 the 
- game at a distance of twelve inches. I have furthermore 
endeavoured to represent the appearance of the same 
butterfly at twelve inches, assuming that each facet unit 
records a sharp but inverted image of its own field of 
view. For this purpose I cut a drawing of the butterfly 
into hexagonal pieces each representing a facet view, and 
then turned them all upside down. The result is shown 
at Pl. IV, fig. 1. The effect is peculiar, and the reader may 
derive some amusement from trying to decide whether 
Pl. III, fig. 3, or Pl. IV, fig. 1 looks most like the original 
butterfly, for if we accept the mosaic theory, either as 
spots of light or as clear inverted images, one of these 


Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 27 


two pictures must represent the sort of view from which the 
sensitive layers of the insect’s eye obtain their impression. 
That these insects are extremely short-sighted every 
one who has observed them will agree. We know what 
a conspicuous object a white butterfly is. We can see it 
at great distances, and yet two white butterflies will often 
pass within a few feet of each other without either being 
apparently conscious of the other’s presence. We know 
how readily one white butterfly will pursue and investigate 
another to see if it is a suitable mate, but I have never 
seen this kind of flirtation begin from a distance of more 
than a few feet. Nevertheless, in my view a butterfly’s 
‘sight is much more acute than the figures on Pls. III and 
IV would suggest, and for this reason: I believe that the 
rays of light entering the facet unit are not recorded as a 
hght spot, or as an inverted image, but as an erect image, 
the whole field of view being represented by a mosaic of 
ttle erect images, thus forming a continuous picture. 
I have already explained how I have actually seen these 
erect images, albeit with difficulty and not very clearly. 
There is one feature of the butterfly’s eye which does 
not appear to be present in dipterous and other pseudocone 
eyes—viz. the already described processus corneae. Now 
Exner regards the lens and cone together, in an apposition 
eye, as forming a lens cylinder of which the actual length and 
tocal length are the same, hence giving an inverted image. 
This condition may, and apparently does, obtain in some 
eyes in which the short cone is closely adjacent to the lens, 
forming what may be regarded as a physical entity, or 
where, as appears to be the case in a fly’s eye, the pseudo- 
cone is of such feeble refractive power as to have little 
effect on the image already produced by the facet lens. 
Now in the butterfly the processus corneae lies between 
the lens and the cone, so that these latter structures pre- 
sumably do not act together as one lens cylinder of its own 
focal length. What I conceive takes place is that the 
lens produces an inverted image (this can, of course, be 
very clearly seen), the rays from it are collected by the 
cone, and that is a lens cylinder of its own focal length. 
Acting on the principle already explained, the cone reinverts 
the image, passing the rays out at its apex or inner end 
practically parallel. 
From here they pass down the rhabdom and stimulate 
the retinula cells. The stimulation does not take place on 


28 Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 


the ends of the retinula cells, as, for instance, in the glow- 
worm’s eye, but along the inner edge of each cell through- 
out its whole length. 

Now Grenacher maintains that the retinula cells of each 
ommatidium, though multiple, can only be regarded as a 
physiological entity, and if we are to compare the receptive 
faculty of the compound with that of the vertebrate eye, 
we must compare the number of ommatidia in the former 
with the number of rods and cones in the latter. 

However this may be in other compound eyes, I hold it 
to be an error for that of a butterfly. If there are eight 
retinula cells in each ommatidium of the eye of V. urticae 
I regard them as eight separate elements, the more so since 
in some species, as, for instance, V. io, they are to some 
extent separated by pigment. Hence the little pencil of 
light projected down the rhabdom by each facet unit, and 
having its rays arranged in their proper order and position 
by the re-erection brought about by the cone, is analysed, 
and presumably perceived with eight times the accuracy 
with which a mere amorphous spot of light would be per- 
ceived, and similarly one tortoiseshell butterfly may be 
supposed to see another, at a distance of two inches, eight 
times more distinctly than as shown at Pl. III, fig. 2. Two 
factors thus contribute to the better perception of the 
image, viz. the proper co-ordination of the rays and the 
multiplicity of the perceptive elements. 

One point remains. It has been suggested that there 
is a difficulty in understanding how light passing down a 
transparent rod, the rhabdom, can effect the retinulae 
adjacent to it, since light entering a glass rod at one end 
emerges only at the other end and not through the sides. 

I have submitted this point to Lord Rayleigh, who has 
kindly assisted me on several occasions. In his reply he 
points out that this action of a transparent rod is true 
for the rod surrounded by air, but that in the ommatidium 
of the compound eye this condition does not obtain. 

The physiological continuity of the rhabdom and 
retinula cells doubtless provides for the due action on 
the latter of the light stimulus. 


TECHNIQUE 


Many thousands of preparations of eyes were made in 
the course of my investigations. Of hardening re-agents 


Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 29 


I have tried several. For some purposes the well- 
known saturated solution of corrosive sublimate in 
water to which is added 50% of alcohol was found 
very good. About 1% glacial acetic acid may be added if 
required. Sections thus prepared and stained for twenty- 
four hours in anilin-water-saftranin followed by a short 
immersion in a 2 % solution of light green in alcohol, give 
a very beautiful differentiation of the cones. For showing 
the peculiar structure of the trachaeal distributor at the 
base of the rhabdom the ordinary combined methy] blue and 
eosin (Mann’s stain) is the best, and this also gives good 
preparations of the general nervous arrangement. One of 
the best fixatives of high penetrative power is “ Picro- 
chlor-acetic acid ” made up as follows :— 


1% Picricacidinalcohol . .  . 6 parts 
Chlerotommnty! 00 00) weave al tens) gv theparh 
Glacial acetic acid Ber jy Lvaaty fib: BT 


Fix for twenty-four hours and wash well in 90 % alcohol. 

The nerve fibres passing from the periopticon to the 
retinulae are very well shown by Heidenhain’s haemato- 
xylin. Potassium bichromate and solutions containing 
formalin are, as a rule, of very little use, as they render any 
chitinous parts exceedingly brittle, and the softer parts are 
also made liable to pulverise at a touch. One of the great 
difficulties in all insect eye preparations is the pigment. 
If any fixative containing osmic acid be used all pigment 
cells are intensified and the pigment cannot be removed. 
The same applies in great measure to silver nitrate. For 
depigmentation after fixation the following solution works 
very well :— 


UG MICOMUIE ire Wray te) ett on en Dents 
Glycerine. Uitep cals S povtapiraned mabe fog 05 9 
Hydrochloric aah teat in sib Ae dy A 


Sections after removal of paraffin or celloidin or both 
are put into this solution, and the pigment disappears in 
a few hours or less. 

Buxton (Trans. Ent. Soc., 1917, p. 144) obtained good 
results with insect brain tissue by putting material into 
a 1% solution of silver nitrate in water for ten days in 
the dark and then washing. The material is embedded 
in paraffin and sections cut. After removal of the paraffin 


30 Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 


and hydration of the sections they are placed in 13% 
silver nitrate and exposed to bright sunlight for ten 
minutes, washed in distilled water, and placed in 1% 
gold chloride for two minutes in a bright light, washed - 
again and placed in aqueous solution of pyrogallic acid 
to complete the reduction. 

I have given this process at length because other workers 
may find it useful for brain tissues. For eye work I have 
not found it of much service on account of the old difficulty 
of the pigment cells, which are stained so deeply as to 
obscure any other structures with which they are in 
contact. 

Methylene blue, Ranvier’s lemon juice method, and other 
nerve processes have been tried, but without any marked 
success. 

A method which promises good results in the differen- 
tiation of nerve tissue seems to be the double impregnation 
of silver chromate already referred to. Like most of these 
processes it is exceedingly capricious, and too much must 
not be expected of it. Sometimes nerves in one part of a 
section will be differentiated, whilst in others they remain 
unstained. Moreover, the material so prepared will rarely 
stand the usual embedding processes, and I find the most 
likely method of seeing the structures required is to tease 
out on a slide small portions of the tissue and examine 
them as non-permanent preparations. The material is 
placed in a 2 °% solution of potassium bichromate to which 
a very little formol has been added, and the tube exhausted 
of air. The material remains in this solution for about 
three days, when it is placed in 1 % silver nitrate for two 
days, then returned to the bichromate solution (freshly 
prepared) for two days, and finally put back into silver 
nitrate for two days or more. It can then be washed in 
90 °% alcohol and examined. 

For section-cutting I have used both paraffin and paraffin- 
celloidin. If chitinous parts are not required, cornea, etc., 
can be removed after fixation and only the soft parts left. 
Paraffin sections can then easily be made. For sections 
including the chitin I have found the following process 
the most satisfactory. 

Fixed and dehydrated material is placed for two or 
three days in a solution of celloidin in clove oil.* Then 


* Celloidin dissolves in clove oil only very slowly. Many weeks 
may be required for the solution to become saturated. 


Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 31 


transfer the material to a weak solution of celloidin in 
ether and alcohol, and concentrate to a syrup at about 
40°C. Pour into a mould and harden in chloroform vapour 
in the usual way, and then transfer to a saturated solution 
of paraffin in chloroform for twenty-four hours. Then 
place the block in melted paraffin having a melting point 
of about 55° C. and exhaust with a water air-pump, finally 
embedding in fresh melted paraffin. 

This combination of clove-oil celloidin saturation with 
double embedding was suggested by Dr. C. J. Martin of 
the Lister Institute. In my experience it is superior 
to the much-vaunted spirit-soap treatment. The alleged 
chitin-softening action of spirit-soap seems to me to be 
much over-rated. 

Nearly all my sections were cut with a Cambridge Rock- 
ing Microtome, which, except for pure celloidin sections, 
is quite as efficient as the more complicated and costly 
instruments. 


Can BUTTERFLIES DISTINGUISH CoLOoURS ? 


Before investigating this question and considering such 
experiments as may be regarded as throwing some light 
on the subject, it will be as well to make clear the mean- 
ing of the question and the necessary limitations of any 
answer thereto. We know that light consists of vibrations 
or waves, and since we cannot imagine waves in nothing, 
and since light reaches us from the stars across illimitable 
tracts of empty space, we suppose the existence of an 
invisible, intangible, perfectly elastic medium called the 
aether, which is considered to permeate the universe and 
all material substances contained therein. The vibrations 
set up in this medium by a source of light are of differing 
wave lengths and wave frequencies, and our own visual 
organs record different sensations according to the fre- 
quencies of the waves which fall upon our eyes. The hght 
We recelve on our own retina may come direct from the 
source of light, or more commonly may be reflected from 
the surface of some substance upon which the direct light 
is falling. If the light we receive contains a normal 
admixture of all the rays of differing length and frequency 
We experience a sensation which we call “ white.” It is 
possible to separate the component rays of white light 
by passing them through a prism, as in the well-known 


32 Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 


spectroscope. The rays are bent or deflected from their 
original course, but all are not equally deflected. Those 
of the shortest wave length are deflected most, and hence 
it is possible to project on a screen a band of light, one 
end of which consists of the rays of shortest wave length, 
the other of those of the longest, those of intermediate 
wave lengths occupying the intermediate positions. 

We are now, however, aware of a new fact, the band of 
light is no longer white, but the different portions of it 
produce in us different sensations which we call colour. 
Thus the band to a normal eye appears deep red at one 
end, and changes towards the other end into orange, 
yellow, green, blue, dark blue, and finally violet. An 
object such as a flower appears to us to be coloured because 
its substance absorbs some of the light falling upon it, 
and reflects the rest. Such colours in nature are rarely 
pure, 7. e. they consist of mixtures of reflected rays, thus 
producing what we term various “shades” of colour. 
These mixtures of colours can be analysed by looking at 
the objects through special light filters which entirely 
absorb certain rays, while allowing the rest to pass un- 
altered. Some rather unsuspected effects may in this 
way be obtained. Thus a deep blue lobelia examined , 
through a screen which is impervious to blue rays, looks 
deep red, showing that its colour consists partly of red 
rays. Similarly certain forms of pale pink pelargonium 
when examined through a filter impervious to red, 
appear bright blue, although we are not conscious of 
the blue component of the colour when seen under normal 
conditions. 

It may thus be seen that we may be said to possess 
two separate visual faculties in relation to hight. One, the 
fundamental perception of light as such, the other the 
capacity for distinguishing, apart from mere luminosity, 
lights of different wave lengths; and a totally colour-blind 
person is one who possesses only the former of these two 
faculties. Such cases are extremely rare, though partial, 
and especially “ red-green ” blindness is of frequent occur- 
rence. In one case of total colour blindness or mono- 
chromatic vision, instanced by Sir William Abney (“ Re- 
searches in Colour Vision,” London, 1913), the subject had 
no sense of any colour, and moreover his sensation of 
luminosity was about one-thirtieth of that of a normal 
petson, and much the same condition was observed in a 


Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 33 


second example given by the same author. That the two 
faculties mentioned are in fact quite distinct is shown by 
a third case in which the subject appeared to have the 
sensation of green, but little or no fundamental sensation 
of light. 

Having thus explained something of the meaning of 
colour vision as applied to our own eyes, to what extent 
can we apply the terms we ordinarily use to the question 
of colour vision in an insect? Naturally we cannot know 
whether what we call red or blue appears red or blue to a 
butterfly, in the same sense as it does to us. We may, 
I think, leave out of account all philosophical verbiage 
on the subject of whether an insect is or is not a conscious 
organism. Consciousness is probably a matter of degree, 
and though in creatures of lowly cerebral organisation it 
may be reduced to a condition hardly definable by our 
limited imagination, some form of consciousness seems 
postulated in any creature which leads an independent 
and more or less complicated existence. When therefore 
we ask, can a butterfly distinguish colours? we mean, does 
it, aS a nervous organism, possess the faculty of distin- 
guishing those differences in the quality of hght waves 
which we speak of as colour, in a sense distinct from their 
mere luminosity value? With butterflies comparatively 
few experiments have been made. With other insects 
such investigations as have so far been recorded have 
naturally been carried out with species in which a colour 
sense might be supposed to be of some use in the creature’s 
economy. In nature animals are rarely endowed with 
faculties which are superfluous to their mode of life, though 
at the same time we must not too readily assume that any 
given insect can have no use for a sense of colour, since 
there are probably few species of the ultimate details of 
whose life history we have absolute knowledge. 

Bees, with their intimate relationships to flowers have 
naturally prompted a considerable measure of research, 
more especially as the theory has been advanced, first by 
Sprengel in 1793, that flowers attract insects, and especially 
bees, by their bright and conspicuous colours. H. Miiller’s 
experiments resulted in the statement that, caeteris paribus, 
a flower will be sought by insects in proportion as it is 
conspicuous. Wery arrived at similar conclusions. Miiller 
also pointed out that the perfume is a powerful attraction. 
Many early researches might be quoted, but the methods 

TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PaRTS I, II. (JULY) D 


34 Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 


are frequently faulty and the results inconclusive or 
contradictory. 

Plateau’s conclusion that all flowers might be green 
without their due pollination being interfered with does 
not seem to me to prove that flowers which are not green 
gain no advantage from their different appearance. Such 
observations, however they may affect the question of the 
origin of colours in flowers, seem to prove or disprove 
very little in relation to the insect’s power of chromatic 
perception. 

Lord Avebury’s experiments merit a greater considera- 
tion. He experimented largely with bees. In one case 
he gave a bee a drop of honey on a blue paper, and then 
three feet away placed a similar drop of honey on an 
orange paper. After the bee had had two feeds the papers 
were transposed, but the bee returned to the blue paper. 
After a while the papers were again transposed, and the 
bee returned to where the blue paper had last been, and 
found the orange one. It evidently looked different, as she 
stopped and made for the blue paper again. The author 
thus comments on the experiment : “‘ No one who saw her 
at that moment could have the slightest doubt about her 
perceiving the difference between the two colours.” 

The experiment does not, however, really prove that the 
bee distinguished the colours. A totally colour-blind 
person might be able to separate blue and orange papers, 
not by means of their colours, but through their different 
luminosity. The same author also carried out a rather 
complicated experiment with honey on slips of glass which 
had coloured paper attached to them. By changing and 
removing these and carrying out the experiment many 
times, he arrived at the conclusion that his bees showed a 
marked preference for blue, then white, and successively 
yellow, red, green, and orange. 

The order of the colours is peculiar, especially the position 
of the red. If bees are colour-blind and guided mainly by 
luminosity the yellow and green should have been the most 
conspicuous colours, but we have here the red coming 
between these, a result which would not, I venture to 
suggest, be obtained with a colour-blind animal. 

That insects are attracted by the colours of the flowers is 
very improbable, and the theory that flower colour has been 
developed because its attractiveness assists in pollination 
has little foundation. Nevertheless. the colours of flowers 


Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 35 


may well have been developed as an aid to conspicuousness, 
as opposed to attractiveness. My friend, Dr. Church, who 
has made a special study of floral mechanism and the 
visits of insects, fully agrees that a flower which is more 
conspicuous will be likely to be visited before one which is 
less so. From the experiments of Forel, Avebury, Plateau 
and others we have evidence that insects, especially bees, 
have a remarkable memory, not only for locality, but also 
for colour. Thus a bee which has been given honey on a 
blue paper rapidly associated the idea of honey and blue, 
or whatever sensation the blue colour may convey to it. 
Lest it should be supposed that bees are specially asso- 
ciated with blue, we may instance another experiment of 
Lord Avebury. Equal-sized discs of red, yellow, green, 
and blue were provided, and honey was placed on the red 
disc. A marked bee was also placed on the red disc. 
After the bee had fed, gone back to the hive and returned 
a few times, the red disc was replaced by a blue disc with 
honey, and another red disc was placed near, but without 
honey. When the bee returned it went to the red disc 
and searched for the honey it had been accustomed to find 
thereon. Nor -could it find the honey on the blue disc, 
though this was close at hand, showing a defective sense of 
smell. Numerous further experiments showed that bees 
rarely confuse colours except blue and green. Forel tried 
the same experiment in the opposite order, when the bee 
always went to the blue disc, and even to a strip of 
blue paper, showing that it was not the form which 
guided it. 

More valuable evidence than all these observations is 
given by Forel when he describes how a bee, fed on blue 
paper, afterwards sought out and examined all the pieces 
of blue paper in various corners of the room, in whatever 
surroundings they happened to be. The latter part of the 
sentence discounts entirely the mere luminosity value of 
the blue paper. 

Before describing my own experiments which have been 
made with butterflies, I must briefly review the work of 
Hess, referred to in the first part of this paper, from which 
that author deduces the opinion that insects, bees and 
butterflies included, are totally colour-blind. In attempt- 
ing to show that his results with these insects are incon- 
clusive I do not wish to detract from the value of his 
research with other animals, especially those with birds 


36 Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 


and dyed grain, which are very interesting and ingenious. 
He experimented with larvae of Hyponomeuta variabilis 
by placing them in a glass vessel with parallel sides, and 
found that for the most part they crept to the lid nearest 
the light. If a strong light were arranged in one half and 
a weak light in the other, they crept into the bright half. 
When a spectrum of suitable width was thrown on to. the 
parallel-sided glass vessel, they crept into the yellow green. 
If the vessel were moved so as to bring those in the yellow 
green into the red, they moved again into the yellow 
green. With a photometric apparatus consisting of a red 
and blue lamp the larvae sought the blue, even when to the 
human eye the red was the brighter colour. 

Larvae of Porthesia chrysorrhoea crept to the most 
brightly lighted part. In the spectrum they moved from 
the other colours into the yellow green. Larvae of Vanessa io 
behaved in a similar manner, and imagines hatched from 
them were investigated in the same way. In the spectrum 
the butterflies fluttered out of the red, blue, and violet into 
the yellow green. When the cage was lighted half with 
bright red, half with dark blue, the greater number went 
into the blue. “ All my larvae behaved as they must 
behave if their visual powers are the same as, or similar 
to, those of a totally colour-blind person. There is nothing 
comparable to the colour sense of the normal human 
being.” With other experiments he shows fairly con- 
clusively that mosquitoes and their larvae are insensitive 
to red light, whilst still further investigations show that 
Chalcids, lady-birds, and house flies tend to move from 
other colours into yellow green. 

Bees were experimented on, first by showing that they 
were strongly positively phototropic, and then by showing 
that they moved out of the other colours into the yellow 
green. Given the choice of blue and red, they moved out 
of the red into the blue. With the photometric apparatus 
they preferred the blue to the red, even when the latter 
appeared to the operator to be brighter than the former. 
By increasing still further the red light the bees moved 
into the latter. He concludes from these and other experi- 
ments that the bees behaved essentially in the same way 
as the other insects he experimented upon. 

After quoting at considerable length the experiments of 
Avebury, Plateau, Forel, and others, Hess thus disposes 
of them :— 


Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 37 


“ The value of such numerous observations and laborious 
experiments is discounted by the fact that they have, 
almost without exception, been undertaken without know- 
ledge of colour physiology. Perusal of the extensive 
literature bearing on the subject has not disclosed to me 
a single fact which makes even probable, from the point 
of view of scientific chromatology, the existence of a 
colour sense in bees. In my own experiments the bees, 
like all other invertebrates investigated, behaved as they 
must do if their visual power were the same as, or similar 
to, that of a totally colour-blind man. In all the results 
hitherto obtained in this direction by zoologists and 
botanists, there is nothing to contradict this.” 


As to whether the experiments of others, which Hess so 
ponderously dismisses as valueless, are really so devoid of 
merit as he maintains, I will leave others to form their own 
judgment. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that 
all the accumulated work of Avebury, Forel, Plateau, and 
others has failed to prove that insects distinguish colours. 
To what extent does the work of this expert in scientific 
chromatology prove that insects are colour-blind ? 

He takes certain insects having a marked positive photo- 
tropism, and having confined them in a cage makes the 
surprising discovery that they tend on the whole to make 
their way towards the light. Caterpillars and mosquito 
larvae we should hardly credit with a high degree of colour 
sense in any case. As to the bees, they showed a tendency 
to regard a dark blue as more luminous than a bright red, 
and the peacock butterflies showed the same preference. 
At the most this only suggests a “‘ short vision ” at the red 
end of the spectrum. Avebury has shown that ants at 
least are sensitive to the ultra-violet rays which are invisible 
to us. Why not bees also and even butterflies? Avebury 
submitted negatively phototropic ants to light from two 
screens of a colour which appeared the same to the human 
eye, but one of the screens was made opaque to ultra- 
violet rays. The ants chose the latter colour to hide under, 
as it evidently appeared to them the darker. 

Hess considers that his insects behaved exactly as a 
totally colour-blind person would have done. Now totally 
colour-blind persons are extremely rare, and their behaviour 
under given circumstances is not exhaustively tabulated. 
But even accepting the very unsatisfactory anthropo- 


38 Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 


morphic comparison, let us see what these “ colour-blind ” 
insects did. 

To the instinct of a positively phototropic creature, 

light and freedom are probably closely associated. The 
imprisoned bees and butterflies presumably responded to 
that stimulus which guided them towards what in their 
experience, or nervous reflexes, or whatever conscious or 
unconscious psychological process we may fancy, indicated 
escape. I imagine that a human being bent on escaping 
from a dark cave would make for the opening whose hght 
was of the greatest luminosity, as suggesting the shortest 
route to the outer world. Such action would not prove 
-him to be totally colour-blind. Hess is at some pains to 
explain that the existence of colours is no proof that they 
must have been developed in order to be seen, and calls 
attention to the colours of such substances as egg yolk, 
blood, chlorophyl, and the green bones of certain fishes. 
I hardly think any one would care to argue very long over 
so obvious and well-known a point.* Let us then see 
whether there is any evidence that butterflies can dis- 
tinguish colours, or alternatively whether it can be shown 
that they are not blind to those portions of the spectrum 
which would probably be invisible to a totally colour-blind 
eye. . 

The only serious experiments with butterflies which I 
have been able to find are those of Seitz, recorded in a paper 
read by him at the International Congress of Entomology 
at Oxford in 1912. He observed that at El Kantara in 
Algeria the top of a certain range of hills was frequented 
by a yellow black-margined butterfly (Anthocaris charloma), 
and was a meeting-place for the males who came there to 
mate. He made coloured paper models of the butterflies, 
and these attracted the real ones to such an extent that as 
many as six were seen at one time trying to pair with the 
paper model. They did not appear to see it at a distance 
of more than eight feet. To test the accuracy of their 
vision a graduated series of models was made differing in 
size, colour, and markings. Exact models were very 
attractive, whilst those which were of the right colour 
and markings, but three times the size, attracted the real 
males only for an instant. Accurately coloured models 
were always first visited, whilst those of similar but not of 
exactly matching colours were only noticed after the correct 

* See Poulton, “‘ Colours of Animals,” 1890, pp. 12-14. 


Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 39 


ones had proved disappointing. Models distinctly wrongly 
coloured were disregarded. The-sense of smell was shown 
in these cases to have little apparent influence. From the 
position adopted by the male relatively to the female it 
was found that the male could recognise the head from the 
tail of the model only at a distance of about two to four 
inches, whilst the wrong colour seemed to be recognised 
at six feet, and abnormal size at from 1} to 4% feet. 

From their behaviour in trying to pair with paper 
models fluttering in the wind, it was evident that the differ- 
ence of texture between the paper and the real wing was 
not recognised. 

As some evidence of colour perception Seitz remarks 
that the vertebrate eye can see red further away than 
blue. He observed in South America certain Pierine 
butterflies flying at some height over a mass of blue flower- 
ing shrubs, amongst which there were isolated flowers of 
a brilliant red. The butterflies precipitated themselves 
on the red flowers first, afterwards visiting the blue ones. 
This was the more remarkable as the blue-flowered plant 
was the food plant of the larva and might have been 
supposed to attract the insects first. 

I have not quoted these observations because they carry 
us very much further, but they seem to be the only experi- 
ments of the kind so far recorded. 

My own researches have not gone so far as I could wish. 
Much that was done in 1917 suggested other lines of 
investigation by which I hoped to profit in 1918. I had 
special flower-beds planted and other preparations made, 
only to be disappointed by the total disappearance of all 
butterflies at the end of August. The absence of V. wrticae 
was especially noticeable, since in the garden where I had 
arranged my flowers this species usually flies in great 
numbers well into October. 

However, while not claiming the essential virtue of being 
a “scientific chromatologist,” I may give my results so 
far as they go, and leave others to judge of the extent to 
which they throw light on the subject. 

It having been suggested that butterflies are either 
“short” in the red, or, if totally colour-blind, then red- 
blind, I endeavoured to prove or disprove this theory in 
the following way. I obtained a dye which I ascertained, 
by means of the spectroscope, transmitted only red rays. 
I am unable to give its composition, as it is a proprietary 


40 Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 


colour used for painting lantern slides. With this I painted 
over the eyes of numerous examples of wrticae. I was very 
careful by microscopical examination to see that this was 
thoroughly done and that no pinhole of normal light could 
reach the eye. All the butterflies were marked so that 
they could be easily recognised again. That the insects so 
treated were certainly not totally blind, as they would 
have been had they been red-blind, was very completely 
shown by the fact that they immediately, or at least after 
a short period of “‘ shock,” flew to the window of the room, 
and also in some cases alighted on the curtains, the latter 
performance necessitating a judgment of distance little 
if anything removed from the normal. All my butterflies 
were then liberated, and both on that and succeeding days 
I observed them flying in the garden and alighting on 
flowers. Unfortunately I had not a sufficiently large 
number to judge fairly the extent to which their selection 
of flowers was modified by their “red spectacles.” One 
I caught two days later was found on examination to have 
its coating of red quite unimpaired. The behaviour of 
these insects was in marked contrast to that of one whose 
eyes I covered with black dye. This totally blinded 
example, though repeatedly thrown into the air, merely 
fell to the ground and remained motionless, except for a 
certain amount of aimless creeping about. It would 
appear that Ganoris brassicae, Pieris napi, and P. rapae 
are distinctly shorter in the red than V. urticae, for similar 
treatment had a different effect. They still flew to a window, 
showing that a degree of light perception remained, but on 
being liberated flew aimlessly, and with marked lack of 
control. 

It may be suggested that the examples of wrticae which 
found the flowers in spite of their eyes being red, did so by 
the sense of smell. That this sense has little to do with 
their feeding habits I was easily able to show by coating 
the antennae of several specimens with shellac varnish. 
These continued to find the flowers with the same facility 
as before. In my view a strong scent may, and doubtless 
often does, help to attract butterflies, as, for instance, in * 
the case of the well-known Buddleia flowers. I believe, 
however, that having once discovered a source of food, 
butterflies will return to it day after day, guided in great 
measure by the same remarkable locality sense, which in a 
much higher development has been so frequently observed 


41 


ord A el la a ol 


Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 


women] | fel | Td 


“eTTOqO] out | |- | | 


Seite loser fy fia Mi 


ede ka el nd 


co ie co i hak 


“Astep 


*xoryd yurd aed 


[| 


“eIqoIqJUoTT oSuvigQ 


SBUL[avYIW oANCU aTVq 


by 
tl 
AQ 
Nn 
AQ 
wo 


Selicad aee ba Mats 
Sh Re Sp] efit fn 


oO | oS 
onl 


| 
“oh rae a a eh el a 


*yoo04s o[ding 
(-wnquajaq) 
*Asteq ezuoig 

“eI[Oqo] WOSTATID 
“SHOIpRsS Jopreog 
“DLYIOQVNY 


“raqyse yurd deag 
soy oydand doer | % he E | | | | ea | | ha E 


“Asued oAnvur aed 


OF 


*194SB 9ANVUL OV 


Cerques yovtTq ‘MoTIaX ) 


sxorid poso-yund onan | — | ee | | | | | | | i 


ios 


a Oe We Pa 


| 
| 


“xoyyd o71g MM 
*xoryd yurd deaq | | | rm | | 


wnqn-9 


: : * snprydund 


2 . -  andva 


o : * prsaba 


ss : + DIUDIDID 


: snanjyd 


: “68 : *  snwnar 


, ; : IDIUSSD.LQ 


: : : * apauyan 


on 


pianbau 


42 Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 


in bees. My next experiments had to do with visits to 
flowers. A large herbaceous border formed a convenient 
observation ground, and I sought to discover whether any 
_ particular colour was more frequently visited than the rest. 
If butterflies are at first guided merely by the luminosity 
of the flower we should expect white to receive at least a 
fair share of attention. My observation showed that the 
disregard of white was most marked. In the border were 
several phloxes. The white phlox gained two visits only 
against forty-eight visits to the coloured ones. Of the 
latter the white pink-eyed phlox gained the fewest, and the 
magenta, nearest to purple, the most. The accompanying 
table shows the results of some 420 observations. It 
should be noted-that no case was included where a butterfly 
merely jumped from one flower to another; I only counted 
those observations where the insect in full flight selected 
and alighted on a particular flower. From time to time 
I drove them away and then waited for their return. 

I regret I did not make any careful calculation of the 
relative proportions of the various flowers, but it is certain 
that the asters were much less numerous than the others 
and there were but few Rudbeckias. 

The failure of white as a conspicuous colour is due, in 
the opinion of my friend Dr. Church, to the fact that so 
much white light is reflected from shiny leaves and similar 
objects. One feature of the table is remarkable, viz. the 
total failure of scarlet and crimson. It is true that neither 
crimson lobelia nor scarlet gladiolus, from the situation 
of the nectary, is well adapted to butterflies, and experience, 
acquired or hereditary, might be considered to account for 
their disregard of these flowers. A large bed of scarlet 
pelargonium in the same garden was hardly ever visited by 
a butterfly, except occasionally by egeria, but probably this 
flower secretes very little nectar. As already suggested, 
butterflies are probably “red short,” and this condition 
apparently varies in different species. I have shown that 
urticae is not by any means red-blind, while the Pierine 
butterflies experimented with seemed largely so. As to 
egeria, | have observed an example stop and examine with 
care every one of three or four scarlet petals which had been 
scattered on a lawn, though this does not prove that the 
insect could distinguish red except by a difference in the 
luminosity. 

The Rudbeckia which proved so attractive is a bright 


ee ee 


Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 43 


yellow Composite with a nearly black centre, and one of the 
most conspicuous flowers in the border. In connection 
with this flower I discovered a very remarkable fact. Forel, 
in remarking that insects are rarely deceived by artificial 
flowers, suggests that what appear to be close imitations 
to us have a different appearance to the insect’s eye, and 
colours which we should match appear different to them. 
I investigated this point by means of photography, and 
whilst artificial roses, violets, etc., all affected a photographic 
plate in the same way as the real flowers, the Rudbeckia 
gave an entirely different appearance in a non-screened 
photograph to that which it presents to our eye. 

In the unscreened photograph only the tips of the petals 
are luminous, the rest being almost as black as the centre. 
I found no other flower presenting a similar peculiarity, and 
the observation is merely of value in connection with the 
appended table as suggesting that the flower appears as 
conspicuous to the butterflies as it does to us, and that their 
sight is of a similar nature. With the exception of the 
crimson and the white, the flowers most visited, according 
to my observation, were those which were most conspicuous 
to our eyes. 

I now turned my attention to a large bed of asters, the 
colours of which were white, three shades of pink, and three 
shades of purple. Leaving the white out of consideration, 
for reasons already stated, it may be remarked that the 
purple flowers were particularly conspicuous and sharply 
defined on their green background, a fact due not, of course, 
to their luminosity but to their colour. I observed the 
choice of colour in 427 instances, and these were divided as 
follows :— 


White. , . SPORE Fi 
Pilg : srg 39) 
Purple . . ‘ . 245 


It should be noted that the pink flowers were more 
numerous than the purple in the proportion of about four 
to three. The butterflies were mostly V. urticae, but io, 
atalanta, and C’.-album were also occasional visitors. 

On the assumption that the preference for purple is due 
to the fact that this colour is more conspicuous and that the 
purple flowers are more apt to “ catch the eye ” of the insect, 
I proceeded to endeavour to analyse the conspicuousness of 
this colour. I first photographed three white, three pink, 


44 Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 


and three purple asters, using a screen which gave the effect 
of relative luminosity only. Photograph A, Pl. V gives the 
result which shows that the purple flowers were certainly not 
specially conspicuous on account of their luminosity. By 
using a set of spectroscopically tested screens I was then able 
to secure photographs representing the relative luminosities 
of the flowers when certain rays were eliminated. Thus in 
photograph B all the light rays except the yellow-green were 
eliminated, and the plate was therefore red and blue blind. 
In C only the red and part of the green rays were used, the 
plate being thus blind to blue and blue-green. In D all 
the rays except red were used, the plate being thus blind 
to red. I leave it to the reader to judge whether an eye, 
blind to any of the selected parts of the spectrum, would 
be likely to see the purple asters better than one which had 
a normal range. So far as luminosity is concerned, the 
purple flowers are less conspicuous in all the abnormally 
produced photographs than in that which gives the value 
with all the rays in use. 

I consider it a fair assumption, therefore, that if the 
preference for the purple flowers is due to the greater ease 
with which they can be seen, the cause lies in the same 
property which makes them conspicuous to my own eyes, 
viz. the colour. ; 

Before leaving the subject of flowers I may mention a few 
isolated observations which seem to have a bearing on the 
issue. An urticae picked out and dived at with great 
accuracy, from a distance of about four feet, a purple aster 
which lay between two scarlet flowers. Occasionally an 
example would settle—though not approaching from any 
distance—on the disc of an aster from which I had removed 
the ray florets. On the other hand, the yellow disc is not 
the guiding attraction, since they frequently flew to and 
settled on an aster bud which showed no yellow disc, and was 
only distinguished from the rest of the foliage by the coloured 
tips of the ray florets. On another occasion I observed an 
urticae pick out with certainty a very small yellow flower on 
the lawn, the latter being itself greenish yellow, and after 
tasting the flower it flew to and inspected a bit of yellow leaf 
lying some little distance away. Again I observed P. rapae 
flying over the lawn and picking out with precision some 
scattered and very minute yellow flowers whose colour was 
the only feature which appeared to distinguish them from 
their surroundings. Every one knows how our white 


Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 45 


Pierine butterflies, when passing each other sufficiently 
closely, turn aside and carry on a flirtation in the air. This 
is sight and not’ scent, since different species will behave 
thus until closer proximity reveals the error. I observed 
a male G. rhamni fluttering over a pansy bed. Except for 
its well-known pale yellow colour it would have passed at a 
distance for P. brassicae. That species and also P. rapae 
were flying about over the pansies, and whenever they 
came within each other’s visual field the usual flirtation 
ensued. But though rhamni and the other Pierines free 
quently came so near together as to be almost touching, 
neither took any notice of the other. This is the more 
remarkable since the female rhamni is nearly white, though 
it must be remembered that the pairing instinct probably 
does not develop in this species till the spring. But even 
supposing the rhamni was all intent on feeding, the brassicae 
certainly were not, and under the circumstances it is diffi- 
cult to conceive any factor other than colour which caused 
them to ignore the rhamni. 

In the early part of 1918 I arranged to carry out some 
experiments with B. ewphrosyne, which is common in woods 
near Oxford. For this purpose I made paper models of 
the butterfly by cutting out photographs and colouring 
them. Of these I had two green, two blue, two crimson, 
two tawny yellow (the natural colour), two brown, and two 
clear pale yellow. In all cases the spots were black as in 
the real fritillary. In addition to the models I had a few 
real butterflies, long dead and dried. 

In the first place the superior attraction of the real 
butterflies was very noticeable. The live fritillaries dipped 
at and examined the paper models, but in the case of the 
real ones they fluttered over them, touched them, and made 
every effort to obtain some response. As to the paper 
models, those of the natural colour attracted 27 individuals, 
red models attracted 18, and pale yellow 2. The other 
colours were not noticed at all. Note that the only colours 
other than the natural shade which attracted the live 
butterflies were those which might have been confounded 
with the real colour. So far as luminosity is concerned, 
the brown models (a rather pale brown) about equalled the 
naturally coloured models, whilst the red, though suggestive 
of the natural colour, had much less luminosity. 

While pinning up my models I broke one of the real ones 
and threw away the fragments. This accident provided 


46 Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 


one of the most convincing incidents of the afternoon’s 
work. J had the advantage on that occasion of the assist- 
ance of Mr. A. H. Hamm, who twice noticed a passing 
euphrosyne dipping to the ground and examining something 
in the grass and debris. On going to the place we found 
one of the wings of the specimen I had broken. Considering 
the innumerable small objects of similar luminosity which 
must have been lying about, I confess I am unable to under- 
stand what sense except that of colour could have guided 
the butterflies in these two instances. There is only one 
alternative, viz. scent. But the dead butterfly was many 
years old, and if it had any scent it was more likely to be 
naphthaline than anything else. But I was to receive a 
remarkable confirmation of this observation on my next 
visit to the wood. I again observed a ewphrosyne hovering 
over something on the ground, and on going to investigate 
I discovered a large bud scale of exactly the golden brown 
colour of the butterfly itself. Truly this seems to me 
to be a remarkable performance for a “ totally colour-blind ”’ 
organism. 

Having noted the superior attraction of the real butterfly 
over the paper model, a fact which I attribute to acuity of 
vision at close quarters, I prepared some models by bleach- 
ing real examples of the butterfly, dyeing them various 
colours and replacing the spots with black paint. Some of 
my ‘‘real’’ models were dyed golden brown like the normal 
insect, others were coloured red, blue, greenish yellow, and 
pale buff. Two of each were set up together with two un- 
treated specimens. In half an hour there were 13 visits 
to the naturally coloured, 13 to the untreated, and none at 
all to the others. The only difference in the behaviour 
towards the dyed and the untreated examples was that the 
butterflies actually settled on the latter, but only hovered 
over the others, a proceeding again attributable to the 
slightly unnatural appearance, at close quarters, of the 
dyed specimens. 

Later in the afternoon the butterflies seemed more 
intent on feeding than love-making, and the blue bugle 
flowers were, as usual, receiving the greater share of their 
attentions. 

I set up one of each variety of my models. In this case 
there were five visits to the naturally coloured, and thirteen 
to the untreated. With one exception none of the other 
models was noticed. This exception was a blue model on 


Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 47 


which the ewphrosyne actually settled. Its action was very 
characteristic; there was none of the excited flutter which 
always accompanies the usual amatory advances, but a 
direct alighting with precision. There can be no doubt 
that the insect had mistaken my blue model for a bit of 
the bugle flower, which it closely matched in colour. 

One further experiment was made to test the apparent 
colour sense from the spectroscopic point of view. I 
discovered that the tawny yellow colour of the real butterfly 
contained many green rays, and also that the dye I had 
hitherto used was spectroscopically almost the same as 
the ground colour of the insect. I therefore sought some 
dye which would give me a visual colour resembling the 
real butterfly, but spectroscopically different. I found 
this in “ Orange G,”’ which when examined with a set of 
colour filters appeared to reflect no green at all, and cer- 
tainly looked quite different to the colour of the real butter- 
fly. I dyed a bleached ewphrosyne with this and repeated 
my experiments. To an untreated model there were 38 
visits; to one dyed with Orange G, 14. Allowing for the 
more natural appearance of the untreated specimen, the 
observation seems to show that the yellow which to my 
eye nearly matched the real butterfly, though spectroscopi- 
cally a very different colour, was also a good imitation for 
the live insect. 

On the same occasion I made a test to prove that scent, 
however lingering, is not a potent factor in guiding the 
butterfly, at least in the early stages of courtship. I put 
up a specimen of B. selene, a very similar butterfly of a 
different species, and it gained 15 visits. 

In the course of these experiments I took occasion to 
observe the distance at which one butterfly appeared to 
become visually conscious of the presence of another, and 
I gained the impression that for this species the limit was 
about 34 feet. The distance is greater when both insects 
are flying. If one is at rest another flying past has to come 
closer before it perceives it. A ewphrosyne will pursue 
another species of butterfly on the wing if the other is more 
or less darkly coloured. It never notices any of our white 
Pierines. 

I have stated that scent does not appear to be a strong 
factor in the early stages of courtship. It is quite otherwise 
when pairing is imminent or accomplished. Mr. Hamm 
noticed a pair of ewphrosyne, in coitu, hidden on the under- 


48 Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 


side of a small bush. We observed that every passing 
euphrosyne turned aside, even from positions whence the 
pair were invisible, and seeking them out, mobbed them 
furiously. Even after the pair had separated and flown 
away, other passing individuals turned aside and fluttered 
round the place. I have seen similar occurrences in con- 
nection with C. pamphilus, and I have recorded an example 
observed by Lamborn in a species of Planema. The 
remarks there made apply to the present cases.* 

I have already explained my inability to continue these 
experiments during the past autumn. I hope to have better 
fortune in another season. So far, the chief results of my 
researches may be briefly summarised as follows :— 

The peculiar refractive body at the base of the omma- 
tidium in the butterfly eye, first observed in one species by 
Jonas, is commonly found in other species, and is a special 
structure of the trachaeal apparatus, varying in detail in 
the examples of different families investigated. 

The periopticon in the butterfly eye seems to preserve 
in its structure the individuality and relative position of the 
nerve fibres relating to each facet. 

There is every reason to suppose that the retinula cells are 
themselves the nerve endings of the receptive layer of the 
butterfly eye, and that the alleged existence of nerve fibres 
in or around the cone, or in the rhabdom, is an error due 
to incorrect observation. This view is strongly supported 
by the recent researches of Sanchez on the pupal eye. 

The eucone eye, as found in butterflies, gives at the apex 
of each cone a small erect image made up of parallel rays 
which, proceeding down the rhabdom, stimulate the 
retinulae. The whole field of view is reproduced in a mosaic 
of correctly correlated elements forming a continuous and 
complete whole, the definition of which, owing to the com- 
parative paucity of retinal elements decreases rapidly as 
the distance of the object increases, though at short distances 
the sight is comparatively acute. 

The behaviour of butterflies under certain observed 
conditions lends strong support to the view that they can 
distinguish those differences of ight-wave frequency which 
we call colour, and if the present evidence to that effect is 
not entirely conclusive, the testimony to the contrary is 
totally inadequate. 


* See “Monograph of the genus Acraea,” Trans. Ent. Soc., 
1912, p. 8. 


Westwood Bequest. 


(Oxford University Press.) 


(H. Eltringham, del.) 


SECTION, EYE OF VANESSA URTICAE. 


EXPLANATION OF PiaTE I. 


Section through an eye of V. wrticae in the plane of the expanded 
wings x 60. 


A. The corneal layer showing the lenses. 

B. The processus corneae. 

C. The layer of the “crystalline cones.” 

D. The ommatidia, each of which consists of eight elongated 
nerve end cells, the transparent inner longitudinal margins 
of which form the rhabdom. 

EH. The basal, or fenestrated membrane. 

F. The nerve bundles leading from the ommatidia to the peri- 


opticon. 
G. The periopticon. 
H. The epiopticon. 


In the neighbourhood of the cones is seen a layer of pigment 
granules, the contents of the pigment cells there situated. A 
second less dense pigmentation occurs at the basal membrane. 
Just beneath the latter is a layer of heavily nucleated cells of which 
there is one to each ommatidium. The blank areas between the 
nerve bundles are tracheal spaces. 


Fie. 1. 


bo 


er 


EXPLANATION OF PuateE II. 


Diagram of the proximal portion of an ommatidium x 1200. 
bm. Basal membrane. 
n. Nerve. 
nc. Nucleated nerve cell. 
t. Main tracheal tube. 
tt. Tracheal branches. 
ret. Retinula. 
r. Rhabdom. 
tf. Tracheal distributor. 


. An ommatidium and cone of V. urticae to show the relative 


size of the parts « 350. 
cc. Crystalline cone. 
ry. Rhabdom. 
tf. Tracheal distributor. 


. Transverse section of periopticon showing regular arrange- 


ments of the nerve bundles x 1350. 


. Transverse section of nerve bundles, nucleated cells, and 


tracheae just below basal membrane x 1350. 
n. Nerves. 
t. Tracheal tube. 


. Transverse section of tracheal distributor x 1350. 


n. Nerves (retinulae). 
c. Cruciform chitinous body in distributor. 
ts. Tracheal spaces. 


. Transverse section of ommatidia above tracheal distributor 


x 1350. 
tt. Tracheal branches. 
r. Rhabdom. 
ret. Retinula. 


. Diagram of a lens cylinder of its own focal length. 
. Diagram of a lens cylinder of twice its own focal length. 


Westwood Bequest. Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1919, Pl. IT. 


H. Eltringham, del. (Oxford University Press.) 


BUTTERFLY VISION. 


WerEstwoop BEQUEST. | Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1919, Pl. IT, 


=. Hltringbam dei. Sun Hnéraving Company, Limited 


BUTTERFLY VISION. 


EXPLANATION OF Pate III. 


Fic. 1. A Tortoiseshell butterfly as it appears to the human eye. 
2. The same as it might be supposed to appear to another 
of the same species, at a distance of two inches, as- 
suming the correctness of the original mosaic theory. 
3. The same, on the same assumption, at a distance of twelve 
inches. 


Note.—An image such as Fig. 3 may fairly be regarded as about 
the limit of recognisable visibility. It is produced by approximately 
72 facets. Now the number of facets engaged varies inversely as 
the square of the distance, hence at three feet } of 72, or eight 
facets only would be engaged. If, however, the theory here ad- 
vanced be correct (vide p. 28), the image is eight times more distinct 
than was previously supposed, and hence at three feet the image 
would be equal to that produced, on the older theory, by 8 x 8, 
= 64 facets. 

In other words, Fig. 3 would represent very nearly the degree 
of definition at a distance of three feet, and this distance is about 
the observed limit of recognition in these insects. 


EXPLANATION OF PLATE IV. 


Fria. 1. A Tortoiseshell butterfly as it might be supposed to 
appear to another of the same species, at a distance 
ot twelve inches, on the assumption that each facet 
unit gives a definite but inverted image. 

2. Photograph, taken with a 12 mm. objective, of the erect 

image in the eye of a glow-worm, Lampyris noctiluca. 

The eye was mounted on a cover slip with a drop of 

dilute glycerine and a transparency of the portrait 

placed about two inches in front of it. The actual 

area of the image is about *15sq.mm. The definition 

is not nearly so good as when the image is viewed in 

the microscope by the human eye. Also it has lost 
much in reproduction. 


Westwood Bequest. Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1919, Pl. IV. 


H. Eltringham, del et photo. (Oxford University Press. ) 


INSECT VISION. 


. 


; reat , ef 4 ae 
ve eee a ee eee we i +o Nd \oPa as sath 


Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1919, Pl. V. 


Westwood Bequest. 


to. 


H. Eltringham, pho 


(Oxford University Press.) 


PHOTOGRAPHIC COLOUR-VALUES OF FLOWERS. 


EXPLANATION OF PLATE V. 


Photograph of asters so screened as to give the relative 
luminosity values. 


Ditto when only yellow green rays are used, the plate being 
thus red-blue blind. 


Ditto when red and part of green rays are used, plate blue- 
blind. 


Ditto with red rays eliminated, plate red-blind. 


Dr. H. Eltringham on Butterfly Vision. 49 


In the preparation of the foregoing work I desire to ex- 
press my sincere thanks to Dr. F. A. Dixey, Mr. E. 8. Good- 
rich, Mr. J. Bronté Gatenby, Mr. A. H. Hamm, Professor 
Poulton, Lord Rayleigh, Commander J. J. Walker, and 
others who have kindly helped me either with personal 
assistance or useful suggestions. Professor Poulton has 
specially helped me by kindly reading the proofs. 

I have not given a bibliography of the subject, as the 
literature is so voluminous that it would occupy a great 
many pages of our Transactions, and economy of paper 
is still a necessity. Those specially interested will find 
bibliographies in nearly all the works I have mentioned in 
the text. 


TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PARTS I, II. (JULY) E 


II. The synonymy and types of certain genera of Hymeno- 
ptera, especially of those discussed by the Rev. F. D. 
Morice and Mr. Jno. Hartley Durrant in connection 
with the long-forgotten “* Erlangen List” of Panzer and 
Jurine. By J. CuesterR Brapiey, M.S., Ph.D., 
Assistant Professor of Systematic Entomology in 
Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. Communicated by 
C. Gorpon Hewirt, D.Sc. 


[Read February 5th, 1919.] 


THE two authors mentioned in the title in two compara- 
tively recent joint papers (1914, 1916) which were read 
before the Society respectively on December 3rd, 1913, and 
November Ist, 1916, have brought to hght and discussed 
with great detail a long-forgotten review, published 
anonymously, of Jurine’s ‘‘ Nouvelle Méthode de Classer 
les Hyménoptéres et les Diptéres.”’ 

This interesting review appeared some years in advance 
of the actual publication of Jurie’s great work. Morice 
and Durrant have clearly shown that its real author was 
Panzer, but that the list of genera which he included in 
connection with it was transcribed to all intents and 
purpose directly from advance proofs furnished by Jurine, 
with whom Panzer was in frequent correspondence. 
Although, as a book review, the work was anonymous, the 
fact that it plainly stated that it was reviewing Jurine’s 
work, that the author makes no claims for himself but gives 
entire credit for everything published to Jurine, makes it 
seem imperative to recognise the publication as valid, and 
to ascribe the list of genera, as Morice and Durrant suggest, 
to Jurine. In other words, the case is not essentially dif- 
ferent from what it would have been if Jurine had published 
over his own signature an advance synopsis of the genera 
which he proposed to adopt in his forthcoming work. 

This review seems to have been known to certain con- 
temporaries of Panzer and Jurine, and to have influenced 
their own subsequently published work, but unfortunately 
was soon forgotten by the Entomological public, doubtless 

TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PaRTS I, II. (JULY) 


Dr. J. Chester Bradley on the genera of Hymenoptera. 51 


because of its inaccessibility and limited circulation. It 
involves, however, the status of many long-used genera of 
Hymenoptera, and consequently its treatment is of much 
importance to all students of that order. 

The work of Morice and Durrant is both scholarly and 
laborious. They have placed all Hymenopterists in their 
debt. It is far from my intentions to belittle or criticise 
capriciously any part of it. They have, however, followed 
consistently certain methods of determining the types and 
status of the genera which do not appear to me to be in 
accordance with the mandates of the International Code of 
Zoological Nomenclature and its official interpretation as 
expressed in the published Opinions of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1910—1916).* 

I wish to express my sincere thanks to the Rev. Mr. 
Morice, who has taken the pains to write to me at length 
his views on many of the points considered in this paper, 
and has expressed opinions in which I have in nearly every 
instance been able to concur, materially modifying my 
original conclusions, in several instances, especially in 
regard to Ceropales and to Bremus. 

Inasmuch as the results arrived at by Morice and Durrant 
concern many fundamental genera of Hymenoptera, it has 
seemed to me worth while, in fact absolutely necessary, to 
revise their work in accordance with the Code and its 
official interpretation. There may be a few instances where 
the interpretation is in doubt, but most of the cases are 
clear-cut, and follow directly from the acceptance of certain 
premises. 


* While zoologists are under no legal restraint in regard to the 
names that they adopt, there are many who feel, with the author, 
that the only possible hope for ultimate stability and uniformity 
of practice is to follow absolutely the International Code and its 
official interpretation, totally regardless of all personal predilections. 
Personally, the author is disposed to take exception to the reason- 
ableness of certain of these interpretations, especially Opinion 46, 
which is one that is the cause of many of the dissensions herein- 
after made from the conclusions of Morice and Durrant. But after 
all, uniformity of practice is the chief desideratum. We shall never 
all agree as to what is reasonable. However much we may feel 
that the International Commission is not representative, or may 
be inclined to dispute the source of its authority, there is nothing 
more representative with which to replace it, nothing that is con- 
stituted with even an approach to as great an authority. The 
decisions having once been made, it is to the interests of us all that 
they be followed implicitly. 


52 Dr. J. Chester Bradley on the Synonymy 


The chief points upon which the decisions of this article 
differ from those of Morice and Durrant result from the 
following facts :— 

(a) The “ Histoire naturelle générale et particuliére des 
Crustacés et des Insectes,’’ par P. A. Latreille, Tome III, 
1802, cannot be accepted as defining the types of genera 
not originating within its pages. After describing each 
genus it cites an “‘ Exemple,”’ more rarely “ Exemples.” 
But there is no evidence that Latreille intended these 
““exemples ” to be in any sense types. The International 
Code, Art. 30, paragraph (g), says: ‘“‘ The meaning of the 
expression ‘select a type’ is to be rigidly construed. 
Mention of a species as an illustration or example of a 
genus does not constitute selection of a type.” 

(b) Concerning Lamarck, 1801, there is room for doubt. 
At first sight the case would seem to be identical with the 
one just discussed, Latreille 1802. But Lamarck (1801: 
vill) explains his intentions as follows: “ Pour faire con- 
naitre d’une maniére certaine les generes dont je donne 
ici les caractéres, j'ai cité sous chacun d’eux une espéce 
connue, ou trés-rarement plusieurs, et j’y ai joint quelques 
synonymes que je puis certifier; cela suffit pour me faire 
entendre.” 

It is difficult to decide whether Lamarck’s intentions are 
thereby sufficiently clearly shown to have been equivalent 
to our idea of type fixation, as to permit us to “ rigidly 
construe’ his actions as selecting types in the sense of 
the Code. My own opinion is that we cannot accept his 
species mentioned as types. It is my intention to refer the 
question to the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature for decision. 

(c) Blumenbach, 1788, can by no means be accepted as 
designating genotypes. The case is exactly similar with 
Latreille, 1802. BS. 

(d) The genera of Latreille (1796), published without 
mention of included species, but accompanied by a suffi- 
cient diagnosis, are valid, and date from 1796.* The species 
first subsequently mentioned as belonging to the genus, and 
coming under the generic definition, are available for 
selection of the type, and only those. 

(e) The elimination method of type selection, used to a 

* This fact is established by Opinion 46 of the International 


Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. See also the discussion 
under the family Thyreopidae, seq. 


and types of certain genera of Hymenoptera. 53 


limited extent by Morice and Durrant in certain instances, 
is not permitted by the Code.* . 

(f) Genera of similar but not identical spelling, as Cepha 
Billberg and Cephus Latr.,are both valid under the code,t+ 
unfortunate as the fact may be in some instances. 

In the following paper, in connection with the genera 
discussed by Morice and Durrant, the author has thought it 
worth while to introduce some additional genera which are 
affected directly or indirectly by these decisions, and also 
some names of higher groups, in order not to leave our 
nomenclature, in a measure, upset and not rebuilt. 

It is to be understood that the present author accepts 
the conclusions, if not in every instance the methods, 
published by Morice and Durrant in the instances of genera 
which are not discussed in this paper. 

In the pages which follow the genera included in the 
Erlangen list are given the numbers they bear in that list. 
Those not included are given a letter. The statement of 
the type in each case applies to the generic name imme- 
diately following the figure or letter, whether accepted as 
a valid name or rejected as a synonym or homonym. In 
order to make the matter as readily comprehensible as 
possible, all names used in a rejected sense are included in 
square brackets, while names used in their accepted sense 
are left free. In a few instances names have been inclosed 
in parentheses to indicate subgenera. 

References following an author’s name are by year and 
page to the List at the close of this article. 


I. 1. TENTHREDO L. nec. auctt. = [Allantus auctt.]. 


Type: Tenthredo scrophulariae L. By designation of 
Latreille (1810 : 435). 

Lamarck (1801 : 263) probably ‘cannot be considered as 
having fixed a type for Tenthredo.{ If not, the first valid 
designation was scrophulariae by Latreille as stated by 


* See discussion under the case of the genus Philanthus, seq. 

+ In the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Art. 36, 
Recommendations, is found the following: “It is well to avoid the 
introduction of new generic names which differ from generic names 
already in use only in termination or in a slight variation in spelling 
which might lead to confusion. But when once introduced such 
names are not to be rejected on this account. Examples: Picus, 
Pica, etc.” 

+ See preceding discussion of this paper on p. 52. 


a 


54 Dr. J. Chester Bradley on the Synonymy 


Rohwer (1911: 90). Consequently Cryptus and Hylotoma 
are not synonyms of Tenthredo. Jf Lamarck is correctly 
interpreted as establishing a type for Tenthredo, then the 
conclusions of Morice and Durrant are correct. 


I. 2, CRYPTUS* Jur., 1801, nec Fabr., 1804 = [Arge 
Schrank, 1802] = [Hylotoma Latr., 1802]. 


Tyree: Cryptus segmentaria Panz. This was the only 
species included in the genus at the time species were first 
mentioned in connection with the generic name. 

The genus Cryptus must date from the Erlangen list, 
1801, where it was described but no species included. 
According to the official interpretation of the Code + the 
genus dated from 1801, but its type species must be selected 
from those coming under the original definition, which 
were first subsequently included under the generic name. 
Panzer (1804 : 88. pl. 17) was the first to give a species to 
the genus, and as he included only one, it became the type. 

Fabricius (1804 : 70) used the name Cryptus for an entirely 
different group of Hymenoptera. If this publication 
actually antedated Panzer (1804: 88. pl. 17) it would 
supply species for Cryptus were it not for the fact that none 
of them come under the generic definition of Jurine. 
Cryptus Fabr., 1804, is therefore a homonym of Cryptus 
Jurine, 1801. 


a. [CRYPTUS Fabr., 1804, nec Jurine, 1801] = Hedy- 
eryptus Cam. ? 

Type: [Cryptus] viduatorius Fabr. = Hedycryptus 
viduatorius (Fabr.). 

The only existing available synonyms for Cryptus Fabr. 
sen. str. seem to be Hedycryptus Cameron and Stervpho- 
cryptus Cameron, both published in September 1903 and 
based on Oriental species. Schmiedeknecht considers them 
both Cryptus in the sense of Fabr., that is congeneric with 
viduatorius, and is in all probability correct, certainly so 
as far as Cameron’s description indicates. Unless examina- 
tion of the types proves that Cameron actually had some- 
thing different, we shall have to use one of these names in 

* Tf Lamarck, 1801, is accepted as establishing genotypes, 
Cryptus becomes a synonym of Tenthredo, as Morice and Durrant 


state. 
+ Opinion 46, International Commission on Zoological Nomen- 
clature. 


and types of certain genera of Hymenoptera. 55 


place of Cryptus auctorum. Of the two, Hedycryptus appears 
to have priority. It was published in the Sept. 1903 
issue of the Zeitschrift fiir systematische Hymenopte- 
rologie und Dipterologie, a copy of which is dated as having 
been received at the hbrary of Cornell University, Septem- 
ber 8, 1903. The September number of the Entomologist, 
containing the description of Steriphocryptus was received 
September 14, so presumably was issued later. 

Undoubtedly it. will eventually prove wise to unite with 
Cryptus auctorum as subgenera some of the closely related 
groups now treated as distinct genera. In such event the 
generic name will be that of some one of these other groups, 
and Hedycryptus will stand for the subgenus Cryptus 
auctorum. This was undoubtedly the intention of Viereck 
(1916 : 330) in using Agrothereutes Forster for Cryptus Fabr. 
But Agrothereutes is usually considered quite distant, 
although in the same tribe. Such a course would imply 
reducing most of the genera of the tribe to the rank of 
subgenera. As Mr. Viereck has not made his plan clear, 
farther than in the extent to which it applies to the fauna 
of Connecticut, it seems better to await its elaboration 
before giving it further consideration. 


HEDYCRYPTINAE new subfamily name=[Cryptinae auctt.]. 


The International Code provides that the name of a 
family or subfamily must be changed when the name of 
its type genus is changed. Since Cryptus Fabr. is a 
homonym * of Cryptus Jurine, Cryptinae based on Cryptus 
Fabr. must be renamed Hedycryptinae, temporarily at 
least, following the corresponding similar change in the 
name of its type genus. 

If other genera are united with Hedycryptus as sub- 
genera, the generic and also family name will be eventually 
erected from the oldest one of these. 


CRYPTINAE = [ Arginae auctt.] = [Hylotominae auctt.]. 


Since Cryptus Jurine is an older name for Avge or 
Hylotoma, there is no actual change in the type genus 
of [Arginae] = [Hylotominae], but the generic name is 
‘ changed to Cryptus and the subfamily name must be 
changed correspondingly.+ 


* See discussion under T'hyreopidae, seq. 
+ See discussion under T'hyreopidae, seq. 


56 Dr. J. Chester Bradley on the Synonymy 


I. 3. [ALLANTUS Jur., 1801, and auctt.] = Tenthredo L. 


Tyee: Lenthredo scrophulariae L. By designation of 
Curtis (1839 : 764). 

Since Allantus dates from the Erlangen list, Rohwer 
(19116 : 218) is incorrect in making togata type of Allantus 
and therefore synonymising Emphytus with that genus. 
Morice and Durrant (1914 : 375) have correctly stated the 
type as scrophulariae, but since this is also type of 
Tenthredo, Allantus is a synonym of the latter genus. 


I. 8. ORUSSUS Latvr., 1796 = [Oryssus Fabr., 1798]. 


Type: [Oryssus coronatus Fabr.] = Orussus abietinus 
(Scop.). The genus originally described without species, 
only a single species was first subsequently included. 

The genus must be attributed to Latreille, 1796,* and 
consequently retain the spelling Orussus. The type remains 
identical. 


b. ASTATA Latr., 1796 = [Astatus Latr., 1796, erratum] 
= [Dimorpha Jur., 1801]. 


Tyee: [Tiphia abdominalis Panz.| =[Sphex] boops 
Schrank = Astata boops (Schrank) Spinola. The genus 
was described without species, and abdominalis was the 
one first subsequently included. 

The genus Astata of Latreille is valid at dates from 
1796.7 Latreille printed the name Astatus (1796 : 114), 
but in the same work (1796: xii) states: “ Page 114, au 
leu d’Astatus lisez Astata.”” We can therefore hardly hold 
that he has preoccupied Astatus { Jurine, 1801, a group 
of sawflies. Nor can the latter be considered as estab- 
lishing species for Astata Latr., since the species therein 


* See Opinion No. 46 of the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature. 

t+ See Opinion No. 46, International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature. 

{ International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Art. 36, 


Recommendations: “It is well to avoid the introduction of new ~ 


generic names which differ from other generic names only in 
termination or in a slight variation in spelling which might lead 
to confusion. But when once introduced, such names are not to 
be rejected on this account.” 


\ 


and types of certain genera of Hymenoptera. 57 


contained do not come under the generic definition of 
Astata.* 


I. 9. ASTATUS Jur., May, 1801, nec Panzer, July, 1801, 
Konow, etc. = [Cephus Latr., 1802] = [Trachelus 
Jur., 1807]. 


Type: [Sirer] pygmaeus L. = Astatus pygmaeus (L.) 
Jur. = [Cephus] pygmaeus (L.) Latr. 

The two species originally included in Astatus are 
identical. 


ce. KUMETABOLUS Schulz, 1906 = [Astatus Panzer, 1801, 
Konow, etc., nec Jurine, 1801]. 


Type: [Svrex] troglodyta Fabr. = [Sirex] niger Harris ? 
= Humetabolus niger (Harris) Rohwer. 

Eumetabolus, without stated type, was proposed as a 
substitute for Astatus, sense of Konow, and therefore takes 
ipso facto the type of that genus.t Morice and Durrant 
strongly doubt the identity of troglodyta with what they 
term the mysterious niger, and possibly it would be better 
to call the species trogolodyta. 


d. CEPHA Billberg, 1820 = [Tvrachelus Konow, etc., nec 
Jurine] = [Trachelastatus Morice and Durrant, 1914]. 


Type: [Strex] tabidus Fabr. = Cepha tabida (Fabr.)Billb. 
Genus monobasic. 

It is impossible to replace Cepha Billberg with T'rache- 
lastatus Morice and Durrant on the suggested grounds of 
the similarity of Cepha Billberg with Cephus Latr.t 


The foregoing data may be tabulated for convenience as 
follows :— 


Family LarriDas. 
Astata Latr. Type: boops. = [Dimorpha Jurine]. 


* Opinion 46 of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature is summarised in part: “If (as in Aclastus Foerster, 
1868) it is not evident from the original publication of the genus 
how many or what species are involved, the genus contains all of 
the species of the world which would come under the generic 
description as originally published... .” 

+ International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Art. 30 /. 

{ International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Art. 36, 
Recommendations. 


58 Dr. J. Chester Bradley on the Synonymy 


Family AstaTIpDAE = [Cephidae auctt.]. 


Astatus Jur. Type: pygmaeus =[Cephus auctt.]. 
=[Trachelus Jur., not 
sense of Konow and 
recent authors] 
(not Astatus Konow and 
recent authors). 
Cepha Billb. Type: tabida=[Trachelus auctt.] 
=[Trachelastatus Mor. & Dur.]. 
Eumetabolus Schulz. Type: niger =[Astatus, sense of 
Konow and recent 
authors]. 


T. 10. SIREX L., 1761 = [Paururus Konow]. 


Type: [Ichneumon] juvencus L., 1758 = Swrex juvencus 
L. By designation of Curtis (1829 : 253). 

If it be decided that Lamarck (1801) * is to be inter- 
preted as establishing genotypes, the conclusions of Morice 
and Durrant must be accepted. Otherwise they will stand 
as given here and by Bradley (1913). 


e. GASTERUPTION Latr., 1796 = [Foenus Fabr., 1798]. 


Type: [Ichneumon] assectator L. = Gasteruption assec- 
tator (L.) Schletterer. By designation of Viereck (1914 : 61), 
possibly previously by act of Latreille (1802 : 329). 

Latreille (1802 : 329) certainly did not make assectator 
type of Foenus, and the designation of jaculator for the 
latter genus is valid, as indicated by Viereck (1914 : 60). 
However, the two are congeneric, and the name Gasteruption 
has precedence.f 


III. 1. ICHNEUMON L. (1758). 

The conclusions of Morice and Durrant are correct if 
Lamarck (1801) designated genotypes in the sense of the 
code. Otherwise those of Viereck (1914) as given by 
Morice and Durrant seem to be correct. 


I. 2. ANOMALON Pz., 1804 =[Paranomalon Viereck, 
1914] = Anomalon auct. 
Type: Anomalon cruentatus Pz. Genus monobasic. 


* See previous discussion concerning this paper on page 52. 
+ Opinion 46, International Commission on Zoological Nomen- 
clature. 


and types of certain genera of Hymenoptera. 59 


This is as shown by Morice and Durrant. Following the 
restoration of Anomalon in the accepted sense, it will no 
longer be used to replace Bassus auctt., but Diplazon will 
replace that name. 

Viereck (1916: 281) uses Erigorgus Forster to replace 
Anomalon auctt., probably with the intention of reducing 
his Paranomalon to the rank of a subgenus. 


f. DIPLAZON (Nees) Grav., 1818 = [Bassus aucit., nec 
Fabr.]. 


Type: [Ichneumon] laetatorius Fabr. = [Bassus] laeta- 
torus Panz. = Diplazon laetatorius (Fabr.). By designation 
of Viereck (1914 : 46). 

The foregoing data, together with related facts brought 
out by Viereck (1914), may be conveniently tabulated as 
follows :— 


Family BRACONIDAE. 
Subfamily Braconinae = [ Agathinae auctt.]. 


Bracon Jur., nec auctt. Type: desertor L. =[Cremnops 
auctt. |. 

Bassus Fabr., nec auctt. Type: calculator Fabr. = 
[Microdus Nees et auctt.]. 

Agathis Latr. Type: malvacearum Latvr. 
etc. 


Subfamily Vipioninae = [ Braconinae auctt.]. 


Microbracon Ashm. Type: sulcifrons = [ Bracon auctt., 
nec Jur.]. 

Vipio Latr.* Type: desectus n. n.t = [Glyptomorpha 
Holmg.] = [Pseudovipio Szepl.]. 

Zavipio Vier. Type: marshalli Schm. = [Vipio auctt.]. 
etc. 


* The removal of Bracon Jur. to the group containing the genus 
Agathis has left the subfamily containing Microbracon Ashm. and 
allied genera without a type genus. This deficiency has been 
appropriately supplied by Viereck, who has selected the oldest of 
the genera concerned, Vipio, and by the erection of the family 
Vipionidae (1916: 181) made it type genus. 

+ The type of Vipio Latreille is [chneumon desertor Fabricius, 
not of Linnaeus. The latter insect is the type of Bracon. Ichnewmon 
desertor Fabricius is a homonym and must be changed; I therefore 
propose :— 

Vipio desectus n.n. for Vipio desertor (Fabr.), described as 
Ichneumon desertor Fabr., nec Linnaeus. 


60 Dr. J. Chester Bradley on the Synonymy 


Family [IcHNEUMONIDAE. 
Subfamily Ophioninae. 
Anomalon -Pz. ‘Type: cruentatus = [| Paranomalon 
Vier. ]. 
Subfamily Tryphoninae. 
Tribe Diplazonint = [Bassini auctt.]. 
Diplazon (Nees) Grav. Type: laelatorius = [Bassus 
auctt., nec Fabr.]. 


g. PSAMMOCHARKS Latr., 1796=[Pompilus Fabr., 1798]. 


According to Opinion 46 of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature Psammochares must date from 
1796 and not 1802. 


h. TRYPOXYLON Latr., 1796 = [Agius Jur., 1801]. 


Type: [Spher] figulus L. = Tryporylon figulus (L.) Latr. 
Genus described without species, figulus was the first species 
placed in it subsequently, and agreeing with the generic 
definition becomes ipso facto type.* 


III. 10. [DIMORPHA Jur., 1801] = Astata Latr., 1796. 


Type: [Tvphia abdominalis Panz]=[Sphex] boops Schrank | 
= Astata boops (Schrank) Spinola. Genus monobasic. 


III. 12. SCOLIA F. = [Discoha Sauss. et Sichel]. 


Type: Scolia 4-punctata Fabr. By designation of 
Latreille (1810: 437). 

The so-called designation of flavifrons as type by Latreille 
(1802 : 347) is not valid under the code,+ nor is the desig- 
nation of haemorrhoidalis by Lamarck (1801 : 269). 


III. 13. SAPYGA Latr., 1796.. 
and 


III. 14. MYRMOSA Latr., 1796. 


These two genera must date from 1796.{ The types are 
as given by Morice and Durrant (1914 : 398). 


* Opinion 46, International Commission on Zoological Nomen- 
clature. 

+ International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Art. 30, g. 

{ Opinion 46, International Commission on Zoological Nomen- 
clature. \ 


and types of certain genera of Hymenoptera. 61 


IIT. 23: PHILANTHUS Fabricius, 1790 = [Simblephilus 
Jurine, 1801]. 


Type: [Crabro androgynus Rossi] = [Vespa] triangulum 
Fabr. = Philanthus triangulum Fabr. By designation of 
Curtis 1829. 

Morice and Durrant, p. 410, state that ‘‘ Jurine’s revision 
of Philanthus (30. v. 1801), being a year prior to that of 
Latreille (after iv. 1802), his restriction of its possible 
types to laetus, arenarius, and labiatus, must be accepted. 
This means that arenaria L. is the type, for laetus is a 
synonym of arenarius, and labiatus was not. originally 
included in the Fabrician Philanthus.” 

The citation of only 3 supposed species in connection 
with Philanthus by Jurine in 1801 does not restrict selection 
of the type of that genus to any one of them. That was 
in a measure the now discarded principle of type-fixation 
by elimination.* There being no basis for the fixation of 
a type of Philanthus in the original publication of Fab- 
ricius (1790) + the first subsequent actual designation of 
the type by any author, if in accordance with paragraph e 
of Art. 30 of the code, must be accepted.{ Latreille 
(1810 : 438) cannot be considered to have designated a 
type, since he mentions two different species both as 
type.§ The first actual designation of a type seems to 


* See Opinion 6 of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature. This Opinion provides that when a later author 
divides the genus A, species Ab and Ac, leaving genus A, only 
species Ab, and genus C, monotypic with species Cc, the second 
author is to be construed as having fixed the type of the genus A. 
From the discussion of the case it is perfectly clear that this prin- 
ciple cannot be carried further, to the extent of including cases in 
which more than two species were included in the original descrip- 
tion of the earlier genus. 

See further, Opinion 58, in the discussion of which is stated, 
concerning a somewhat similar case: ‘‘ * Hsox Cuvier ’ is a restricted 
group of ‘Hsox Linn.’ Only one species is mentioned, and this 
becomes the type (by monotypy) of ‘Hsox Cuvier.’ This rigidly 
copsitie” is not, however, a designation of the genotype for * Hsox 

ieee , 

+ See International Code, Art 30, i. 

~ Art. 30,g: “If an author, in publishing a genus with more 
than one valid species fails to designate or to indicate its type, 
any subsequent author may select the type, and such designation 
is not subject to change.” 

§ If it should be interpreted that the first of these was the actual 
designation of a type, and the other intended as a synonym (which 
it is not), or as a supplementary illustration, the result would be 


62 Dr. J. Chester Bradley on the Synonymy 


have been by Curtis (1829 : 273) as Crabro androgynus 
Rossi, which is a synonym of Vespa triangulum, a true 
Philanthus in the sense of modern authors. 


7. CERCERIS Latreille. 


Type: [Philanthus ornatus Fabr.] = [Sphex] rybiensis 
L. = Cerceris rybiensis (L.) Schletterer. By designation of 
Latreille (1810 : 438). 

Following from the conclusions relative to Philanthus, 
as above stated, Cerceris is not a synonym of that genus, 
but each will fortunately stand in the sense in which they 
were applied by Latreille, and which has been followed by 
modern authors. 


III. 18. [SIMBLEPHILUS Jurine, 1801] = Philanthus 
Fabr., 1790. 


Type: Philanthus [pictus Panzer] = Philanthus trian- 
gulum Fabr. Genus monotypic. 

Following the above, Simblephilus is restored to its pricr 
position as an absolute synonym (isogenotypic) with 
Philanthus. 


III. 19. MELLINUS Fabr., 1790. 


Type: [Vespa] arvensis L. = Mellinus arvensis (L.) 
Fabr. By designation of Curtis (1836 : 580). 

From considerations given above Latreille (1802 : 339) 
cannot be considered as having fixed the type for Mel- 
linus. Latreille (1810: 438) cites two species. Appar- 
ently the first valid designation was by Curtis (1836 : 580). 


jg. (GORYTES Latr., 1804] = [Hoplisus Lep. et auctt.].= 
Ceropales Latr., 1796. 


Tyre : [Mellinus] quinquecinctus Fabr. = [Gorytes] quin- 
quecinctus (Fabr.) Latr.= Ceropales quinquecinctus (Fabr.) 
Latr. By original designation.* 

Gorytes, Hoplisus and Ceropales are isogenotypic. 


the same, as pictus, first mentioned by Latreille, is a synonym of 
triangulum. 

* [ have not seen the description of this genus, and give this 
designation on the authority of Morice and Durrant. 


and types of certain genera of Hymenoptera. 63 


k. [HOPLISUS Lep., 1832] = [Gorytes Latr.] = Ceropales 
| PEA ne Whoo 


Type: [Mellinus] quinquecinctus Fabr. = [Hoplisus| 
quinquecinctus (Fabr.) Lep.=[Gorytes | quinquecinctus (Fabr.) 
Latr. = Ceropales quinquecinctus (Fabr.) Latr. By designa- 
tion of Westwood (1840 : 80). 


III. 20. ARPACTUS Jurine, 1801 = [Gorytes s.s. auctt., nec 
Latr.]. 


Type: [Sphex| mystacea L. = Arpactus mystaceus (L.) 
Jur. 

Arpactus was founded by Jurine (1801 : 164) with men- 
tion of two species, ‘‘ Mellinus mystaceus, quinquecinctus,” 
without selection of either as type. The subsequent 
designation of quinquecinctus as type of Gorytes by Lat- 
treille (1804) cpso facto established mystaceus as the type 
of Arpactus.* This leaves it necessary to use Arpactus to 
replace the common usage of Gorytes s.s. 


1. AGRAPTUS Wesmael, 1852 =[Arpactus auctt. nec 
Jurine |. 


Tyee: [Sphex] concinna Rossi = Agraptus concinnus 
(Rossi) Wesm. Genus monobasic. 

The facts above outlined may be compared, as a matter 
of convenience, as follows, assuming that the groups are 
best entitled to subgeneric rank. 


m. CHROPALES Latreille, 1796, nec auctt.=[Gorytes Latr., 
1804] = [Hoplisus Lep. et auctt.]. 


Tyee: [Mellinus] quinquecinctus Fabr. = Ceropales quin- 
quecinctus (Fabr.) Latr. 

Ceropales, proposed in 1796 and described without 
included species, is valid from that date, and the type 
species must be selected from those first included in it by 
a subsequent author.t The first inclusion of species in 
Ceropales was by Latreille (1802: 340), ‘‘ Mellinus 5-cinctus ; 
campestris? F.”’ 


* Opinion 6 of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature: “ When a later author divides the génus A, species 
A b and A ¢, leaving genus A, only species A b, and genus C mono- 
typic with species Uc, the second author is to be construed as 
having fixed the type of the genus A.” 

+ Opinion 46 of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature. 


64 Dr. J. Chester Bradley on the Synonymy 


Genus Ceropales Jurine, 1801. 


Subgenus Arpactus Jurine, 1801, type mystacea = [Gorytes 
in the sense of recent authors]. 

Subgenus Ceropales Latreille, 1804, type quinquecinctus = 
[Hoplisus in the sense of recent authors]. 
Subgenus Agraptus Wesmael, 1852, type concinnus = 
[Arpactus in the sense of recent authors]. 


Whether these be reckoned as genera, subgenera or 
identical groups is a question of taxonomy, not of nomen- 
clature, and is open to debate. 


n. HYPSICERAEUS Morice and Durrant, 1914 = [Cero- 
pales Latr., 1804, nec Latr., 1796]. 


Type: [Evania] maculata Fabr. = [Ceropales] maculata 
(Fabr.) Latr. = Hypsiceraeus maculata (Fabr.) M. and D. 
By original designation. 


III. 21. ALYSSON Jurine, 1801 [= Alyson auctorum]. 


Type: [Pompilus] spinosus Panzer = Alysson spinosus 
(Panzer). By designation of Morice and Durrant (1914: 
406). 


o. [ALYSON Jurine, 1807] = Alysson Jurine, 1801. 


TypE: Alysson spinosus (Panzer) Jurine. Genus mono- 
basic. 

Alysson Jurine, 1801, and Alyson Jurine, 1807, must be 
considered as potentially different genera.* With this in 
mind the determination of the types becomes a simple 
matter, and allows us to retain the names in their long- 
accustomed sense, substituting Alysson for Alyson. 

Were we to look upon Alysson and Alyson as being only 
one name and therefore attempt to determine the type on 
the basis of the three species originally included in Alysson 
and of subsequent attempts at type designation for Alyson, 
the matter would become much more complex, and I must 
confess that I would feel at a loss to solve certain questions 
which would arise, but which need not be detailed. It is 
enough to point out that the method employed, under 
this premise, by Morice and Durrant does not suffice, 


* International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Art. 36, 
Recommendations. 


and types of certain genera of Hymenoptera. 65 


since it is again an elimination method, and not within 
the provisions of Article 30 of the International Code. 


III. 22. NYSSON Latr., 1796. 


Type: [Mellinus] tricinctus Fabr. = [Crabro| spinosus 
Fabr. = Nysson spinosus (Fabr.) Jurine. ~ By designation 
of Latreille (1810: 438). 

This is as given by Morice and Durrant. The genus 
must date, however, from 1796.* 

It is to be hoped that authors will agree to the sugges- 
tion of Morice and Durrant that the form ‘“‘ Nysso’’ was a 
misprint, and continue to use the spelling “‘ Nysson’’ as 
Latreille himself subsequently spelled it. 


p. PALARUS Latreille, 1802. 


Tyee: [Tiphia flavipes Fabr., 1793 = Palarus rufipes 
Latr., 1811] (not, Crabro flavipes Fabr., 1781 = Palarus 
flavipes [Fabr.] Latr.) = [Tiphia] variegata Fabr., 1781 = 
Palarus variegata (Fabr.) Turner, 1909. Genus monobasic. 

Morice and Durrant seem to have overlooked the fact 
that Latreille (1802: 336), instead of describing Palarus 
without exponent, erected it to receive “ La tiphie flavipéde 
de Fabricius,” the characters of which he discusses at some 
length, promising to give the generic characters at greater 
length at a later date. This promise he redeems in the 
13th volume (1805: 296), where he also adds three other 
species to the genus, and states that Gonius of Jurine (a 
nomen nudum) is identical. 

I cannot see the reason for suppressing flavipes = 
[Crabro flavipes Fabr., 1781] in favour of auriginosus 
Kversmann, 1849. The species flavipes was based on 
Crabro flavipes of Fabricius, 1781, and is different from 
Tiphia flavipes of Fabricius, 1793. When the latter was 
brought into the genus (by Latreille in 1811) its name 
was properly changed to rufipes. What Panzer meant by 
flavipes has nothing to do with the question. Latreille, 
however, specifically cites Philanthus flavipes of Panzer as 
a synonym of the former, and the species figured by 
Coquebert of the latter. 

Tiphia variegata Fabr. has priority, however, over 


* Opinion 46, International Commission on Zoological Nomen- 
clature. 


TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PaRTS I, 11. (JULY) F 


66 Dr. J. Chester Bradley on the Synonymy 


T. flavipes. Schulz, who has examined the types, is. 
authority for their identity.* 


III. 27. CRABRO Geoffrey, 1762 (nec Fabricius, 1775)= 
Combex Oliv.]. 


Tyee: Crabro humeralis Fourcroy. By present designa- 
tion. 

Geoffroy described Crabro for three species, not given 
uninominal names, but fully described and one of them 
figured. These three species are: (1) [Tenthredo] lutea L., 
(2) Crabro humeralis Fourcroy, and (3) [Tenthredo| connata 
Schrank, the three known to modern authors under those 
specific names as species of Cambex Oliv. 

Geoffroy’s usage was binary but not binominal. It was 
uninominal for generic names, and these must be accepted 
under the code.t The type must be chosen from the three 
included species, which, although uninominal names were 
not cited, are recognisable, and one of which (lutea L.) 


* The Reverend Mr. Morice has written me as follows, and I am 
quite willing to accept the synonymy as he suggests it, as I have 
no personal knowledge of the species or their types: 

“JT think, however, that the synonymy as you give it is still not 
quite right. If Schulz has really seen the types of Tiphia flavipes 
and Tiphia variegata, | am puzzled, and think he must have made 
a mistake. 

The following, so far as I can make out, are the facts— 


“Tiphia variegata Fabricius ** Philanthus flavipes Fabricius 
(Type in British Museum, seen — (éeste Latreille) figured by Coque- 
by me) bert 

= Crabro flavipes Fabricius. = Tiphia flavipes Fabricius. 

= Philanthus flavipes Panzer = Palarus rufipes Latreille, 
(nec Fabricius teste Latreille). 1811. 

= Palarus auriginosus Eversm. = Palarus humeralis Dufour. 

The only European Palarus, A species of Algeria and 
commonly known as ‘flavipes’ Morocco commonly known as 
hitherto.” ‘humeralis.’” 


(F. D. Morice). 


According to this synonymy the type of the genus, T'iphia flavipes, 
is the Algerian species humeralis auctorum, and apparently the name 
‘flavipes’ is valid. 

+ The case is exactly parallel with that of Gronow’s Zoophylacii, 
etc., 1763. Opinion 20 of the International Commission on Zoo- 
logical Nomenclature is summarised: ‘‘ Gronow, 1763, is binary, 
though not consistently binominal. Article 25 demands that an 
author be binary, and Article 2 demands that generic names be 
uninominal. Under these articles Gronow’s genera are to be 
accepted as complying with the conditions prescribed by the Code 
to render a name available under the Code.” 


and types of certain genera of Hymenoptera. 67 


was already a described and properly named species.* The 
type must be selected from among these three. The 
selections of a type for Crabro by Lamarck (1801), Latreille 
(1810), Curtis (1837), and Westwood (1840) refer to Crabro 
F., 1775, not to Crabro Geoffroy, and designate a species 
not included by Geoffroy. No type seems to have been 
specified for Crabro Geoffroy; and one is therefore here 
chosen. All three of the original species are congeneric. 

The circumstance is a most unfortunate one in that it 
requires the substitution of the name Crabro for the well- 
known Cimbex, both names involving the families with 
which they are associated. But there seems to be no 
recourse, as Crabro F., which has been accepted by all 
modern writers, is an absolute homonym of Crabro Geoffroy. 

I had intended to make lutea L. type, but the Rev. 
Mr. Morice suggests to me that it would be better to select 
humeralis, since that species is known for certain, whereas 
it is doubtful, according to him, that it can ever be settled 
whether lutea L. was the species now commonly called 
lutea or merely the yellow bodied form (2) of what we 
know as femorata. The suggestion is a happy one and I 
am glad to accept it. 


gq. THYREOPUS Lep. = [Crabro F., 1775, nec Geofir., 
1762]. 


Type: [Vespa] cribraria L. = Thyreopus cribrarius (L.) 
Lep. By designation of Westwood (1840 : 80). 

This may be considered a subgenus of Solenwus and is 
isogenotypic with [Crabro Fabr. nec Geofiroy]. 


r. SOLENIUS St. F. and Br., 1834 = Solenius auctt. + 


Crabro s.s. of recent authors, nec Geoftr. | 


Type: [Sphex| vaga L. = Solenius vagus (L.) St. F. and 
Br. By designation of Westwood (1840: 80). 

Crabro in its modern usage being invalid, it is necessary 
to decide with what name it shall be replaced. Saint 


* Should any one, disagreeing with this, maintain that the genus 
has the status of genera described without included species, since 
the three species were not properly named, the end result will be 
identical, for the first author to include named species which came 
under the original generic definition (see Opinion 46) was Fourcroy, 
who in reprinting or re-editing Geoffroy included his three species 
of Crabro, with others, under the names Crabro maculatus, C. humer- 
alis and C. lunulatus. 


68 Dr. J. Chester Bradley on*the Synonymy 


Fargeau and Brullé (1834) were the first to divide the 
genus Crabro (sense of Fabricius) into several subpeners 
The first of these was the restricted genus Crabro,* contain- 
ing fossorius (L.) with others. The second was Solenius 
containing vagus (L.) and others. Kohl, whose works 
stand out as the most scholarly that have been produced 
upon the Sphecoidea, recognises four subgenera and ten 
species groups of Crabro. Of the latter, the last (which 
he terms Crabro Kohl s. str.) contains both of the genera 
Orabro and Solenius of St. Fargeau and Brullé. In other 
words, Kohl does not even consider them sufficiently distinct 
to merit the rank of species group. 

While accepting some subgenera of [Crabro], my personal 
judgment is against distinguishing between the group of 
which fossorius may be taken as typical and that having 
vagus as type. I therefore propose to unite them under 
the subgeneric name Solenius. I will leave it to some one 
whose judgment may differ from mine to do what I am 
wholly unwilling to do, that is to propose another name 
for Crabro auctorum as distinguished from Solendus, if that 
step must ever be taken. 

Rohwer (1916 : 664) has used Solenius to replace Crabro 
of recent authors, not Crabro in the sense of Fabricius. 


s. [CRABRO Fabricius, 1775, nec Geoffroy, 1762] = 
(Thyreopus St. Farg. and Brullé, 1834) with status of a 
subgenus of Solenius. 


Type: [Vespa] cribraria L. = [Crabro] cribrarius a) 
Fabr. = Thyreopus cribrarius (L.) St. Farg. and Br. 
= Solenius (Thyreopus) cribrarius (L.). 


Toe Famity AND SuBFAMILY NAMES. 


The International Code provides (Art. 5) that the name 
of a family or subfamily is to be changed when the name 
of its type genus is changed. It, however, is silent upon 
the nature of the change which is to be effected. Three 
courses are open: (1) To base the new name upon the 
changed name of the original type genus. (2) To use as the 
type genus for the new family name the contained genus 


* St. Fargeau and Brullé were incorrect in restricting Crabro to 
the group containing fossorius, as the type of Crabro Fabricius had 
already been fixed as cribraria, but it is in their sense that the genus 
Crabro has been known to all modern authors. 


and types of certain genera of Hymenoptera. 69 


which has been earliest used as the basis of a plural name, 
that is for a name of a group higher than genus. (3) To 
use as genotype the oldest contained genus within the family 
as limited by the author.* The author cannot too vigor- 
ously express his dissension from the school that adheres 
to the third practice, the acceptance of which will result 
in a perpetual overturning of family names, with each 
varying concept of family limits. The second course is 
advisable if the group in question is left without a type 
genus. But if the name of the type genus changes with- 
out the genus itself going outside of the family group 
with which it had been previously associated, it would 
seem the fairest interpretation of the code to make the 
change in family name correspond, in other words to change 
not the type genus, but its name only. The genus name 
Crabro Fabr. nec Geoffroy changing to Thyreopus, Thyreopus 
remains as much type of the family as when it was called 
Crabro.*+ 


Family THyrREorIDAE = [Crabronidae auctores]. 
Crabroninae 

LTindeniinae \ sense of 
Thyreopinae | Ashmead. 
Rhopalinae 


Genus Thyreopus. Type: cribraria = Thyreopus auc- 
torum = [Crabro Fabr.]. 
, Solenius. Type: vagus = [Crabro auctorum| 
united with Solenius auctorum. 
and others. 


Subfamily Thyreopinae = 


Family CraBRonipAk = [Cimbicidae auctorum]. 


Genus Crabro Geoffr. Type humeralis = [Cimbex 
auctorum]. 


* Applied to the present case this third method would fix upon 
Rhopalum as type genus, with Rhopalinae and Rhopalidae in 
consequence. 

+ The case would be quite different if Crabro had not been a 
homonym, but had been wrongly applied to the group that we 
have known as Crabronidae. In other words, if the type species 
of Crabro Fabr. were a sawfly instead of a Sphegid. In that case 
the family and its name would not theoretically change, but simply 
be applied in its true sense, as a group of sawflies and its formerly 
incorrectly associated Sphegid members would be removed from it. 
The latter would be left without a type genus. 


70 Dr. J. Chester Bradley on the Synonymy 


t. PEMPHREDON Latr., 1796 = [Cemonus. Jurine, 1801}. 


Type: [Crabro] lugubris Fabr. = [Sphex (Crabro) uni- 
color Panzer, 1798] = Pemphredon lugubris (Fabr.) = 
[Cemonus unicolor Panzer, 1806]. 

The synonymy I accept on the authority of Morice and 
Durrant, but Opinion 46 of the International Commission 
makes it necessary to reverse them in regard to which name, 
Pemphredon or Cemonus, has priority. 


IUl. 29. OXYBELUS Latr., 1796. 


The conclusions concerning Oxybelus need no change, 
except that it must be ascribed to Latreille and date from 
1796? 


III. 32. ANDRENA Fabr., 1775. 


Type: [Apis] cineraria L. = Andrena cineraria (L.) 
Latr. By designation of Latreille (1810 : 332). 

Unless Lamarck (1801) is accepted as designating geno- 
types + cineraria and not succincta must be the type of 
Andrena. This is satisfactory, since it involves no change 
and succincta is a dubious species. 

Colletes Latreille may be a synonym. Its type, the only 
originally included species, is succincta L., which, as Morice 
and Durrant point out,is probably congeneric with cineraria, 
but may not be. According to Opinion 65 of the Inter- 
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature these 
authors are not warranted in making Colletes glutinans Cuv. 
type of Colletes on the basis that Latreille misdetermined 
succincta L., unless the special case is brought before the 
Commission and action to that effect taken. 


III. 33. LASIUS Jur. = [Anthophora auctt.]. 


The discussion of Laswus and the genera involved with it 
has been taken up since Morice and Durrant (1914: 421- 
423) by Forel (1916: 460), Mayr (1916: 53-56), Wheeler 
(1916: 168-173), and again by Morice and Durrant (1916 : 
440-442). I have nothing further to add to this discussion. 
Morice and Durrant (1914: 421-423) seem to be correct in 
considering Lasiuws Fabr., 1804, a homonym of Lasius 
Jurine, 1801, and that the latter is Anthophora auctt. 

* Opinion 46 of the International Commission on Zoological 


Nomenclature. 
+ See the previous discussion of this paper on page 52. 


and types of certain genera of Hymenoptera. 71 


III. 38. MUTILLA L., 1758. 


Tyre: Mutilla europaea L. By designation of Latreille 
(1810: 314) and possibly of Lamarck (1801 : 268). 

Blumenbach’s * (1779: 386) citation of occidentalis is 
not to be regarded as type fixation under the code.* 


III. 40. CYNIPS L., 1758 = [Diplolepis Geoffrey, 1802] = 
[ Rhodites Hartig, 1840]. 


Type: [Dzplolepis bedequaris Fab.] = Cynips rosae L. 
By designation of Latreille (1810: 436). 

If it is decided that Lamarck (1801) is to be accepted as 
establishing genotypes,t then the conclusions of Morice 
and Durrant, rather than those given here, are correct. In 
that case Cynips will replace Dryophanta Foerster, or 
Diplolepis Geoffroy as incorrectly used by Kieffer in Das 
Tierreich. 

Multinominal specific names are used by Geoffroy (1802 : 
310, 311) in connection with the six species that he originally 
placed in Diplolepis. The first of these he definitely fixes 
by citing as a synonym Ichnewmon bedeguaris. Since the 
other five have no definite status given them, the case is 
the same as though the genus had been established upon a 
single species, bedeguaris, which is therefore type. 


u. [CYNIPS auctt.] 


Whether Morice and Durrant or my own conclusions 
are correct concerning Cynips, that genus as employed by 
Kieffer in “Das Tierreich ’’ and by other modern authors 
is left without a name. 


III. 48. PSILUS Jurine, 1801 = [Bethylus auctorum]. 


Tyee: [Tvphia] cenoptera Panz. = Psilus cenoptera 
(Panz.) Jurine. Monobasic. 


v. BETHYLUS Latr., 1802 = [Dryinus Latr. and auctt. ?]. 


Type: [Tiphia] hemiptera Fabr. = Bethylus hemipterus 
(Fabr.) Latr. Genus monobasic. 

Tiphia henvptera Fabr. is not a recognizable species at 
present. Dalle Torre lists it asa Dryinus, but Kieffer in the 
‘‘Genera Insectorum’’ refers it with a doubt to Bethylus 


* See discussion of this paper on page 52. 
+ See previous discussion on page 52. 


72 Dr. J. Chester Bradley oy the Synonymy 


auctorum. If it ever proves to be congeneric with formi- 
carius, Bethylus will have to replace Dryinus. At present 
the name, and with it the family name Bethylidae, had 
better be suppressed. 


w. DRYINUS Latr., 1805. = Bethylus Latr., 1802? 


Tyee: Dryinus formicarius Latr. Genus Monobasic. 


LIST OF REFERENCES. 


Blumenbach, Johann Friedrich. 1788. 

Joh. Friedr. Blumenbachs. Handbuch der Naturge- 

schichte. Gottingen: Dieterich, 1788. 
Bradley, James Chester. 1913. 

The Siricidae of North America. Journal of Ento- 

mology and Zoology, 1913, 5. 1-36. 5 pl. 
Curtis, John. 1829. 

British Entomology ; being illustrations and descrip- 
tions of the genera of insects found in Great Britain 
and Ireland. By John Curtis. Vol. VI. London. 
Printed for the author, 1829. 

1836. Thesame. Vol. XIII. 1836. 
1839. The same. Vol. XVI. 1839. 
Durrant, John Hartley, jovnt author. 
See Morice, F. D., and John Hartley Durrant. 
Geoffroy, Etienne Louis. 1762. 

Histoire abregée des insectes qui se trouvent aux 
environs de Paris; dans laquelle ces animaux sont 
rangés suivant un ordre méthodique. Tome second. 
Paris: Durand, 1762. 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1910. 

Opinions rendered by the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature. Opinions 1 to 25. July, 
1910. (Smithsonian Institution, Washington. Publi- 
cation 1938.) 

1910b. The same. Opinions 26 to 29. October, 1910. (Smith- 
sonian Institution, Washington. Publication 1989.) 

1911. The same. Opinions 30 to 37. July, 1911. (Smith- 
sonian Institution, Washington. Publication 2013.) 

1912. The same. Opinions 38 to 51. February, 1912. 
(Smithsonian Institution, Washington. Publication 
2060.) 


and types of certain genera of Hymenoptera. 73 


1913. The same. Opinions 52 to 56. May, 1913. (Smith- 
sonian Institution, Washington. Publication 2169.) 

1914. The same. Opinions 57 to 65. March, 1914. 
(Smithsonian Institution, Washington. Publication 
2256.) 

1915. The same. Opinion 66. February, 1915. (Smith- 
sonian Institution, Washington. Publication 2359.) 

1916. The same. Opinion 67. April, 1916. (Smithsonian 
Institution, Washington. Publication 2409.) 

Jurine, Louis. 1807. 

Nouvelle méthode de classer les hyménoptéres et 
les diptéres. Par L. Jurine. Hyménoptéres. Tome 
premier. Geneve: J. J. Paschoud, 1807. 

Jurine, Louis, joint author. 

See Panzer, Georg Wilhelm Franz and Jurine, 
Louis. 

Lamarck, Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, chevalier de. 
1801. 

Systéme des animaux sans vertébres ou Tableau 
général des classes, des ordres et des genres de ces 
animaux. Paris: Deterville, An viii [2. e. 1801]. 

S17. 

Histoire naturelle des animaux sans_ vertébres. 
Par M. le chevalier de Lamarck. Tome quatrieme. 
Paris: Deterville, Verdiére, Mars, 1817. 

Latreille, Pierre Andre. 1802. 

Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des 
‘crustacés et des insectes. Par P. A. Latreille. Tome 
troisiéme. Paris: F. Dufart, An x [7.e. 1802]. 

—— oe 

Nouveau dictionnaire d’histoire naturelle, appliqué 
aux arts, principalement a l’agriculture et a ]’economie 
rurale et domestique. Tome XXIV, Paris, 1804. 

This work I have not seen, but the full entry has 
kindly been communicated to me by Mr. Morice. 

——. 1805. 

Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des 
crustacés et des insectes. Par P. A. Latreille. Tome 
treiziéme. Paris: F. Dufart, An xii. [2.e. 1805]. 

+, 1810. 

Considérations générales sur l’ordre naturel des 
animaux composant les classes des crustacés, des 
arachnides, et des insectes. Par P. A. Latreille. 
Paris :- Chez. F. Schoell, 1810. 


74 Dr. J. Chester Bradley on the Synonymy 


Morice, F. D. and Durrant, John Hartley. 1914. 

The authorship and first publication of the “ Jurin- 
ean’ genera of Hymenoptera: Being a reprint of a 
long-lost work by Panzer, with a translation into Eng- 
lish, an introduction, and bibliographical and critical 
notes. Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1914, 339-436. 

——, 1916. 

Further notes on the “ Jurinean”’ genera of Hymeno- 
ptera, correcting errors and omissions in a paper on 
that subject published in Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. 1914, 
pp. 339-436. Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. 1916, p. 432-442. 

[Panzer, Georg Wolfgang Franz and Jurine Louis]. 1801. 

Nachricht von einem neuen entomolischen [! ] 
Werke, des Hrn. Prof. Jurine in Geneve. Intelli- 
genzblatt der Litteratur-Zeitung. Erlangen, 25 May 
[z.e. 23 May], 1801, p. 160; 30 May, 1801, p. 161-165. 

Reprinted and subsequently translated by Morice and 
Durrant in Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1914, p. 357-370. 

Rohwer, Sievert Allen. 1911. 

Il. The genotypes of the sawflies and woodwasps 
or the super-family Tenthredinoidea. By 8. A. Rohwer. 
Washington, 1911. (Technical Series, No. 20, Part 
II. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of 
Entomology.) 

Seay hE 

Additions and corrections to “ The genotypes of the 
sawflies and woodwasps, or the superfamily Tenthredi- 
noidea (Hymen.). Ent. News, 1911, 22. 218-219. 

——..' ASA6: 

Sphecoidea. (In Guide to the insects of Connecticut. 
Part III. The Hymenoptera, or wasp-like insects, of . 
Connecticut. By Henry Lorenz Viereck, etc. Hart- 
ford, 1916.) 

Saint Fargeau, Amedée Louis Michel Lepeletier, comte de and 
Brulle, August. 1834. P 

Du genre Crabro, de la famille des Hyménoptéres 

fouisseurs. Ann. Soc. Ent. France, 1834, 3. 683-810. 
Viereck, Henry Lorenz. 1914. 

Type species of the genera of ichneumon-flies. By 
Henry L. Viereck, 1914. (Smithsonian Institution, 
United States National Museum. Bulletin 83.) 

= WEG: 

Guide to the insects of Connecticut. Part III. 

The Hymenoptera, or wasp-like insects, of Connecticut. 


and types of certain genera of Hymenoptera. 75 


By Henry Lorenz Viereck, with the collaboration of 
Alexander Dyer MacGillivray, Charles Thomas Brues, 
William Morton Wheeler, and Sievert Allen Rohwer, 
1916. (State of Connecticut. Public document No. 
47. State Geological and Natural History Survey. 
Bulletin No. 22.) 

Wesmael, Constantin. 1852. 

Revue critique des hyménoptéres fouisseurs de 
Belgique—Suite. Bulletins de lAccadémie royale 
des sciences, des lettres et des beaux-arts de Belgique, 
1852, 19. 1" partie, p. 82-110. 

Westwood, John Obadiah. 1840. 

Synopsis of the genera of British Insects. (In his 
An introduction to the modern classification of insects, 
Vol. Il. London: Longman, Orme, Brown, Green, 
and Longmans, 1840.) 


(sme Fy 


III. A Migration of Yellow Butterflies (Catopsilia statira) 
m Trindad. By C. B. Witttams, M.A., F.E.S. 


[Read March 5th, 1919.] 


PrAtTes ViIExX. 
INTRODUCTION. 


In a recent number of the Transactions of the Entomolo- 
gical Society (1917, p. 154) I described several migrations 
of yellow butterflies in British Guiana, most of the records 
relating to Callidryas eubule. In October of this year I 
have been again fortunate enough to witness a migration 
of butterflies of a different species, this time in the Island 
of Trinidad, and on a scale larger than anything I had 
previously seen. The migration lasted more or less con- 
tinually for nearly three weeks, and many millions of 
butterflies must have passed over the western half of the 
Island, to which district most of my records refer. With 
the kind assistance of a number of friends and corre- 
spondents I was able to collect over two hundred separate 
records of the one migration, and the results of these are 
given below. 

Even with this large number of records, no claim can 
be made to completeness, and data are sadly lacking for 
the eastern half of the Island, which is thinly populated. 


DESCRIPTION OF LOCALITY. 


Trinidad is an Island situated just north of the mouth of 
the Orinoco River, and is about fifty miles in a north to 
south direction, and about seventy miles in extreme width. 
At both the north-western and south-western corners a 
long promontory runs out towards the mainland of Vene- 
zuela. The north-western corner is about fifteen miles 
from Venezuela, but the gap is partly bridged by a series 
of islands, and the greatest open sea space is about eight 
miles. At the south-western corner the distance to the 
mainland is only about seven miles. 

Three ranges of hills run from east to west across the 
Island, that along the northern coast rising in places to 

-over three thousand feet above sea-level; the central 
and southern ranges, however, are much lower, seldom 

TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PARTS I, I. (JULY) 


Mr. C. B. Williams on Migration of Yellow Butterflies. 77 


rising above a few hundred feet. There is no accurate map 
of the contours of the Island, but the first small map on 
Fig. I shows approximately the positions of these three 
ranges. 

The climate of the Island is tropical, average day tem- 
perature above 80°, and the year is divided into one wet 
and one dry season. In general the dry season lasts from 
the middle of January to the middle of May, and the wet 
season from June to December. 

The average yearly rainfall is about 65 inches, of which 
August averages 9°8 inches and September 7:2 inches. 
There is occasionally a spell of dry weather about Sep- 
tember, forming what is known as the “ Indian summer,” 
and it should be noted that in the present year (1918) 
this has been particularly well marked. During the six 
weeks previous to the migration to be described below the 
weather had been unusually dry, many localities recording 
less than three inches for September, and in the extreme 

south-west scarcely any rain fell for six weeks. 
_ The prevailing wind is the east or north-easterly trade 
wind. 


MeEtHops oF RECORDING. 


It has been thought unnecessary to give in detail the 
numerous records which were collected. Instead they have 
been transferred to the accompanying series of maps by 
a system of arrows, crosses, and circles representing, 
respectively, movements, abundance, or absence of the 
butterflies. 

By referring to the maps for the 19th September to the 
12th October the course of the migration day by day can 
be easily followed. On the larger map (PI. X) all the 
records have been combined, and in addition two or three 
added which do not appear on the first series; these being 
records in which the locality and direction was given but 
the exact date could not be ascertained. 

The signs used on the maps are as follows :— 

(1) Arrow with one head: Very slight migration, one or 
two per minute within sight of the observer. Only notice- 
able with special care. Probably not recorded except by 
skilled observer. 

(2) Arrow with two heads: Three or four butterflies per 
minute passing across one hundred yards line; easily 
noticeable to a skilled observer, and probably seen by any 


78 Mr. C. B. Williams on 


average person who is on the look out; most obvious in 
large open spaces. 

(3) Arrow with three heads: Distinct migration anything 
from ten to two or three hundred per minute crossing a 
hundred yards line—obvious to any ordinary person. 
Probably recorded by a naturalist. 

(4) Arrow with four heads: Thick clouds of butterflies— 
thousands in a small space—" several with one sweep 
of the net ’—* like snow storm ”—“‘ motor-cars held up ” 
—gets into the local newspapers. 

(5) The series of crosses with one, two, three and four 
bars represents the same scale of abundance as the arrows, 
but denotes that the insects weré at rest or fluttering 
round and not moving regularly in one direction. 

(6) The circle indicates that no butterflies were seen 
either moving or at rest by a reliable observer. 

(7) Curcle with enclosed cross indicates that the butter- 
flies, if present, were not in sufficient numbers to attract 
attention. They are used chiefly in the case of non- 
entomological correspondents reporting that nothing 
unusual was happening in their district. 

It must be absolutely understood that the blank on 
the maps does not indicate an absence of butterflies, but 
merely an absence of records. 

These signs have been found so convenient in the present 
case that it is hoped that future observers will adopt some 
similar method of expressing their results. 


THE MIGRATION. 


Following the series of maps on Plates VI-IX the course 
of migration will be seen as follows :— 

At the end of August the butterflies were reported in 
large numbers settling on the roads in the south-eastern 
part of the Island. Between this date and the third week 
in September no records were obtained except that on the 
10th September a correspondent drove through part of the 
district and saw nothing unusual. 

On the 19th and 20th September they are reported in 
numbers at rest and fluttering round in the north-eastern 
district, and the following day they are again abundant in 
the south-east (when a few were doubtfully moving north- 
ward). They had on this day started to move across the 
northern half of the Island at the southern edge of the 
northern range. 


A Migration of Yellow Butterflies in Trinidad. 79 


By the 22nd September the migration across the northern 
district had begun in earnest, and in one locality a motor- 
car had to stop and put down its side curtains owing to the 
enormous numbers of butterflies which interfered with the 
view of the driver. 

On the 23rd they were reported in smaller numbers from 
the same district, and on the 24th they had reached the 
eastern coast in small numbers at Port of Spain (see Plate X 
for localities). 

The movement continued in increasing intensity past 
Port of Spain, and on the 27th September had become a 
striking phenomenon. On this day they were crossing the 
open Savannah in Port of Spain about mid-day at a density 
of up to two or three hundred per minute across a distance 
of one hundred yards. On the same day and on the follow- 
ing they were seen crossing the sea over the Island of Patos 
near the Venezuelan coast, and undoubtedly were reaching 
the mainland of Venezuela. 

The 28th and 29th September were marked by rains in 
the northern district, and the migration fell off suddenly and 
became apparently much confused. On both these days a 
few were recorded in the fine intervals, flying in an opposite 
direction (eastward), but not in any large numbers, and from 
the 30th to the 4th October small numbers were seen flying 
in various directions chiefly west or south-west. Between 
the 5th and 7th none were recorded, on the 8th, 9th, and 
10th a few were recorded flying in a southerly direction, 
and on the 12th October a number were seen flying over the 
sea in a south-westerly direction. Attention should also be 
drawn to the offshoot migration, in a southerly direction, 
from the main stream just east of Port of Spain from the 
27th September to lst October. On the first of these days 
they were reported as appearing suddenly in unprecedented 
numbers in the cocoa groves a little to the south of this. 

While this migration was passing across the northern half 
of the Island, chiefly at the southern edge of the northern 
range of hills, a similar stream was also moving across the 
southern district in the same direction. There is, however, 
no record of movement here until the 26th September, 
which is four days after the start of the migration in the 
north. Migrating butterflies were recorded in great num- 
bers, particularly in the western half of the south coast, at 
Palo-Seco and Erin, and in a few days the flight had become 
general across the south-eastern district of the Island, 


80 Mr. C. B. Williams on 


reaching its height in the SanjFernando district about the 
30th September, and continuing in gradually reduced 
numbers until the 4th October, and in a few localities as 
late as the 12th October. The most remarkable feature of 
this southern flight was that in the Cedros district, which is 
on the northern edge of the south-western promontory 
near its end (see Plate X); the butterflies were flying con- 
tinually and in large numbers towards the east approxim- 
ately from the 26th September to the 2nd October, while at 
La Brea a little further north-east few were seen until the 
4th October, when they were flying in numbers in the usual 
westerly direction. 

Unfortunately there are no records for the sea passage 
between Trinidad and Venezuela at this point, and it is 
impossible to say if the butterflies went across here, as in 
the north, or not; but from the available facts it would 
appear that part, at least, on reaching the south-western 
extremity turned to the north and then eastwards along the 
coast. On the Ist of October they were seen flying in small 
numbers in a north-westerly direction across the sea north 
of this coast. These records although puzzling and con- 
tradictory are confirmed by several observers, and also by 
a record of a previous migration in the same district, when 
the butterflies flew in an easterly direction for several 
days (see later). During the whole period of these migra- 
tions across the northern and southern parts of the Island 
the east-central portion was quite free of any unusual 


flights. 
SpecrES REPRESENTED. 


It has been mentioned above that the butterfly which was 
mainly responsible for this migration was not Callidryas 
eubule, which has many times been recorded as migrating, 
but Catopsilia statira, a less-known species differmg from 
the former in that the basal portion of the wings of the 
male are of a more intense yellow than the outer portion. 

This butterfly is, as a rule, not so common in Trinidad 
as Callidryas eubule, and Sir Norman Lamont, to whom I am 
indebted for the identification, had previously only taken 
it on a few occasions in the southern part of the Island. 
W. J. Kaye in his Catalogue of the Lepidoptera Rhopalocera 
of Trinidad (Trans. Ent. Soc. 1904, p. 205) says that it is 
locally very common but not general. W. Potter, a young 
local naturalist, says that he sees it nearly every year, and 


A Migration of Yellow Butterflies in Trinidad. 81 


has already seen it migrating (see below). Kaye (I.c.) gives 
the known distribution as Guiana, Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, 
Columbia, Panama, St. Lucia. The species has previously 
been recorded as migrating in Brazil by Goeldi (first printed 
in German in “ Die Schweiz ’’( Zurich), 1900, vol. iv, p. 441- 
445, reprinted in Portuguese (? with additions) in Boletin 
do Museu Goeldi (Para-Brazil), iv, Dec. 1904, p. 309-316, 
Fig. I, II), and also by Bates and Spruce (quoted in above). 
My notes below are taken from the Portuguese edition of 
Goeldi’s paper. 

Catopsilia statira formed, with only occasional exceptions, 
the whole of the migrating bands of butterflies on the 
present migration. At Port of Spain, on the 27th Sep- 
tember, I noticed that about 1 in 100 or less were a smaller 
whitish species, of which, however, no specimens were caught. 
Near Arima (further east) on the same day J. B. Rorer 
records that about 1 in 40 were Callidryas philea, a larger 
orange species. On the 24th September in the Caura 
valley in the northern range C. M. Roach records that about 
“1 in 40 were a larger orange species” (probably also 
Callidryas philea). At Port of Spain Mr. T. I. Potter 
caught one Callidryas eubule among many Catopsilia 
statwra, but it is possible that this was fluttering round 
flowers and not taking part in the general migration. 


ORIGIN AND DESTINATION OF FLIGHT. 


Unless the butterflies came over to the eastern or south- 
eastern coast of Trinidad from Venezuela (a possible occur- 
rence, of which, however, we have no proof owing to the 
absence of records from this coast), it seems likely that the 
swarms originated in the forests of the south-eastern and 
north-eastern districts of the Island. 

It will be noted that they were reported as abundant in 
the south-eastern district as early as the end of August, and 
it is Just possible that the flight at the end of September 
consisted of the progeny of these. I have no data for the 
hfe-history of Catopsilia statira, but according to Mr. W. 
‘ Buthn Callidryas eubule, which is closely related, has a 
larval stage of ten days and a pupal stage of seven, so that a 
complete cycle could no doubt be passed through in a month. 

A slight confirmation of this is that the specimens cap- 
tured were all in very good condition as if comparatively 
newly emerged. But as nothing is known as to the length 
of adult life, or of the egg-stage, or of the time taken for a 

TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PaRTS I, It. (JULY) G 


82 Mr. C. B. Wilhams on 


specimen to become worn, this must be taken as a possible 
suggestion and not as a proved occurrence. 

At the other end of their flight we have definite proof of 
their passage over to Venezuela via Patos on the north-west, 
and there can be little doubt that they also crossed at 
the south-western corner, where only a few miles separate 
the Island from the mainland. We have here, however, the 
confusing records of easterly flights at Cedros already 
referred to, but in view of the million of butterflies which 
passed, and of the fact that there was no general abundance 
of them a week or two afterwards, it is certain that the 
greater number must have left the Is!and. 

There were in all seven records of flight over the sea. One 
on the extreme north coast, where a few were flying about 
a hundred yards from the shore and parallel to the coast 
(25. 1x); one record off the north coast of the south-western 
promontory (1. x.), and the remainder between the north- 
western promontory and Venezuela on various dates. 

It might perhaps be mentioned here that a resident of 
Patos Island reported that he had seen butterflies flying 
towards Trinidad, but I cannot place too much reliance on 
this record. It has been added to Plate X, with a query. 


SPEED OF FLIGHT. 


The flight of butterflies on migration is always very 
distinct from that of those flying casually. The most 
noticeable characteristics are the speed and the fixity of 
direction. Ina previous account of migration of Callidryas 
eubule in British Guiana (l.c., p. 159) I estimated the rate 
as from twelve to sixteen miles per hour (across the wind). 
Several correspondents in the present case remark on the 
speed of flight being quite unprecedented. Fortunately 
an opportunity occurred to get accurate data. At Port of 
Spain on the 27th September the butterflies happened to 
be flying directly down a foot-ball field on the Savannah, 
the length of which was found to be 110 yards. With a 
stop-watch eleven butterflies were timed from one end of the 
field to the other by three different observers (including ° 
myself) and the following results were obtained: 12, 14, 
13, 12, 13, 13, 13, 12, 14, 14, 15 seconds. This gives an 
average of 13:2 seconds, or 17 miles an hour. 

At this rate, and in the direction they were flying, they 
could have reached the mainland of Venezuela two hours 
after leaving Port of Spain. 


A Migration of Yellow Butterflies in Trinidad. 83 


RELATION OF FLicgut To WIND. 


It is natural that the result just obtained would be affected 
by the strength of the wind (at this particular time they were 
flying with a light wind), and it is also necessary to take into 
consideration the relation between the direction of the wind 
and that of the migration. 

Wind records are kept at Port of Spain, but unfortunately 
the records for the 27th of September, the day the butter- 
flies were timed, were sent away before I could obtain them. 
The average wind velocity at Port of Spain between 9 a.m. 
and 4 p.m. from the Ist to 7th October was 8 miles per 
hour, and as my notes record that the wind at that time was 
slight it was probably below this figure. 

The prevailing wind in Trinidad is from the east, and as 
this migration was towards the west it might be thought 
that the wind determined the direction. In British Guiana, 
however, for Callidryas eubule it was found that the usual 
direction was across the wind, and there are enough indi- 
vidual exceptions in the present case to leave no doubt that 
the direction of the wind, although contributory, is not the 
determining factor of the direction of flight. 

The following cases may be quoted :— 


4.x.18. Port of Spain—no wind, flight N.W. (A. Homber- 
sley). 

27.ix.18. Guiaco—wind N.E., flight N.W. (J. B. 
Rorer). 

12.x.18. At sea off Gasparee—‘ endeavouring to fly 
west, but owing to strong N.W. wind (15-20 m.p.h.) 
actual course was between S. and 8.S.W.” (C. P. 
Milne). 

1.x.18. San Fernando—flying N. against the wind (P. 
Crato). 

5.x.18. Macqueripe—‘‘ flew seaward and were blown 
back by the force of the wind ” (local newspaper). 


Mr. J. A. Bullbrook further points out that the wind can- 
not be the conclusive factor in the direction of flight, as 
when flying in hilly country they continue in the same direc- 
tion down the shaded leeward side of a hill as they were 
flying when ascending the windward side, and that on both 
sides they keep about the same distance from the tops of the 
trees. 

I can from my own observation confirm this interesting 
note. 


84 MeO) 8 Wilkins wn 


DIRECTION AND REVERSAL OF FLIGHT. 


HK. Goeldi, in his account of the butterfly migration in 
Brazil (Bol., p. 313) comments on the contradictory reports 
of the direction of flight in various previous accounts of 
migration, and states that he has discovered the solution, 
which is that there is a reversal of direction during the day. 
In the case he describes the butterflies were flying along a 
branch of the River Amazon from north to south during the 
morning and from south to north during the afternoon, the 
reversal being quite regular each day. There is no reason 
to doubt for a moment his observations, and I have noticed 
a somewhat similar occurrence in the migration of a 
Hesperid butterfly in Panama, which I hope to describe 
later, but in the migration of Catopsilia statira at present 
under consideration there is no evidence to prove that this 
was happening. 

It must be admitted that throughout the migration there 
were heavy rains nearly every afternoon, and usually the 
migration for the day ceased when these began, but on the 
few fine afternoons, and occasionally after the rains, the 
direction of flight when recorded was nearly always similar 
to the regular direction of the morning. 

The flight for the day usually started at 9.30 a.m. or even a 
little later, but I have several records as early as 8 a.m. and 
in two cases at 7a.m. There is slight evidence of change of 
direction one day at San Fernando (1.x.), when the flight 
was towards the north-west in the morning and towards 
the south-west in the afternoon after the rains, but this 
could scarcely be classed as a reversal of direction. On the 
other hand, the flights from west to east that are recorded 
from Port of Spain district on the 28th, 29th, 30th Septem- 
ber, and 2nd and 3rd October, do not appear to have been 
in any way connected with the time of day. 

In cases where the migration is very thin and the butter- 
flies are only passing at intervals, the direction of flight of 
one butterfly is not likely to influence directly that of an- 
other. But when the flight is more dense this may happen, 
and the following observation may be of interest in this 
connection. 

On the 27th September the butterflies were passing at 
the rate of 50 to 100 per minute across a hundred yards line 
over the Savannah in Port of Spain about 1 p.m. I went 
out with a net in order to catch specimens for the determina- 


A Migration of Yellow Butterflies in Trinidad. 85 


tion of the species and the sex proportions. The butterflies 
were flying so fast that they were not easy to catch, and 
many more escaped than were captured. I then noticed 
that any butterfly narrowly missed was put off its direction 
by the excitement and flew off wildly in any direction. 
Other butterflies close at hand meeting this butterfly flying 
out of the general order would in turn become confused 

-and sometimes follow it in its new direction. So that after 
several misses in succession I was surrounded by a number of 
butterflies flying in all directions. If I stopped attempting 
to catch specimens these would gradually pass away, and 
the regular direction of flight would be resumed. 


PROPORTION OF SEXES. 
The following actual figures were obtained for catches :— 


Port of Spain, end of Sept. 5 females, 1 male (‘T. I. Potter). 
Port of Spain, 27th Sept. . 9 >» 10 males (C. B. W.). 
Palmisti (8. of San F’do), 

30th Sept. 
La Brea, 4th Oct. 


From these it might be supposed that the sexes were in 
more or less equal proportions, but I am not convinced that 
this was so in the actual flights. All the above records 
suffer from the fact that the females are much more easy to 
catch than the males, and in addition, in certain cases, I 
believe the specimens were caught not actually on migra- 
tion, but stopping to flutter around flowers on the way. It 
is quite likely that this habit would be found more in the 
females, with eggs to mature, than in the males. 

At the time I collected the nineteen specimens mentioned 
above I found that I could, with difficulty, distinguish the 
females from the males in flight, and estimated the propor- 
tion as approximately 1 female to 10 males. 


4  ,, (Norman Lamont). 
4  ,, (Dr. Rodriguez). 


ne ” 
416 


9? 


Density oF MiGRATION AND EFFECTS OF SUNSHINE. 


It will be seen from the records in the maps that the num- 
bers passing varied from two or three occasional specimens 
to a cloud so dense as to interfere with the progress of a 
motor-car. Perhaps an even better idea of their occasional 
abundance is obtained from one record in which they were 
stated to be passing over a house in the country in such 
immense numbers that the turkeys in the garden looked up 
at them and gobbled in consternation ! 


86 Mr. C. B. Williams on 


More usual than this was an open order in which the 
butterflies hurried past, each individual more or less equally 
separated from its neighbours, some close to the ground, 
some as high as twenty feet, but by far the greater number 
at from 4 to 10 feet from the ground or other surface (sea, 
or tree-tops) over which they were flying. 

The flight was almost always in bright sunshine, and 
whenever a cloud passed over the sun there was an immedi- 
ate drop in the numbers passing. As the butterflies were 
not flying at the same speed as the cloud shadows, flying 
faster than the wind when with it, and often across it or 
against it, it is difficult to understand the rapid reduction. 
The same effect was noticed in the case of Callidryas eubule 
in British Guiana. 

It is possible that in the absence of the sun the individuals 
fly more slowly or flutter round waiting for the sun to 
reappear, so that fewer would cross a given line in the same 
time. If this were so, there should be a rush of those indi- 
viduals held up, on the return of the sun. No detailed 
observations were made on this point at the time, but I do 
not recollect any effect of this type. 


Foop-PLANTs. 


The food-plant of Catopsila statira is not definitely 
known in Trinidad. It is almost certainly some forest 
leguminous tree, and W. Potter says that he believes it to 
be a species of Cassia or Mimosa. Goeldi (l.c., p. 315) 
describes a forest tree, Vouapa acaciaefolia, Baillon, or 
Macrolobium acaciaefolium, Bentham, as a possible food- 
plant in Brazil, as he had observed numerous butterflies 
leaving the general migration and fluttering round this 
tree (see below). 

While on migration the majority of the butterflies do 
not stop to visit flowers which they pass on the way, but 
occasional individuals (mostly females) may do so, and 
between the movements they are abundant flying round the 
flowers of Hibiscus, Pommearack (Eugenia malaccensis), 
Eupatorium odoratum, Black sage (Lantana sp.), Guimauve 
or Wild Ochroe (Malacra capitata), and many others. 


RESTING IN PATCHES ON THE GROUND. 


As in many previously recorded migrations the adult 
butterflies, when not migrating, were frequently found 


A Migration of Yellow Butterflies in Trinidad. 87 


resting in large patches on the roads. Most of the records 
from the south-eastern portion of the island are of such 
patches disturbed by passing cars. The groups may con- 
tain from a hundred or less to several thousand individuals, 
and are described in some records as appearing in the 
distance like large patches of yellow-green grass. 

The butterflies are sometimes congregated round moist 
patches on the road, but in other cases the spots they have 
chosen do not appear on casual observation to differ in any 
way from the rest of the road. It may be that it is only 
the gregarious habit of the butterfly that has led them to 
congregate, but it is more likely that the patches chosen 
are where urine from animals passing along the road has 
recently dried up, and that the butterflies are obtaining some 
kind of nutriment from the dried salts (in this connection 
see discussion in Proc. Ent. Soc. London, 1917, p. xxvii). 


Previous MIGRATIONS OF YELLOW BUTTERFLIES IN 
TRINIDAD. 


It might be convenient to add here for completeness a few 
records | have obtained of previous migrations in Trinidad. 
It must be noted that in these cases no specimens are avail- 
able for comparison, so that it cannot be said for certain 
whether the species was Catopsilia statira or Callidryas 
eubule. 

(1) Mr. Guy Gray, living at Matura on the east coast, 
adds to his records of the present migration—*“ I have seen 
these butterflies, I think, every year, but not at the same 
time.” 

(2) Walter Potter states that Catopsiha statira swarms 
nearly every year somewhere in the Island. 

(3) Cecil Rostant of Moruga (south coast) in reply to an 
inquiry for information on the present migration replied 
that they were flying “in the usual direction.” Later he 
explained that this was from east to west, and that they 
flew in this direction nearly every year in his district. 

(4) W. Buthn of the Department of Agriculture states 
that he saw small numbers of yellow butterflies flying 
towards the east in Port of Spain in 1916 about August. 

(5) Mr. T. I. Potter reports a large swarm of probably 
Catopsilia statira flying over the Savannah in Port of Spain 
in 1915 from east to west. They were not so common as 
the present (1918) migration, nor did they last so long. 


88 Mr. C. B. Williams on Migration of Yellow Butterflies. 


(6) Mr. Roebottom reports that at Cedros (south-western 
promontory) in 1916 yellow butterflies were flying towards 
the east for about four days in large numbers. He is not 
sure of the month, but thinks that it was towards the 
end of the dry season (April or May) as the local explanation 
of the flight was that the butterflies were looking for water. 


Note.—Since the above was written Mr. W. Potter tells 
me that he has seen Catopsila statira ovipositing on the 
leaves of “ Bois Mulatre ” (Pentaclethra filamentosa), which 
is a common leguminous forest tree in Trinidad, 


Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1919, Piate VI. 


O vo bulferfliis seen , ~— tag hi' 
ri a ae Migs Tas ean Wi 
y hy £ Mig wg yy et 

@ no unusual numbirs INE ist de 


FF ow fre flattsrung rounct , 

FE oo fur number, not migrating , 
she streaking num birs » 6 
HE oe strikung numbir5 0 

Po slight mgrelion, 

® — Austunct migration, 

RB steckeng marolion , 


yN - 
aN Wears | stri kun 4 reg ration p 


th 


4202 SERN EMBER 


2ai*x SerTEmMBER 22” SEPTEMBER 


C. B. Williams, del. Sun Engraving Co., Lid. 


A MIGRATION OF CATOPSILIA STATIRA IN TRINIDAD. 


Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1919, Plate VII. 


237 SEPTEMBER 


26" SEPTEMBER 


22" SEPTEMBER 


C. B. Williams, del. Sun Engraving Co., Ltd. 
A MIGRATION OF CATOPSILIA STATIRA IN TRINIDAD. 


va & 


a ie een | 


Pe. 


Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1919, Plate VIII. 


* OCTOBER 


Sun Engraving Co., Lid. 
A MIGRATION OF CATOPSILIA STATIRA IN TRINIDAD. 


Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. 1919, Plate 1X. 


gh 10t OCTOBER tong 12" OCTOBER 


C. B. Williams, del. Sun Engraving Co., Lid. 


A MIGRATION OF CATOPSILIA STATIRA IN TRINIDAD. 


her ers 


Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1919, Plate X. 


C. B. Williams, del. Sun Engraving Co., Lid. 


A MIGRATION OF CATOPSILIA STATIRA IN TRINIDAD. 


( 89 ) 


IV. Note on Bonelli’s “ Tableau Synoptique.” By H. E. 
ANDREWES. 


[Read March 5, 1919.] 


In 1810 Bonelli published in the “ Mémoires” of the 
Académie Impériale de Sciences de Turin the first part of 
his ‘ Observations Entomologiques,” the second part 
following in 1813. Both parts referred exclusively to the 
family of the Carabidae, and various new genera and 
species were described. In addition there was a large 
“Tableau Synoptique,’ which differentiated the then 
known genera, and included a number of new ones. Among 
the latter are many common European genera, and Bonelli 
has always been credited with the authorship of such as 
appeared for the first time in the “ Tableau.” 

Desiring to consult this work, I examined at the Natural 
History Museum the volumes of ‘‘ Mémoires” of the Turin 
Academy containing the two parts of the “ Observations 
Entomologiques,” but to my surprise was unable to find 
it. Mr. C. Davies Sherborn of the “ Index Animalium,”’ 
whom I consulted, advised me to examine the other copies 
of the “ Mémoires” to be found in London, viz. a copy 
at the British Museum (Bloomsbury), and copies in the 
Libraries of the Royal and Linnaean Societies. The latter 
I was enabled to see through the courtesy of the respective 
Librarians, and the former I saw in the Reading Room. 
None of them contained any trace of the “ Tableau.” 
Mr. Sherborn was then kind enough to write to Prof. 
C. F. Parona of the Royal Academy of Turin, who wrote 
in reply that the volumes in the Library of the Academy 
were also without any copy, but that Bonelli’s own copy 
of the “ Tableau”’ was in the Royal Zoological Museum. 
Count Salvadori, the Director of the Museum, has had 
the goodness to have a MS. copy prepared, together with 
a copy of the plate, and its accompanying explanation. 
These he has sent to Mr. Sherborn, and they are now 
preserved in vol. xx of the “Mémoires” of the Turin 
Academy (containing the second part of Bonelli’s paper) 
in the Library of the British Museum (Nat. Hist.) for 
future reference. We are very much indebted both to 

TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919,—PARTS I, 0, (JULY) 


90 Mr. H. FE. Andrewes’ Note on 


Prof. Parona and Count Salvadori for their very kind 
help. 

On examining various works of reference, I find that 
E. F. Germar reviewed both parts of Bonelli’s paper in 
the Magazin der Entomologie. In vol. ii, 1817, p. 302, he 
mentions all the genera, and evidently had before him a 
copy of the “Tableau.” W. Engelmann in Bibliotheca 
Historico-naturalis, i, 1846, p. 524, mentions Bonelli’s 
work in two parts: “avec un grand tableau et 4 pl.” 
This, however, refers to a separate, and J. V. Carus and 
W. Engelmann in Bibliotheca Zoologica 1861, p. 479, 
which refers to the original volume of ‘‘ Mémoires,” men- 
tion Bonelli’s paper only, without any indication of its 
being accompanied by “ Tableau ” or plates. H. A. Hagen 
in Bibliotheca Entomologica 1862, gives the reference to 
Bonelli’s papers, and adds, “ Ich habe. die von Engelmann 
p. 524 citirten 4 Tafeln u. 1 Tableau nicht gesehen.” 

From the above it seems clear that ‘the “ Tableau 
Synoptique ” was never published, but that copies of it 
were distributed by Bonelli along with the separates of 
his paper in or about 1813. I have not myself seen an 
original separate, but, in addition to the copy in the 
Museum at Turin, there is one in the Library of Mr. T. G. 
Sloane, in Australia, and no doubt other copies are in 
existence in Continental Libraries. The four plates men- 
tioned above do not appear to have had any existence, 
but one plate was produced, though not published, and 
copies of this were probably distributed by Bonelli along 
with the “‘ Tableau.” 

On the “ Tableau” itself—or rather the MS. copy—I 
have but little comment to make. Bonelli puts a star 
against certain genera, and explains in a note that each 
of these is ‘‘Genus novum aut cujus caracteres elabo- 
rantur.” There is no star, however, against either Agonum 
or Anchomenus, which have hitherto been attributed to 
Bonelli (in Tabl. Synopt.) and to which I can find no 
earlier reference: There is also a blank space for an 
unnamed genus formed for Carabus impressus, F.: this 
would, I suppose, be Diplochila, Brullé (= Rhembus, De}j., 
nom. praeocc.), and why Bonelli failed to give it a name 
I do not know. The genus Taphria is attributed to 
Bonelli both by Agassiz and by Gemminger and Harold 
(Munich Catalogue), but these attributions are erroneous, 
the actual author being Dejean (Spec. Gen. i, 1828, p. 84). 


Bonelli’s “ Tableau Synoptique.” 91 


I give below a list of the new genera characterised in 
the ‘‘ Tableau,’ and the names of the authors to whom 
I think they should in future be attributed. I do not 
profess, however, to have made an exhaustive search 
through the literature of the period, and there may prove 
to be earlier authors for some of them than those I have 
quoted. Some of these genera are now only synonyms, 
but the great majority are still in general use. One 
genus only disappears, viz. Demetrias, which should be 
replaced by Risophilus, Leach (‘ Brewster’s Edinburgh 
Encyclopedia,” ix, part 1, 1815, Entomology, p. 81), a 
genus formed expressly for Carabus atricapillus, L. The 
genus Laemostenus (Laemosthenes) was quite supplanted 
by Dejean’s Pristonychus (Spec. Gen. ii, 1828, p. 43), and I 
do not at present know of an earlier reference than the 
one I have given. 

I am very much indebted to Mr. C. Davies Sherborn 
for the interest he has taken in this inquiry, and take this 
opportunity of thanking him for his assistance. 

The genera in question are as under: I give them in 
alphabetical order. 

Abazx, Stephens, Ill. Brit. Ent. i, 1827, 67 and 124. 

Agonum, Stephens, I.c., 85 and 182. 

Amara, Stephens, I.c., 67 and 126. 

_ Anchomenus, Stephens, l.c., 67 and 81. 

Aptinus, Latr. and Dejean, Hist. Nat. and Iconogr. des 
Col. d’Europe, 1822, 97. 

Blethisa, Dejean, Spec. Gen. des Col. 11, 1826, 265. 

Calathus, Stephens, l.c., 67 and 97. 

Callistus, Dejean, I.c., 11, 1826, 295. 

Cephalotes, Dejean, l.c., 11, 1828, 426. 

Chlaenius, Dejean, l.c., 11, 1826, 297. 

Demetrias, Latr. and Dej., l.c., 169. 

Dinodes, Dejean, l.c., 11, 1826, 371. 

Ditomus, Dejean, l.c., 1, 1825, 437. 

Dolichus, Dejean, l.c., 11, 1828, 36. 

Dromius, Latr. and Dejean, l.c., 175. 

Dyschirius, Stephens, l.c., 37 and 40. 

Epomis, Dejean, l.c., 11, 1826, 368. 

Laemostenus (Laemosthenes), Schaufuss, Mon. Bearb. der’ 
Sphodr. Sitzungsb. Ges. Isis, 1864, 121. 

Lamprias, Dejean, l.c., 1, 1825, 253. 

Melanius, Dejean, l.c., 11, 1828, 204. 

Molops, Dejean, I.c., ii, 1828, 205. 


92 Mr. H. E. Andrewes on Bonelli’s “ Tableau Synoptique.” 


Oodes, Dejean, l.c., 11, 1826, 374. 

Pelor, Dejean, l.c., 11, 1828, 437. 
Percus, Dejean, l.c., 111, 1828, 205. 
Platynus, Stephens, /.c., 67 and 83. 
Platysma, Stephens, l.c., 67 and 124. 
Poecilus, Stephens, l.c., 67 and 108. 
Polystichus, Latr. and Dejean, l.c., 123. 
Pterostichus, Stephens, I.c., 67 and 120. 


Norr.—I have just received a letter (June, 1919) from Mr. 
T. G. Sloane. He tells me that his copy of the ‘“ Observations 
Entomologiques’”’ (with the Tableau attached) formerly belonged 
to Lacordaire; it bears the following note in Lacordaire’s hand- 
writing: ‘‘Cet examplaire a appartenu a4 Olivier et a été acheté, 
f. 14,4 sa vente en 1847. Il lavait recu de Bonelli, comme indique 
la suscription en téte de la seconde partie.” This quite confirms 
my view that the ‘Tableau ’’ was annexed to the separates of his 
work which Bonelli distributed among his entomological friends. 


— 


( 93) 


V. Notes on the Ancestry of the Diptera, Hemiptera and 
other Insects related to the Neuroptera.* By G. 
CHESTER CRAMPTON, Ph.D. Communicated by 
G. T. Betaune-Baxker, F.L.S., F.Z.S. 


[Read March 5th, 1919.] 


THE greater part of winged insects now living may be 
grouped into two principal sections, one of which, the 
so-called PLECOPTERADELPHIA, or Plecopteron ‘ brother- 
hood,” contains the lower insects more closely related to 
the Plecoptera—such as the Blattoid superorder (Blattidae, 
Mantidae, Isoptera, Zoraptera, etc.), the Orthopteroid 
superorder (saltatorial Orthoptera, Phasmidae, Grylloblat- 
tidae, etc.), and the Plecopteroid superorder (Plecoptera, 
Embiidae, Dermaptera, Coleoptera, etc.), together with their 
fossil relatives; while the second section, the so-called 
NEUROPTERADELPHIA, or Neuropteron “ brotherhood,” 
contains the higher insects, more closely related to the 
Neuroptera—such as the Psocide, Mallophaga, Pedicu- 
lidae, Hemiptera, Hymenoptera, Diptera, Mecoptera, 
Trichoptera, Lepidoptera, Neuroptera, etc., with their 
fossil relatives. In the following discussion the two 
sections described above may be referred to simply as the 
Plecopteron section (or group) and the Neuropteron section 
(or group). 

It would be extremely difficult to find any features 
peculiar to all of the members of one section, and not 
occurring in any members of the other section; but it 
may be said of most of the insects belonging to the Pleco- 
pteron section, that their mouthparts are usually strongly 
mandibulate and well developed; while in the insects 
belonging to the Neuropteron section, the mouthparts of 
many are slender and greatly modified. In many of the 
insects of the Plecopteron group there is a marked tendency 
toward the reduction (and, in some cases, of a thickening) 
of the fore-wings; while in the insects of the Neuropteron 


* Contribution from the Entomological Laboratory of the 
Massachusetts Agricultural College, Amherst, Mass. 
TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PaRTS I, Il. (JULY) 


94 Dr. GC. Crampton’s Notes on the Ancestry of the 


section the fore-wings are frequently better developed 
than the hind ones. Long cerci (and in the males of some, 
styli also) are present in many of the insects belonging to 
the Plecopteron section; while in the insects belonging to 
the Neuropteron section they are wanting or vestigial as 
a rule, and in the latter insects the plates bearing the cerci 
(“ paraprocts”” or parapodial plates) are usually greatly 
modified or united with the terminal segments of the 
abdomen; while in the insects of the Plecopteron group 
they are usually distinct and well developed. Gonopod- 
like (2. e. forceps-like) genitalia are never found in the 
males of the Plecopteron section thus far examined, while 
this type of genitalia does occur in the males of some of 
the Neuropteron section. The type of metamorphosis 
(or lack thereof) exhibited by a group of insects is a matter 
of minor importance in the study of relationships, since in 
some families of insects such, for example, as the Coccidae, 
the males undergo a metamorphosis while the females of 
the same species do not. It may be stated, however, that 
with the exception of the Coleoptera, etc., the insects 
belonging to the Plecopteron section do not exhibit a 
marked metamorphosis; while many of the insects of the 
Neuropteron section (excepting the Psocidae, Hemiptera, 
etc.) exhibit a marked tendency in this direction. 

So little is known of the anatomical details of the extinct 
fossil insects called Palaeodictyoptera (which have departed 
but little from the ancestral condition of winged insects in 
general) that it is impossible to determine their closest 
affinities. I believe, however, that the very ancient 
though somewhat aberrant orders Plectoptera (Ephemerida) 
and Odonata, among recent insects, are more closely related 
to certain Palaeodictyoptera than they are to either the 
Neuropteron section or the Plecopteron section, and I would 
therefore provisionally include the Plectoptera (Epheme- 
rida) and the Odonata with the Palaeodictyoptera (and 
related fossil forms) in a third section of winged insects 
called the PLECTOPTERADELPHIA or Ephemerid “ brother- 
hood,” which will be referred to as the Ephemerid section, 
or group, in the following discussion. 

In most (if not all) of the members of the Ephemerid 
section the wings cannot be folded along the abdomen (a 
very primitive condition), and the wing venation has 
departed but little from the original condition in many 
members of this group. Indications of a shifting of the 


Diptera, Hemiptera and Insects related to Neuroptera. 95 


radial sector recently described in the Ephemerida (Morgan, 
1912, Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer., 1912, p. 89) point to a rather 
close relationship to the Odonata, in whose wing venation 
a similar condition occurs, although it is unknown among 
other insects. In both Odonata and Ephemerida the 
antennae are usually much reduced, and they do not appear 
to be very large in most of the Palaeodictyoptera. The 
tarsi are composed of not over three segments in many of 
the insects of this section. Many of these insects have 
well-developed cerca (Bull. Brooklyn Ent. Soc., vol. 13, 
p. 49), although the cerci of certain Odonata have been 
otherwise interpreted by some investigators. In certain 
Ephemerid and Odonatan nymphs 
traces of a median unpaired terminal 
abdominal filament may be retained, 
and the abdominal segments are usually 
well developed in these insects. Para- 
nota, or lateral expansions of the tergal 
region (Jour. N.Y. Ent. Soc., vol. 24, 
p. 1) occur on the abdominal segments, 
particularly those near the end of the 
abdomen, in certain immature Odonata 
and Ephemerida, and are occasionally 
retained on the last abdominal segments 
of the adult also. These and many of 
the characters mentioned above do not 
occur in all of the members of the 
Ephemerid section, nor are they char- Fic. 1. 
acteristic of the members of this section 
alone, so that the only character peculiar to this group of 
insects and occurring in most of its members, is their 
inability to fold their wings flat along the abdomen. 
Certain insects belonging to each of the sections men- 
tioned above (7.e. the Ephemerid, Plecopteron, and 
Neuropteron sections) may occupy a position anatomically 
intermediate between the members of their own and of the 
other sections. The three sections may thus have a certain 
amount of “territory” in common, yet each taken 
separately forms a well-defined group in itself. If this 
were to be represented graphically, the three sections 
would be represented as three intersecting circles (Fig. 1) 
each of which taken separately forms a distinct well- 
defined division; yet in the area of overlapping they have 
a certain amount of territory in common. It would perhaps 


96 Dr. G. C. Crampton’s Notes on the Ancestry of the 


have been more exact to represent these three groups 
as three intersecting spheres rather than as circles drawn 
in one plane; but the figure in question will serve well 
enough to illustrate the points under discussion. 

The circle representing the Ephemerid group has been 
represented as though somewhat lower than that of the 
Plecopteron group, since certain Palaeodictyopteron 
members of the Ephemerid section are somewhat more 
primitive than the lowest representatives of the Plecopteron 
section. On the other hand, some members of the 
EKphemerid group may oceupy a position extending up even 
into the territory of the Neuropteron group (as shown in 
the figure), since they have much in common with the 
lowest members of the Neuropteron section. As far as 
the more direct ancestors of the Neuropteron section are 
concerned, however, I would provisionally consider the 
Plecopteron section as more nearly representing their 
immediate ancestors, while the Ephemerid section may 
represent the common stock from which both the Pleco- 
pteron and Neuropteron sections are ultvmately to be derived. 
On this account, the circle representing the Plecopteron 
group has been represented as though intermediate between 
the other two, in the figure. 

Tillyard, 1917 (Biology of Dragonflies), emphasises the 
resemblance between the Protascalaphine Neuropteron 
Stilbopteryx and the Odonata, not only in appearance, but 
even in its mode of flight, etc., and it must be admitted that 
the Neuroptera are in many respects extremely like the 
Odonata and their allies, the Ephemerida. Handlirsch, 
1996 (Die Fossilen Insekten), has also pointed out the 
marked resemblance of the Neuroptera to certain fossil 
Palaeodictyoptera, so that when one considers the Neuro- 
ptera alone, there is considerable evidence for regarding 
the Ephemerid section (7.e. the Ephemerida, Odonata, 
and Palaeodictyoptera) as more nearly representing the 
ancestral group giving rise to the insects related to the 
Neuroptera. The Psocidae, however, must be considered 
also in such a phylogenetic study, since they also occupy 
a position near the base of the lines of descent of the 
insects related to the Neuroptera, as is shown in Fig. 2; 
and a study of the affinities of the Psocidae is of no less 
importance than those of the Neuroptera, in attempting to 
determine the ancestry of the insects in question. Now the 
Psocidae exhibit undeniable affinities with the Coleoptera, 


Diptera, Hemiptera and Insects related to Neuroptera. 97 


Dermaptera, Embiidae and Plecoptera, which constitute 
the Plecopteroid superorder (Jour. N.Y. Ent. Soc., vol. 25, 
1917, p. 230), and, since the Neuroptera also exhibit many 
features in common with the Embiid and Plecopteron 
members of this same Plecopteroid superorder, | am in- 
clined to consider that, taken as a whole (and not merely 
considering the Neuroptera alone), the lines of descent 
of the insects of the Neuropteron section would lead back 
to the Plecopteron section more directly, and ultimately 


HOMOPTERA 
Lh Lar HYMENOPTERA 
PEDICULIDAE sae 
MALLOPHAGA ead 
PSOCIDAE MECOP 
THYSANOPTERA TRICHOPTERA 
STREPSIPTERA LEPIDOPTERA 
COLEOPTERA #_NEUROPTERA 
DERMAPTERA 
PLECOPTERA wp, 
EPHEMERIDA 


PALAEODICTYOPTERA 
( 
Fie. 2. 


through or with them, to ancestors resembling the insects 
of the Kphemerid section. On this account, I have repre- 
sented the Palaeodictyoptera and Ephemerida as occupying 
positions near the base of the common stem in Fig. 2, 
while the Plecoptera and their allies are shown somewhat 
nearer to the point where the lines of descent of the insects 
related to the Psocidae and Neuroptera have branched off. 
It should be borne in mind that the diagram of the lines 
of descent shown in Fig. 2 is intended merely to aid in 
visualising the relative positions of the insects in question, 
and it does not accurately represent the actual inter- 
TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PARTSI, 11. (JULY) H 


98 Dr. G. C. Crampton’s Notes on the Ancestry of the 


relationships of these insects, since it would require a 
figure of three dimensions to show that one line of descent 
is In some cases intermediate between several others. 
Furthermore, it would make too complicated a figure to 
attempt to include in the diagram all of the lines of descent 
of the insects related to the ancestors of the Psocidae and 
the Neuroptera, so that but a few of these have been 
included in the diagram. 

Among the most important of the insects omitted from 
the diagram shown in Fig. 2 are those comprising the 
Blattoid superorder (7. e. the Blattidae, Mantidae, Isoptera, 
Zoraptera and their fossil relatives), whose lines of develop- 
ment may be thought of as extending in a plane perpen- 
dicular to that containing the lines of descent of the 
Psocidae and Neuroptera. Now certain Mantidae, such 
as Mantoida luteola, are very Neuropteron-like, and certain 
Isoptera resemble the lower Psocidae, such as Archipsocus, 
very strongly, so that it is quite possible that the Blattoid 
superorder, to which these Mantids, Isoptera, etc., belong, 
more nearly represents the group ancestral to the Neuro- 
ptera than the Plecopteroid superorder does. Indeed, the 
Isoptera have even been classed with the “ Neuroptera ”’ 
by some entomologists who were apparently impressed with 
their Neuropteron-like appearance. On the other hand, 
the Embiid and Plecopteron representatives of the Pleco- 
pteroid superorder have likewise been classed as “ Neuro- 
ptera”’ by some entomologists who were apparently im- 
pressed with the Neuropterous affinities of these insects, 
and when one takes into consideration the close relationship 
of the Psocidae to the Coleoptera, Dermaptera, Embidae 
and Plecoptera (7.e. the Plecopteroid superorder) in 
addition to the marked resemblance of the Neuroptera to 
certain of these insects, there are very good reasons for 
considering the Plecopteroid superorder rather than the 
Blattoid superorder as more nearly representing the group 
which gave rise to the lines of descent of the insects related 
to the Psocidae and Neuroptera. In the foregoing discus- 
sion it should be clearly understood that the Plecopteron 
section, which includes the Blattoid, Orthopteroid and 
Plecopteroid superorders, is a more inclusive designation 
than the Plecopteroid swperorder, which constitutes merely 
a portion of the insects included in the Plecopteron section. 

It is perhaps a rather unfortunate choice to begin the 
discussion of the ancestry and interrelationships of the 


Diptera, Hemiptera and Insects related to Neuroptera. 99 


insects related to the Neuroptera, with the consideration 
of such a highly aberrant and anomalous group as the 
Strepsiptera are, especially since their closest affinities are 
still a matter of considerable speculation. I feel, however, 
that the Strepsiptera occupy a position intermediate 
between the members of the Plecopteroid superorder, on 
the one hand (7. e. the Coleoptera, Dermaptera, etc.), and 
the insects grouped about the Neuroptera on the other. 
In order to bring out this fact, it was necessary to represent 
the Strepsipteron line of development in Fig. 2, as though 
branching off near the base of the Psocid-Neuropteron stem, 
although in reality the Strepsiptera are a strongly aberrant 
group structurally much higher than the Psocidae and 
Neuroptera. The line of development of the Strepsiptera 
should be thought of as though extending in a plane per- 
pendicular to that of the lines of descent of the Psocidae 
and Neuroptera, since the Strepsiptera appear to occupy a 
position intermediate between the Coleoptera, on the one 
hand, and the insects related to the Neuroptera and 
Psocidae on the other. Pierce, 1909 (Smithsonian Bull. 
66), is inclined to regard them as more nearly related to the 
Dipteron group of the insects allied to the Neuroptera, 
and Latreille, 1809 (Genera Crust. et Insect., vol. 4), at 
first placed them with the Diptera also. Haeckel, 1896, 
would group them with the Neuropterous insects. Rossi, 
1793 (Bull. Soc. Philom., vol. 1), thought that they were 
related to Ichnewmon among the Hymenoptera, while 
Gegenbauer, 1859 (Grundz. vergl. Anat., first edition), 
considers that their closest affinities are with the Tricho- 
ptera (as does Gerstaecker), and Shuckard, 1840, places 
them between the Forficulidae and Phryganidae. Most 
investigators, however, agree in placing them among or 
next to the Coleoptera. In previous papers I have called 
attention to certain resemblances between the Strepsiptera 
and the Psocidae with the Hemipteroid insects, and I still 
believe that there are many points of resemblance between 
the Strepsiptera and the insects related to the Psocidae 
and Hemiptera (sensu lato), so that, provisionally at least, 
we may regard the Strepsiptera as occupying a position 
intermediate between the Coleoptera, etc., on the one 
hand, and the Psocidae and Hemiptera on the other, 
although the Strepsiptera likewise exhibit some marked 
affinities with the Neuropteroid insects as well. 

The Thysanoptera are another strongly aberrant order 


100 Dr. G. C. Crampton’s Notes on the Ancestry of the 


related to the Psocidae, and to the Hemiptera (with the 
Homoptera). They have likewise carried over in their 
line of development some of the characters occurring in 
certain representatives of the saltatorial Orthoptera, and 
in the Forficulid representatives of the Plecopteroid 
superorder. We thus have another threefold resemblance 
which makes it rather difficult to determine the closest 
affinities of the insects in question; but the generally 
accepted opinion that the Thysanoptera are rather closely 
related to the Hemiptera (sensu lato) appears to be well 
founded. Boerner, 1904 (Zool. Anzeiger, Bd. 28, p. 511), 
has pointed out the resemblance of the parts of the head of 
Thysanoptera to those of Psocidae and Hemiptera (sensu 
lato), and the evidence furnished by a study of the head 
region is borne out by that of other parts of the body as 
well. On the other hand, Hood, 1915 (Proc. Biol. Soe. 
Washington, 28, p. 53), regards the Thysanoptera as 
“ Orthopteroid ’’ insects, following Handlirsch, 1909 (Die 
fossilen Insekten), who derives both Thysanoptera and 
Dermaptera from forms related to the saltatorial Orthoptera 
such as the “ Locustids” and Gryllids. According to 
Hinds, 1902 (Proc. U.S. Nat. Museum, vol. 26, p. 79), 
“about 1828, through the anatomical studies of Straus- 
Duerckheim and Latreille, sufficient evidence was obtained 
to lead Latreille to separate the Thysanoptera from the 
Hemiptera and place them among the Orthoptera,”’ and 
Jordan, 1888 (Zeit. Wiss. Zool., Bd. xlvu, p. 541), 
thought that the Thysanoptera should be classed ‘“ accord- 
ing to their immersed germ band and their larval form in 
the line of the Orthoptera, Homoptera, Hemiptera, wherein 
they should be placed according to their anatomy and 
biology.” Jordan also states that “if we collect the 
Mallophaga, Psocidae and Termitidae as Corrodentia with 
Brauer, then we must place Thysanoptera in the system 
between Corrodentia and Hemiptera ”’ (teste Hinds, 1902), 
and in this respect his views are not essentially different 
from those here given. According to Jordan, some of his 
predecessors have regarded the Thysanoptera as related to 
the Odonata, but there does not seem to be much evidence 
to support this view. 

_ As was mentioned above, the Strepsiptera and Thysano- 
ptera are highly aberrant insects whose closest affinities 
are extremely difficult to determine. On the other hand, 
the Psocidae, together with the Neuroptera, furnish us 


Diptera, Hemiptera and Insects related to Neuroptera. 101 


with the intermediate links connecting the higher insects, 
such as the Hemiptera, Diptera, etc., with the lower forms, 
and the study of such primitive Psocidae as Archipsocus, 
for example, is of the utmost importance in attempting to 
determine the ancestry of the higher insects here discussed. 
Brauer, as was stated in the preceding paragraph, groups 
the Mallophaga, Psocidae and Isoptera together as Corro- 
dentia, and Enderlein, 1903 (Zool. Anzeiger, 26, p. 423; 
see also Palaeontographia, 1911, Bd. 58, p. 279), apparently 
influenced by Brauer, groups the Psocidae, Mallophaga, 
Isoptera and Embiidae in the single order Corrodentia, 
to which Escherich, 1914 (Handw. buch d. Naturw.), would 
add the Pediculidae also. All of the foregoing investi- 
gators agree in regarding the Isoptera as quite lke the 
ancestors of the Psocidae; and Handlirsch, 1909 (l.c.), 
would derive the Psocidae, together with the Isoptera, from 
Blattoid ancestors (as does Mjoberg), thus agreeing with 
them in substance. On the other hand, Kolbe, 1901 
(Arch. f. Naturg. Ixvii, Beigeft, p. 89), was apparently 
impressed with the marked affinities between the Psocidae 
and the Dermaptera (Forficulids) with the Coleoptera, 
although he is mistaken in beheving that the Dermaptera 
and Coleoptera could be derived from ancestors like the 
Psocidae, since the Dermaptera are much more primitive 
than the Psocidae are. 

In a measure, all of the views cited above are correct, 
since the Psocidae were doubtless descended from an- 
cestors resembling the Plecopteroid superorder and would 
therefore naturally have certain features in common with 
the Plecopterous, Embiid, Forficulid, and Coleopterous 
representatives of this superorder. Similarly, since the 
Isoptera were also very probably descended from ancestors 
resembling the same Plecopterous superorder, it is not 
surprising that both Psocidae and Isoptera should have 
certain points in common with each other and with certain 
members of the ancestral Plecopteroid superorder, having 
taken over in their lines of descent certain similar features 
from their common heritage. On the other hand, when 
we take all of the anatomical details into consideration, 
the closest affinities of the Isoptera are seen to be with 
the Blattoid superorder (Blattidae, Mantidae, Isoptera and 
Zoraptera), and the closest affinities of the Embtidae are 
with the Plecopteroid superorder (Plecoptera, Embiidae, 
Forficulidae, and Coleoptera), while the closest affinities 


102. Dr. G. C. Crampton’s Notes on the Ancestry of the 


of the Psocidae appear to be with the insects grouped 
about the Neuroptera, with which they are connected by 
intermediate forms. The Isoptera, Embiidae and Psocidae 
cannot therefore be grouped together, since they belong 
to three divergent lines of descent; but, since these diver- 
gent lines of descent had a common origin, the lowest 
representatives of each would naturally have preserved 
many features in common with the other two. In de- 
riving the Psocidae from ancestors related to the Embiidae 
and other members of the Plecopteroid superorder, I would 
not minimise the very evident affinities between the 
Psocidae and Isoptera, since subsequent investigation may 
prove that the ancestors of the Psocidae are much closer 
to the Isoptera than they are to the Embiidae, Dermaptera, 
etc. Provisionally, however, I would regard their an- 
cestors as somewhat more closely allied to the Embiidae, 
Dermaptera, Coleoptera, and the other members of the 
Plecopteroid superorder. 

As was mentioned above, Brauer emphasised the re- 
lationship of the Mallophaga to the Psocidae, and placed 
them both in the order Corrodentia; but he was doubtless 
incorrect in including the Isoptera in this order also. 
Packard, 1887 (Amer. Phil. Soc. 1887, p. 264), places the 
Mallophaga in the order “ Platyptera,” which includes 
the Plecoptera and Embiidae in addition to the other 
insects mentioned above; but this grouping contains 
too many discordant elements. Kellogg, 1902 (Psyche, 
vol. 9, p. 339), and others have emphasised the remark- 
able resemblance between the Mallophaga and the Psocidae, 
and there can be but little doubt that the Mallophaga are 
very closely related to the Psocidae and to the Pediculidae 
as well, so that there can be no serious objection to the 
view that the Mallophaga arose from ancestors very like 
the Psocidae as shown in the diagram of the lines of descent 
of these insects. 

The Pediculidae (also called Suctoria, Anopleura, or 
Siphunculata) are undoubtedly closely related to the 
Mallophaga, as has been pointed out by Cummings, 1910 
(Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., vol. 15, p. 256), Mjoberg, 1910 
(Arkiv f. Zoologi), and many others, following Leach, 
1817. Enderlein, 1904 (Zool. Anz., vol. 28, p. 121), 
emphasises the relationship of the Pediculidae to both 
the Mallophaga on the one side and the Hemiptera on the 
other, and indeed, most of the earlier writers placed the 


Diptera, Hemiptera and Insects related to Neuroptera. 103 


Pediculidae with the Hemiptera (sensu lato). Since 
the Pediculidae have many points in common with both 
Mallophaga and Hemiptera (with the Homoptera), their 
line of descent has been represented in the diagram as 
though intermediate between that of the Mallophaga 
(with the Psocidae) and the Hemiptera (with the 
Homoptera). 

The Hemiptera and Homoptera are extremely closely 
related, and are usually grouped in a single order; but 
there are very good grounds for considering that the 
insects so classed should be divided into at least two 
orders—the Hemiptera (sensu stricto) and the Homoptera 
—although the further division of the Homoptera into 
other orders by Handlirsch, 1909 (Die Fossilen Insekten), 
is doubtless too extreme. 

In discussing a paper by Osborn, 1894 (Proc. Ent. 
Soc., Washington, vol. 3, p. 190), on the phylogeny of the 
Hemiptera, Ashmead suggests that the “ Pediculidae 
are the oldest forms representing the stem from which 
sprang the Homoptera in one direction and the Hetero- 
ptera in another.” Most of those who group the Pedi- 
culidae with the Hemiptera, however, regard them as 
“degenerate” Hemipteroid insects. Paul Meyer, 1876, 
who derives the Hemiptera (with the Homoptera), together 
with the Pediculidae and Mallophaga, from a “ Proto- 
hemipteron”’ stem apparently paved the way for the 
modern view of the interrelationships of the Hemiptera, 
Pediculidae, Mallophaga, etc., expressed by Enderlein, 
1904 (Zool. Anz., Bd. 28, p. 121), and particularly by 
Boerner, 1904 (Zool. Anz., Bd. 27, p. 511), who groups 
the Psocidae, Mallophaga, Pediculidae, Thysanoptera and 
Hemiptera (with the Homoptera) in a section which he 
calls the “ Acercaria.” Handlirsch, 1909 (l.c.), however, 
following certain earlier investigators, is more impressed 
with the Neuropteroid affinities of the Hemiptera (and 
Homoptera) as exhibited by such fossil forms as Hugereon 
boeckingi described by Dohrn, 1867 (Stett. Ent. Zeit., Bd. 
28, p. 145), although Kirkaldy, 1910 (Proc. Hawaiian Ent. 
Soc., vol. ii, p. 117), thinks that Eugereon is not “ even 
a Hemipteroid insect” but is “‘a Neuropteroid insect 
of a kind that has no representatives in modern times, 
that has become extinct, forming an order or suborder of 
its own.” In several papers I have called attention to 
the Neuropteroid character of the thorax of such lower 


104 Dr. G. C. Crampton’s Notes on the Ancestry of the 


Homoptera as Cicada (see also Taylor, 1918, Ann. Ent. 
Soc. America, vol. 11, p. 225), and if Hugereon is really a 
Hemipteroid insect, it would certainly point to a very 
close relationship between the ancient Hemiptera and the 
Neuroptera. Furthermore, the nature of the mouth- 
parts (e.g. union of labial palpi, etc.), head, and other 
structures in the Hemiptera, are quite suggestive of the 
condition occurring in insects descended from Neuroptera- 
like forbears—such as the Mecoptera and their relatives 
the Diptera, and there are evidences of a relationship to 
the lower Lepidoptera also (which are members of this 
group), so that there are very good grounds for considering 
that the Hemiptera are related to the Mecoptera and other 
insects descended from Neuroptera-like forbears. McLeay, 
1821-1825, apparently realised the affinities between the 
Hemiptera and certain of the members of the Neuropteroid 
superorder, for, according to Handlirsch, in articles pub- 
lished in vol. 2 of the Horae Ent., and vol. 14 of the Linn. 
Trans., McLeay groups the Homoptera, Hemiptera, 
Siphonaptera, Diptera and Lepidoptera together as “ Hau- 
stellata ”’—a grouping adopted by Agassiz, 1851 (Classif. of 
Insects from Embryol. Data), and in part by Haeckel, 
1866 (Generelle Morphologie), who places the Hemiptera, 
Homoptera, Pediculidae, Diptera and Lepidoptera in his 
subclass “Sugentia.” Kolbe, 1884 (Berl. Ent. Zeit., Bd. 28, 
p- 169), regards the Hemiptera as a “ neotypic offshoot ”’ 
of the ‘ Orthoptera,” while, as far back as 1831, Latreille, 
in his Cours d’Entomologie, classes the Coleoptera, Derma- 
ptera, Orthoptera and Hemiptera in the group called 
Elythroptera (or Elytroptera of Dana, 1864), on the basis 
of the thickening of the fore-wings. Schoch (Schw. Ent., 
Bd. 7) derives the Hemiptera from forms related to the 
Odonata. 

There are many other groupings of the Hemiptera, but 
the ones which appear to be the most in accord with the 
facts of comparative anatomy are those which place the 
Hemiptera with the insects grouped about the Neuroptera 
or the Psocidae. While the Hemiptera (with the Homo- 
ptera) exhibit undeniable affinities with the Neuroptera 
and their allies, it is likewise quite evident that the Hemi- 
ptera are no less closely related to the Psocidae and their 
allies, and provisionally, at least, I would regard them as 
somewhat more closely related to the Psocidae and their 
allies than to the members of the Neuropteroid super- 


Diptera, Hemiptera and Insects related to Neuroptera. 105 


order. The lines of descent of the Hemiptera and Homo- 
ptera have therefore been represented in the diagram as 
though occupying a position intermediate between the 
insects grouped about the Neuroptera and those grouped 
about the Psocidae, being slightly nearer the latter than 
the former. 
~The Hymenoptera are here treated as though consti- 
tuting a single order; but there are some grounds for 
considering the sawfly group, or chalastogastrous Hymeno- 
ptera (including the suborder Idiogastra of Rohwer, 1917, 
Proc. Ent. Soc. Washington, vol. 19, p. 92) as a distinct 
order, called Prohymenoptera by Crampton, 1916 (Ent. 
News, vol. 27, p. 303), or Bomboptera by MacLeay, 1829 
(applied to the “ Uroceridae”’ alone). Rohwer, 1917 
(l.c.), however, points out the annectant character of the 
Oryssoid sawflies between the Siricoid members of the 
sawflies and the Braconids, etc., among the higher Hymeno- 
ptera, maintaining that this connection between the two 
groups unites them into one homogeneous order. When 
one has examined such “ synthetic” types as the Micro- 
pterygidae, Zoraptera, Grylloblattids, Isoptera, etc., which 
combine in themselves characters common to several other 
orders of insects, it is at once apparent that the existence 
of these connecting forms does not invalidate the distinct 
orders which they serve to connect (and indeed, at one 
time, all of the orders must have been connected by such 
intermediate forms), so that Rohwer’s objection to the 
division of the Hymenoptera on this score, does not hold 
good. For the sake of convenience, however, they are 
treated as a single order in the present discussion. 
Ashmead, 1895 (Proc. Ent. Soc., Washington, vol. 3, 
p. 330), has summarised the different views as to, the re- 
lationships of the Hymenoptera, as follows: “ Latreille 
placed it (the order Hymenoptera) between the Neuroptera 
and the Lepidoptera, regarding Phryganea and Termes as 
forming the link between them, considering the long- 
tongue bees as approaching nearest to the Lepidoptera. 
MacLeay, on the other hand, placed the Hymenoptera 
between the Coleoptera (with which they are supposed 
to be connected by the osculant order Strepsiptera) and 
the Trichoptera, the Tenthredinidae being considered as 
Trichopterous and the Uroceridae as forming an osculant 
order Bomboptera, between Trichoptera and Hymenoptera, 
which last order is reduced to the species possessing apodal 


106 Dr. G. C. Crampton’s Notes on the Ancestry of the 


larvae. . . . Packard, 1863 (Boston Jour. Nat. Hist., 7, 
p. 591), in his paper entitled ‘On Synthetic Types in 
Insects,’ says that the Coleoptera, Hemiptera, Orthoptera 
and Neuroptera seem bound together by affinities such as 
those that unite by themselves the bees, moths and flies, 
and to the latter, or what he considers the higher series, 
he has since applied the term Metabola, and to the former 
Heterometabola. . . . Packard also believes the Hymeno- 
ptera are descendant from the Lepidoptera.” In his 
diagram of the lines of descent of the orders of insects, 
Ashmead (l.c.) derives both Lepidoptera and Hymenoptera 
from a Trichopteroid stem. Schoch, 1884 (Schw. Ent., 
Bd. 7), derives the Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera, and 
Diptera from Neuroptera. Paul Meyer, 1876, thinks that 
the Hymenoptera are closely related to the Orthoptera. 
Sajo, 1908 (Prometheus, Bd. 19, p. 705), thinks that the 
Hymenoptera are very closely allied to the Coleoptera, 
and Handlirsch (Fossilen Insekten) is apparently of the 
same opinion, since he derives both Hymenoptera and 
Coleoptera from forms related to the Protoblattoidea, 
suggesting that the Mantidae are intermediate between 
the Protoblattoidea and the Hymenoptera. In previous 
papers I have pointed out the resemblance between certain 
adult sawflies and the Mecoptera such as Panorpodes, 
Merope, etc., and a further study has convinced me that 
the sawflies are quite closely related to the Mecoptera, 
as well as to the Psocidae, occupying a position inter- 
mediate between the two groups, but being a little more 
closely related to the Mecoptera than to the members of 
the other group. I find that others have also noted the 
resemblance between the Hymenoptera and Mecoptera, 
for Ashmead, 1895 (Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash., 3, p. 331), . 
states that “the larvae of the Mecoptera also approach 
close to the Hymenoptera, and the peculiar rostrate head 
of the imagoes of this order is frequently reproduced 
among the parasitic species Agathis, Cremnops, etc.,” 
and Kolbe, 1884 (Berl. Ent. Zeit., 28, p. 169), calls atten- 
tion to the presence in both Hymenoptera and Panorpidae 
of “ primitive biting mouthparts, similar wing venation, 
and similar formation of the thoracic segments” in the 
adults, and the similar caterpillar-like larvae present in 
both orders. The larvae of sawflies which I have examined 
(Crampton, 1918, Proc. Ent. Soc., Washington, 20, p. 59) 
‘resemble those of the Panorpids in having retained the 


Diptera, Hemiptera and Insects related to Neuroptera. 107 


lateral cervical plates’; but in certain other respects, the 
sawfly larvae are more similar to Lepidopterous larvae. 

The venation of the wings of certain sawflies, particularly 
in the anal region, is strongly suggestive of the condition 
occurring in the wings of some of the more primitive 
Psocidae, and I find indications of a relationship between 
the two in certain features of the head and thorax (especially 
the tergal region). On the other hand, the nature of the 
male genitalia of the sawflies is surprisingly like the geni- 
talia of male Mecoptera, the shape of the head and the 
nature of the mouthparts, etc., are much more similar in 
the sawflies and Mecoptera, and on the whole the closest 
affinities of the Hymenoptera appear to be with the Meco- 
ptera and other insects grouped about the Neuroptera. I 
have therefore represented the Hymenoptera in the 
diagram as a very primitive group occupying a position 
somewhat intermediate between the insects grouped about 
the .Psocidae and those grouped about the Neuroptera, 
with their strongest affinities on the side of the Neuro- 
pteroid forms such as the Mecoptera. The similarity 
between the wing veins of the Diptera and sawflies pointed 
out by MacGillivray, 1906 (Proc. U.S. Nat. Museum, 29), 
and others would thus be readily explained by the fact 
that Diptera are descended from Mecoptera-like forbears, 
and if the sawflies resemble Mecoptera, they would naturally 
be similar in some respects to the Diptera also. In the 
same way, the resemblances between the Hymenoptera 
and the Trichoptera or Lepidoptera might be explained as 
the result of their mutual relationship to the Mecoptera. 
In some respects the Hymenoptera are quite like the 
Neuroptera, and the latter group may possibly represent 
the ancestral forms from which the Hymenoptera were 
derived; but it is more probable that the ancestors of the 
Hymenoptera were very primitive forms occupying a 
position intermediate between the Neuroptera and the 
Psocidae. 

Most modern investigators agree in regarding the 
Siphonaptera, Suctoria, or Aphaniptera as the descendants 
of forms very like the Diptera; and their ancestors were 
probably quite similar to the Dipteron family Phoridae. 
The Siphonaptera have therefore been represented in the 
diagram as a lateral branch of the main Dipteron line of 
development, although as Packard, 1895 (Proc. Boston 
Soc. Nat. Hist., 26, p. 354), states, “they must have 


108 Dr. G. C. Crampton’s Notes on the Ancestry of the 


diverged from the ancestral Dipterous stem before the 
existing forms of Diptera had become so extremely special- 
ised as we now find them to be.” According to Packard 
(l.c.) Haliday considered the fleas as “a group of Diptera 
allied to the Mycetophilidae”; . . . “those who regarded 
them (the fleas) as Diptera were Roesel, Oken, Straus- 
Duerckheim, Burmeister, Haliday, Newman, Walker, von 
Siebold, with many German entomologists, and J. Wagner 
(1889). They were regarded as Hemiptera by Fabricius 
and by Illiger. ... The fleas were placed by Macleay 
and by Balbiani between the Diptera and Hemiptera; 
by Leach between the Hemiptera and Lepidoptera; by 
Dugés between the Hymenoptera and Diptera; and by 
Brauer they are given a position between the Diptera and 
Coleoptera.” Brues, 1901 (American Naturalist, 35, p. 336), 
discusses the relationship of fleas to Phoridae, and Dahl, 
1897 (Zool. Anz., 20, p. 409), describes a Phorid, Pulici- 
phora, which he considers annectant between the Phorids 
and fleas, although Wandolleck, 1898 (Zool. Anz. and Wiss. 
Rundschau), takes exception to Dahl’s statements on the 
subject. ; 

The Diptera are undoubtedly as closely related to the 
Mecoptera as to any other order of insects, and the Meco- 
ptera have apparently departed as little as any living 
forms from the type ancestral to the Diptera, so that the — 
Dipteron line of development has been represented in 
the diagram-as though merging with that of the Mecoptera, 
as we trace them both back to their common Neuroptera- 
like ancestors. As was mentioned in previous papers, I 
find in such Neuroptera as Nemoptera, many features 
suggesting the presence of tendencies in the Neuropteron 
stem which are later to find opportunity for fuller ex- 
pression in the development of the Dipteron type of 
insects. Among these may be mentioned the tendency 
toward the formation of the elongate type of head in 
Nemoptera, the reduction of the hind-wings in this insect 
(which if carried a little further would result in the pro- 
duction of a halter-like structure), and the character of 
the genitalia in males of Nemoptera. On the other hand, 
the resemblance between the lower Diptera such as the 
Tipuloid forms and the Bittacus-like representatives of the 
Mecoptera is very striking and extends even to the more 
minute details, the head and mouthparts, thoracic sclerites, 
and genitalia being very similar in the two groups—and 


Diptera, Hemiptera and Insects related to Neuroptera. 109 


I have even found a genital structure in the males of the 
Tipulid Pachyrhina macrophallus described by Dietz, 1918 
(Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc., 44, p. 105), strongly suggestive 
of the coiled spring-like structure in the genitalia of males 
of Bittacus. The resemblance between the genitalia of 
the males of both groups has been pointed out in a paper 
published in Psyche, 1918, vol. 25, p. 55, and the evolution 
of the head types in Neuroptera, Mecoptera and Diptera 
has been traced in a paper published in the Annals Ent. 
Soc. America; 1918, vol. 10, p. 337. As was pointed out 
in the paper on the evolution of the head types in Diptera, 
etc., the Trichoptera have retained certain features sug- 
gestive of the ancestors of the Diptera (and Packard, 1883, 
derives the Diptera from them); but this may possibly 
be explained as the result of the relationship of both 
Diptera and Trichoptera to the Mecoptera, since the 
Diptera and Trichoptera were in all probability descended 
from ancestors not unlike the Mecoptera (or from the 
Neuroptera-like ancestors of the Mecoptera). Similarly, 
since the -Lepidoptera were descended from ancestors 
resembling those of the Trichoptera and Mecoptera, they 
therefore might also carry over certain characters in common 
with the Diptera, which are derived from a similar ancestry. 
I would thus account for the resemblances of the Lepido- 
ptera, Trichoptera, Hymenoptera, etc., to the Diptera, as 
the result of their common or mutual relationship to the 
Mecoptera (or the Neuropteroid ancestors of the Mecoptera). 
If it should prove to be the case that the Homoptera (and 
Hemiptera) are more closely related to the Mecoptera and 
other Neuropteroid insects than to the Psocidae and their 
allies, the slight resemblance of the Hemiptera to the 
Diptera might in the same way be explained as the result 
of their mutual relationship to the Mecoptera. At present, 
however, I do. not think that the Homoptera are very 
closely related to the Diptera, while the Lepidoptera do | 
show some unmistakable resemblances to the Diptera, as 
is also the case with the Trichoptera, and to some extent, 
the Hymenoptera also. . 

Whether the ancestors of the Diptera would have been 
placed in the order Mecoptera by systematists, or whether 
they were Neuroptera-like forms giving rise to both the 
Dipteron and Mecopteron lines of descent, I cannot say ; 
but it is quite evident that the Mecopteron line of descent 
has paralleled that of the Diptera more closely and for a 


110 Dr. G. C. Crampton’s Notes on the Ancestry of the 


further distance than has that of any other order, and the 
Mecoptera have apparently departed but little from the 
ancestral condition of the Diptera. Handlirsch derives 
both Diptera and Lepidoptera from a common Mecopteron 
stock, and also derives the Trichoptera from the same 
stem which he traces back to the fossil Megasecoptera. 
Many of the older entomologists grouped the Diptera with 
the Strepsiptera on account of the presence in both of only 
two wings, although the wings are borne on different seg- 
ments of the thorax in the two groups of insects. Dana, 
1864, places the Hymenoptera, Diptera and Siphonaptera 
in his division “ Apipiens”’ (of his “‘ Ctenoptera ”’) corre- 
sponding to the ‘‘ Metabola ” of Packard 1863-1870, who 
in 1883 added the Lepidoptera to the group and called 
them all “ Kuglossata”; while Schoch, 1884, calls the 
Diptera, Lepidoptera and Hymenoptera, “ Zygothoraca.” 
Haeckel, 1866, groups the Hemiptera (sensu lato), Pedi- 
culidae, Lepidoptera, and Diptera together as “ Sugentia,”’ 
and derives the Diptera from Hemiptera, while Ashmead, 
1895, derives the Diptera in part from the Hemiptera 
(Homoptera) and partly from the Mecoptera. Smith, 1897 
(Science, N.S. 2, vol. 5, p. 671), groups the Hymenoptera, 
Siphonaptera, Diptera, Mecoptera, Lepidoptera, Tricho- 
ptera, Odonata and Ephemeridae together—a grouping 
which is quite like that here accepted if the Odonata and 
Ephemeridae were omitted, and the Neuroptera sub- 
stituted in their place. Boerner, 1904 (Zool. Anz., 27, 
p. 532), groups together the Mecoptera, Diptera, Siphona- 
ptera and Hymenoptera in the section “‘ Cercophora” of 
the Holometabola, and with the exception of his including 
the Coleoptera among the insects related to the Neuroptera, 
his derivation of the lines of descent of the insects in ques- 
tion is essentially similar to that here given. Formerly I 
suggested that the Nycteribiid Diptera have departed 
widely from the other Diptera, and that their Braulid rela- 
tives have departed sufficiently far to be classed in a 
distinct order (Ent. News, 27, p. 302); but this view is 
too extreme, for the pupiparous Diptera are connected with 
the remainder of the order by intermediate forms, and 
should be included with them in the homogeneous order 
Diptera, since the winged forms are evidently Diptera. 
It is rather interesting to note in this connection, that 
one hundred years ago Leach, 1817 (Zool. Misc., vol. 3), 
had proposed to place the Pupipara in a separate order 


Diptera, Hemiptera and Insects related to Neuroptera. 111 


called Omaloptera (or the Homaloptera of Westwood, 
1839). t 

The grouping of the Mecoptera with the Neuroptera by 
the earlier entomologists was apparently well founded, 
since the Neuroptera certainly seem to represent as nearly 
as any living forms, the ancestral type from which the 
Mecoptera were derived. The group Planipennia contains 
the types approaching as closely as any Neuroptera to the 
ancestral Mecoptera, and such Neuroptera as Nymphes 
(and in some respects the Ithontidae also) have retained 
certain features very suggestive of Mecopteron affinities, 
although I have always felt that the Nemopteridae are 
very like some of the ancestors of the Mecoptera—espe- 
cially those in which the head had begun to take on the 
elongate form. MHandlirsch (l.c.) derives the Mecoptera 
from the fossil Megasecoptera. Lameere, 1908 (Ann. Soc. 
Ent. Belgique, 52, p. 139), agrees with Handlirsch in this 
derivation of the Mecoptera, and there is much to be said 
in favour of this view. Lameere would derive the Neuro- 
ptera as well as the Mecoptera (and their allies) from the 
Megasecoptera, instead of deriving the Neuroptera from 
the Palaeodictyoptera as Handlirsch does (although the 
Megasecoptera are themselves derived from Palaedictyo- 
pterous forbears), and Lameere’s view would more nearly 
harmonise with the evident relationship of the Mecoptera 
to the Neuroptera, both groups being evidently descended 
from common ancestors, from which the Neuroptera have 
departed much less than the Mecoptera have. Since the 
fossil forms (with the exception of the Palaeodictyoptera) 
are not represented in the diagram, the line of development 
of the Mecoptera has been drawn as though extending back 
to the common Neuropteron stem. The Mecoptera form 
an extremely important group from the standpoint of 
phylogeny, since their line of descent is paralleled by, or 
is approached by those of so many other Neuropteroid 
insects, and it is to be hoped that the researches .of Dr. 
Tillyard,* who has an extensive knowledge of the insects 
in question and who also has access to the most primitive 


* Since writing the above, I have received from Dr. Tillyard a 
separate of a paper on the “ Panorpoid Complex” (Proc. Linn. 
Soc. N.S.W., xlii, 1918, p. 265) in which he states that “‘ the origin 
of the Panorpoidea from the Megasecoptera is not supported by 
a single piece of evidence worth considering,” although he does 
not attempt to determine the ultimate ancestry of the Mecoptera. 


112 Dr. G. C. Crampton’s Notes on the Ancestry of the 


representatives of the Mecoptera and their allies, will soon 
definitely determine the ultimate affinities of these insects. 

The Trichoptera are extremely closely related to the 
Neuroptera, and were classed with them by the earlier 
entomologists. On the other hand, the Trichoptera are 
quite closely related to the Mecoptera also, and are derived 
from the Mecopteron stem by Handlirsch 1909 (I.c.) who, 
strange to say, represents the Dipteron line of descent as 
though branching off from the same stem at a lower point, 
whereas the Trichoptera are morphologically more primi- 
tive than the Diptera and have retained certain features 
which were probably present in the ancestors of the Diptera. 
Packard, 1883 (Third Rpt. U.S. Ent. Commission, p. 295), 
who derives the Diptera from the Trichoptera, groups the 
Mecoptera, Trichoptera and Neuroptera together in his 
order ‘“‘ Neuroptera,” and traces the Trichopteron line of 
development to a Mecopteron stem, thus agreeing with 
Handhrsch’s derivation of the Trichoptera. On the basis 
of the character of the ovaries, Emery groups the Tricho- 
ptera with the Coleoptera Adephaga, Neuroptera, Meco- 
ptera, Lepidoptera, Diptera and Hymenoptera as “‘ Metabola 
ovariis meroisticis”’ (teste Handlirsch), thus essentially agree- 
ing with the view here expressed, save that the Coleoptera 
are not included with these insects. Sharp, 1889, according 
to Handlirsch, designates the insects called ‘‘ Metabola 
ovariis meroisticis’ by Emery, as the “ Endopterygota,” 
on the basis of the internal formation of the wings. Boerner, 
1904 (l.c.), groups the Trichoptera, Lepidoptera, Neuroptera, 
Coleoptera and Strepsiptera together as the section “ Proc- 
tanura ” of his Holometabola. Leach, 1817, with his usual 
keenness of insight links together the Trichoptera and 
Lepidoptera in a group to which Haeckel, 1896, apples 
the term ‘“Sorbentia” (one of his six “legions’’). As 
was mentioned above, the Trichoptera are very closely 
related to the Neuroptera on the one hand, and to the 
Mecoptera on the other, and were probably descended from 
the Neuroptera-like ancestors which gave rise to the 
Mecoptera. They are undoubtedly very closely related 
to the Lepidoptera; but do not seem to have much in 
common with the Homoptera, with which Dana, 1864, 
groups them in his division “ Amplipens” of the group 
“* Ctenoptera.”” 

The Lepidoptera are related to the Trichoptera, Neuro- 
ptera and Mecoptera; but their strongest affinities are 


Diptera, Hemiptera and Insects related to Neuroptera. 113 


apparently with the Trichoptera, as Leach, 1817, pointed 
out a hundred years ago. Speyer, 1839 (Oken’s Isis, 1839, 
p. 94), suggested that the Micropterygids form a transi- 
tional group leading to the Trichoptera, and later in 1870 
(Stettin. Ent. Zeitung,-1870, p. 202) he carried the com- 
parison between the two groups still further. Chapman, 
1893 (Trans. Ent. Soc. London, 1893, p. 255), calls attention 
to the huge mandibles of the pupa of Micropteryx purpurella 
(originally figured by Stainton in the Entomologist’s 
_ Annual) which certainly resemble those of certain Tricho- 
pterous pupae, and on p. 569 of the Trans. Ent. Soc. London, 
1896, Chapman* says, “I believe Dr. Sharp quite agrees 
with me in assimilating the Phryganeidae and Microptery- 
gidae together as being, though somewhat far apart, still 
nearer together than either is to the Neuroptera on the 
one hand, or to the Lepidoptera on the other. I believe 
he sets more value on their Neuropterous than on their 
Lepidopterous affinities, whilst I take rather the contrary 
view, regarding the lower Adelidae as being very probably 
directly derived from the Micropteryges.”” Comstock, 1918 
(The Wings of Insects, pp. 307, 313, 317), is so deeply im- 
pressed with the Trichopterous affinities of the Microptery- 
gidae, that he removes them from the Lepidoptera and 
places them in the Trichoptera as a suborder of the latter 
group; but the Lepidopterous structures present on the 
Micropterygidae clearly indicate that they belong in the 
order Lepidoptera. Koletani, 1858 (Wien Ent. Monatschr., 
2, p. 381), considers that the “aquatic” Lepidopteron 
Acentropus niveus is annectant between the Trichoptera 
and Lepidoptera, and since such Trichoptera as Plectrotarsus 
gravenhorsti have actually developed a coiled proboscis (!) 
like that of certain Lepidoptera one can hardly ignore the 
close relationship between the Lepidoptera and Trichoptera. 
Since the Trichoptera have remained more primitive than 
the Lepidoptera, although accompanying the latter insects 
for a considerable distance along the same developmental 
road, they may be considered as near as any living forms 
to the ancestors of the Lepidoptera. While emphasising 
the similarity between the wings of Lepidoptera and Tricho- 
ptera, Kellogg, 1895 (Amer. Naturalist, 29, p. 718), calls 


* Dr. Tillyard informs me that Chapman places the Micropteryx- 
like forms in an order distinct from the Lepidoptera, called the 
Zeugloptera, in a later publication; but I have been unable to 
locate the reference. 

TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PaRTS I, 0. (JULY) I 


114 Dr. G. C. Crampton’s Notes on the Ancestry of the 


attention to the resemblance of the wings of the Mecoptera 
to those of Lepidoptera, and Tillyard, 1918 (Ent. News, 29, 
p. 90), states that “the result of the study of five genera 
of the family Micropterygidae (s.l., including the Erio- 
craniidae) is that I find them all to be, not of the jugate 
type of the Hepialidae, but of a more primitive jugo- 
frenate type, in which the wing-coupling apparatus closely 
resembles that of the Planipennia, Megaloptera and 
Mecoptera.” Tillyard has also called attention to the 
resemblance between certain Australian Hepialid Lepido- 
ptera and the Ithoniid Neuroptera. 

As was the case with the Diptera in which it is extremely 
difficult to determine whether their line of development 
branched off from that of the Mecoptera (to which they 
are so closely related) or whether it extends parallel to 
that of the Mecoptera back to the Neuroptera-like ancestors 
giving rise to both Mecoptera and Diptera, so with the 
Lepidoptera, it is extremely difficult to determine whether 
their line of development branches off from that of the 
Trichoptera (to which they are extremely closely related), 
or extends parallel with the Trichopteron line of develop- 
ment back to the Neuroptera-like ancestors of both Lepido-- 
ptera and Trichoptera. This much, however, is true, that 
the Neuroptera have departed the least of any hving 
insects from the ancestral condition of those forms giving 
rise to the lines of development of the Mecoptera, Tricho- 
ptera, Lepidoptera, ete. Packard, 1883 (l.c.), would derive 
the Lepidoptera from the Diptera, which in turn are derived 
from Trichoptera and these from Mecoptera, thus ultimately 
deriving them all from a common stock not unlike the 
Mecoptera. In this respect, his views are somewhat like 
those of Handlirsch (l.c.), who derives the Trichoptera, 
Lepidoptera, Diptera, etc., from the Mecopteron stem, 
which he traces back to Megasecopterous ancestors. 
Lameere, 1908 (Ann. Soc. Ent. Belgique, 52, p. 139), says, 
“T am completely in accord with Handlirsch with regard 
to the composition of this systematic unity (Handlirsch’s 
group ‘ Panorpoidea’) comprising the Mecoptera, Tricho- 
ptera, Lepidoptera, Siphonaptera and Diptera ” (Lameere, 
however, uses other terms for these orders), and “ I con- 
sider with Handlirsch, that this first group of the Holo- 
metabola is descended from the Megasecoptera.” It is 
difficult to understand, however, why neither Handlirsch 
nor Lameere include the Neuroptera also among the 


Diptera, Hemiptera and Insects related to Neuroptera. 115 


“Panorpoid’”’ insects, especially since Lameere would 
derive the Neuroptera from the same Megasecopterous 
stem with the ‘‘ Panorpoid ” insects. 

Handlirsch, 1909 (l.c.), suggests that the order Neuro- 
ptera should be divided into at least three orders, the 
Megaloptera (Sialidae and Chauliodidae), the ‘ Raphi- 
doidea,”’ and the true Neuroptera. Of these he makes a 
subclass “ Neuropteroidea ”’ of equal value with his sub- 
class Orthopteroidea containing such widely divergent 
forms as the Acridiidae, Forficulidae, Thysanoptera, etc., 
or with his Blattaeiformia, which includes such markedly 
differing forms as the Mantidae, Psocidae, Pediculidae, etc. 
Lameere, 1908, p. 141, says, ““I am perfectly in accord 
with Handlrsch with regard to the composition of this 
systematic unity (the Neuropteroidea) formed of the 
Megaloptera, Raphidoidea and Neuroptera properly speak- 
ing (7. e. the Hemerobiiformia), and it is evidently the 
Megaloptera which exhibit the most archaic characters of 
the group,” so that he evidently accepts Handlirsch’s 
division of the order Neuroptera into these three orders. 
On page 297 of the Ent. News, vol. 27, 1916, I suggested 
that in addition to Handlirsch’s subdivisions, the Neuro- 
ptera Planipennia might be further divided into a Mantispid 
group, a Myrmeleonid group, a Chrysopid group, and a 
Nemopterid group—the latter leading to the Mecoptera, 
with which they are united by Navas, 1905, in his book 
on the insects found in the neighbourhood of Madrid. H 
the Neuroptera were split into three distinct orders as 
Handlirsch has done, these groups might be regarded as 
suborders of the reduced order Neuroptera, with the 
exception of the Nemopteridae which are extremely closely 
related to the Chrysopid or Hemerobiid forms. Neither 
these subdivisions of the Planipennia nor Handlirsch’s 
subdivisions of the Neuroptera are as distinct from one 
another as the Mecoptera are from the Neuroptera, how- 
ever, and a rather extensive study of the thoracic sclerites 
of a number of types from Handlirsch’s three orders of 
““ Neuropteroidea ” has revealed such a marked uniformity 
of structure in all three, that I have become convinced 
that these insects constitute but a single order, the Neuro- 
ptera. On the other hand, the sclerites of the Mecoptera 
and Trichoptera are sufficiently different from those of the 
Neuroptera to justify placing them in distinct orders, and 
since the thoracic sclerites have proven to be extremely 


116 Dr. G. CO. Crampton’s Notes on the Ancestry of the 


“conservative ” structures varying but little within an 
order, I think that the evidence they offer is of the utmost 
importance for any phylogenetic study. 

With regard to the origin of the Neuroptera, Handlirsch 
would derive them directly from the Palaeodictyoptera, 
while Lameere is inclined to derive the Neuroptera from 
Megasecoptera, and would also derive the other holo- 
metabolous insects such as the Hymenoptera and Coleo- 
ptera from the same source. The resemblance between 
the larvae of the Coleoptera and those of the Neuroptera 
is very marked (Proc. Ent. Soc. Washington, vol. 20, p. 58), 
and, superficially at least, such primitive Coleoptera as 
Calopteron appear quite like certain Neuroptera; but a 
study of the structural details of the Coleoptera would 
point to a closer relationship with the Dermaptera and 
other members of the Plecopteroid superorder, and such 
resemblances as occur between the Coleoptera on the one 
hand, and the Psocidae and Neuroptera on the other, 
might possibly be explained as the result of the retention 
in each of certain features inherited from a common 
Plecopteroid ancestry. 

As was stated at the beginning of the paper, I am inclined 
to regard the Neuroptera as the descendants of ancestors 
more directly related to the members of the Plecopteroid 
superorder; but ultimately descended from forbears 
related to the Ephemerid group, which contains the Palaeo- 
dictyoptera. Tillyard, 1917 (Biology of Dragonflies, p. 8), 
is inchned to consider that the Neuroptera are somewhat 
closely connected with the Odonata by the “ very ancient 
Protascalaphine genus Stilbopteryx.” Haeckel, 1866 (Gen. 
Morphol.), derives the Neuroptera from “ Pseudoneuro- 
ptera,” and many of the older writers grouped the Neuro- 
ptera with the Odonata and Ephemerida. Thus Clairville, 
1798 (Ent. Helvet.), according to Handlirsch, includes the 
Odonata, Ephemerida, Plecoptera, and the Neuroptera, 
together with the Mecoptera, Trichoptera, etc., under the 
designation Dictyoptera—a designation applied by Brullé, 
1832, to the Odonata, Ephemerida, and Plecoptera, and 
by Leach, 1817 (Zool. Misc., 3), to the Blattidae and 
Mantidae. There are considerable grounds for considering 
that the Ephemerida are quite closely related to the Neuro- 
ptera and that the Odonata are also quite closely related 
to them; but the closest affinities of the Neuroptera are 
with the insects whose lines of descent are shown in Fig. 2. 


Diptera, Hemiptera and Insects related to Neuroptera. 117 


Certain of the earlier entomologists (e.g. Latreille, 1831, 
Newman, 1834, etc.), and more recently Banks, are inclined 
to include the Isoptera with the Neuroptera. The Mantidae 
(which belong in the same superorder with the Isoptera) 
also show some affinities with the Neuroptera; but I am 
inclined to interpret these resemblances as the result of 
the retention of certain primitive features inherited from 
the common Plecopteroid ancestry from which were derived: 
the Isoptera, Mantidae, etc., on the one hand, and the 
Neuroptera, with their allies, on the other. Through this 
Plecopteroid ancestry, the line of development of the 
Neuroptera leads back ultimately to forbears related to 
the Palaeodictyoptera, and other insects belonging to the 
Ephemerid group (in which the Megasecoptera might also 
be included). The relationship of the Neuroptera to the 
Mecoptera certainly seems very much closer than would 
be indicated by Handlirsch’s deriving the Mecoptera from 
Megasecoptera while deriving the Neuroptera from Palaeo- 
dictyoptera; and the facts of comparative anatomy (not 
based upon the study of wings alone) would certainly appear 
to be more in harmony with the derivation shown in Fig. 2, 
in which the lines of descent of the Mecoptera and their 
allies are represented as quickly merging with that of the’ 
Neuroptera, which soon unites with the main stem of the 
Psocidae and their allies to form a main Neuropterous 
group stem. This in turn merges with the lnes of develop- 
ment of the Plecopteroid forms, which are later joined by 
the lines of development of the Megasecoptera, Palaeo- 
dictyoptera and other insects belonging to the Ephemerid 
group. 

a be mentioned in closing, that the insects related 
to the Neuroptera fall into two superorders, each of which 
contains some insects very closely allied to certain members 
of the other superorder; but each group is fairly well 
defined. Of these insects, the Neuroptera, Lepidoptera, 
Trichoptera, Mecoptera, Diptera, Siphonaptera and the 
Hymenoptera (together with their fossil relatives) may be 
grouped in a superorder called the PANNEUROPTERA (Psyche, 
vol. 25, 1918, p. 55), characterised in general by the reten- 
tion of five segments in the tarsi, the division of the meso- 
thoracic coxae by an approximately vertical suture (which 
is present in the lower representatives of the Diptera, 
despite the frequent statements to the contrary—see 
Crampton and Hasey, 1915, ‘“‘ The Basal Segments of the 


118 Dr. G. C. Crampton on Insects related to Neuroptera. 
Leg in Insects,” Zool. Jahrb., Abt. Anat., 39, pp. 1-26), the 


internal development of the wings, complete metamorphosis, 
etc.; while the Psocidae, Mallophaga, Pedicuhdae, Hemi- 
ptera and Homoptera, with their fossil relatives (and 
possibly including the Thysanoptera also) may be grouped 
in a second superorder called the PANHOMoPTERA (Psyche, 
I.c.), characterised in general by the reduction of the 
number of tarsal segments to not more than three, no divi- 
sion of the mesothoracic coxae (save in rare instances), 
external development of the wings, and practically no 
marked metamorphosis. There are some exceptions; but 
for the most part, these characters hold good for the more 
primitive representatives of each group. 


Ge 3 


VI. On the types of Oriental Carabidae im the British 
Museum, and in the Hope Department of the Oxford 
Unversity Museum. By H. E. ANDREWEs. 


[Read May 7th, 1919.] 


By the term “Oriental Carabidae’ I mean the species 
inhabiting India and South-Eastern Asia, including all 
the adjacent islands; the great majority, however, of 
those I shall deal with in this paper come from three 
well-defined areas, viz. Java (Macleay), Nepal (Hope), 
and Ceylon (Walker). 

In going through the literature of the subject I have 
been much struck by the fact that the chief writers on 
it have been very imperfectly acquainted with the ,types 
—fairly numerous in the aggregate—which are in the 
British Museum and at Oxford. The reasons for this are 
not far to seek, for the descriptions of Hope and Walker 
rarely exceed a couple of lines, and as a means of identi- 
fying a species are of no value whatever. Macleay’s 
descriptions, though a little fuller, are also very short. 
Consequently, entomologists, desirmg to discuss the work 
of these authors, could only do so effectively by examining 
the actual types. Very few appear to have thought it 
worth while to do this, though Hope and Motchulsky 
examined the Fabrician types and published their obser- 
vations. Schaum and Chaudoir both also saw the British 
Museum collections, but they relate next to nothing of 
what they saw there. 

When H. W. Bates was writing his paper on the Cara- 
bidae collected by Mr. George Lewis in Ceylon, he was 
obliged to take note of Walker’s work, though he evidently 
did so with reluctance. Walker’s types are consequently 
better known than Hope’s or Macleay’s, though there 
still remains a good deal to clear up about them. 

I propose to give a list of all the types I have been 
able to see, author by author, giving the synonymy where 
the species have been redescribed by later writers, and 
additional descriptions where they seem necessary. Such 
descriptions, however, are necessarily confined to char- 
acters which are readily visible, for no dissection is possible ; 

TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PARTS I, II. (JULY) 


“ 


120 Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


unfortunately the important mouth-parts are often ob- 
scured by dirt or gum, and antennae, palpi, tarsi, etc., are 
not infrequently wanting. I have tried to give fairly full 
references, and always quote the page of the works referred 
to: I mention this because some of the older writers gave 
numbers to their species, and quoted these numbers instead 
of the pages. In the case of each species I give the modern 
genus, followed where necessary by the original genus in a 
parenthesis. 

I must express my thanks to Dr. Gahan for the courtesy 
extended to me in the Entomological Department at the 
British Museum, to Dr. Marshall for much valued help 
on nomenclature and many other matters, to Mr. J. H. 
Durrant and Mr. C. Davies Sherborn for assistance with 
ancient entomological literature and handwriting, and last 
but not least to Mr. G. J. Arrow, who has been unremitting 
in aiding me to solve the various problems encountered in 
dealing with the older types. My grateful thanks are also 
due to my old friend Prof. E. B. Poulton, who has been 
kind enough not only to afford me access to the collections 
in the Hope Department of the Oxford University Museum, 
but also to bring types up to London so that I might examine 
them at leisure and compare them with other material. 


I. Types in the British Museum. 


LINNAEUS. 


Pheropsophus (Carabus) bimaculatus (Mant. Ins. 1771, 
532). The type of this, the only Oriental species among 
the Carabidae described by Linnaeus is in the Museum 
of the Linnaean Society, where, through the courtesy of 
Dr. Daydon Jackson, I was enabled to see it. It is a 
well-known species, calling for no special comment. I 
believe it to be confined to the southern half of India, 
with Ceylon. A single specimen in the British Museum 
is labelled “ Nepal, and Mr. Lesne (Miss. Pavie 1904, 
Col. 79) records the species from Laos: in each case, 
however, further evidence seems to be required. 


FABRICIUS. 


Fabricius in his various works published déoantivane of 
insects in a great many different collections, so that the 
types of the species described are widely spread. Among 
the more important collections I may mention those of 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 121 


Lund, Sehestedt, Banks, and Hunter; the two former 
are now in the University Museum at Copenhagen, the 
Banks Collection is in the British Museum, and the Hunter 
Collection in the Glasgow University Museum. The col- 
lection of Fabricius himself is in the Kiel University 
Museum. Among the Glasgow types there are none of 
Oriental Carabidae, so that my remarks will be confined 
to the specimens in the Banks Collection. These were 
seen by Hope (Col. Man. ii, 1838, 36-45), and lists are 
given of the Carabidae described by both Linnaeus and 
Fabricius, together with the localities, and the correct 
genera as known at that time. In his preface Hope says : 
“From my friend Dr. Erichson of Berlin I have lately 
received the offer of the loan of his Manuscripts on Fabrician 
Insects, in which are noted down many observations made 
during a careful examination of the Copenhagen Collec- 
tions.” I cannot, however, find any further reference to 
these notes in Hope’s works, nor does Erichson appear to 
have published them. Schaum saw the Kiel and Copen- 
hagen collections in 1845 and published some remarks 
on them. Neither he nor Erichson, however, give any 
intimation that they had examined the Banks Collection. 

About ten years later Motchulsky made a tour including 
London, Kiel, and Copenhagen, where he examined the 
Linnaean and Fabrician types. The results of his examina- 
tion will be found recorded at some length in his “ Etudes 
Entomologiques ” (vol. iv, 1855, 25-71). He seems also 
to have had the advantage of some notes made by Chevrolat 
during his residence at ‘Kiel and Copenhagen. 

Hach of these authors has added something to our 
knowledge of the insects which Fabricius described, but 
there are still obscurities which, as far as the material in 
the Banks Collection goes, I shall do my best to remove. 
Accordingly I give below some notes on five Oriental 
species, and also—for special reasons—on a sixth species 
from West Africa. 

1. Anthia (Carabus) sexguttata (Syst. Ent. 1775, 236). 
This well-known species, which seems to be confined to, 
and is also common throughout India, does not call for 
special comment. It has been redescribed by other 
entomologists under the following names, viz. orientalis 
(Pachymorpha) Hope (Col. Man. ii, 1838, 163, t. 3, f. 4), 
wndica Chaud. (Bull. Mose. 1861, ii, 562), and elliptica 
Motch. (Bull, Mose. 1864, iii, 216), but these are at most 


122 Mr. H. EK. Andrewes on the 


local forms. Some further remarks will be found under 
A. orientalis Hope. 

‘2. Luperea (Carabus) laevigata (Spec. Ins. i, 1781, 304). 
The type of this species was not at first in evidence among 
the other Carabidae, but, knowing that it should be in 
the Banks Collection, I searched through some supple- 
mentary drawers and found it without much difficulty. 
The species was figured by Olivier (Ent. iti, 1795, 36, 7, t. 
2, f. 18) under the name of Scarites laevigatus, and also 
by Lacordaire (Gen. Col. 1854, Atl. t. 6, f. 1). Dejean 
(Spec. Gen. v, 1831, 474) describes it under the name of 
Enceladus laevigatus. In Chaudoir’s “ Monographie des 
Siagonides ”’ (Bull. Mosc. 1876, 1, 74), it is redescribed as 
Holoscelis laevigatus. The species is well known, and, 
like the last, confined to India. 

3. Chlaenius (Carabus) cinetus (Spec. Ins. i, 1781, 310). 
So far as my knowledge goes this species has never yet 
been correctly identified by any of the numerous writers 
who have referred to it, nor does Schaum or Motchulsky 
throw any light on the question. 

The specimens taken by Mr. George Lewis in Ceylon, 
and determined by Bates (Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist. 
5, xvii, 1886, 74) as C. cinctus Fab., agree well with the 
description of this species in Chaudoir’s ‘“ Monographie 
des Chléniens”’ (Ann. Mus. Civ. Gen., 1876, 135), so that 
these two authors evidently mistook the same species 
for that described by Fabricius. Bates puts C. pulcher 
Nietn. (Journ. of the As. Soc. of Beng. v, 1856, 387) in 
synonymy : Chaudoir refers to C. pulcher in the index of 
his Monograph, but as there is no reference to the species 
on the page indicated, we are left in doubt as to his 
views. I think, however, this identification is probably 
correct, and in that case Nietner’s name would stand for 
the wrongly identified species. Nietner’s short description 
leaves some uncertainty, and I do not know where his 
types are to be found. 

Other authors before Chaudoir’s time redescribed the 
species, notably Herbst (Fuessly’s Arch. v, 1784, 135, t. 
29, {. 7), Olivier (Ent. in, 1795, 35, 87, t. 3, £. 28)—who 
tells us that the species is found on the Coromandel Coast, 
and is very common in the southern departments of 
France—and Dejean (Spec. Gen. 11, 1826, 307). As there 
are several closely allied species, it is impossible to identify 
with any certainty those just mentioned until the type 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 123 


specimens are available for examination. Olivier evidently 
had two species before him. 

The type of C. cinctus is stated to have come from 
Coromandel, and there is one other example in the British 
Museum Collection labelled “EK. Indies.” In the Hope 
Department at Oxford there are two examples, one labelled 
“Madras” and the other “ sykes1 Hope, Poonah”’: the 
latter label is in Hope’s handwriting, a curious circum- 
stance, as cynctus has no connection whatever with sykes:, 
the type of which is at Oxford. 

Since Fabricius gave his brief description no other has 
been published and I therefore give a more detailed version, 
amplified here and there by reference to the other specimens. 

Chlaenius cinctus Fab., g. Length 15 mill. Width 
6 mill. 


Head and prothorax green. Elytra black with faint green 
reflection. Labrum, palpi, antennae, legs (except trochanters, 
which are light brown, and coxae, which are dark brown), margin 
of elytra up to stria 8, epipleurae of elytra, and a narrow margin 
round the abdomen dull yellow. Underside black to very dark 
brown, iridescent, the margins of the ventral segments lighter 
brown. Pubescence greyish-yellow. 

Front and vertex sparsely punctate, the latter more strongly 
at the sides behind; eyes moderately prominent. Prothorax not 
quite half as wide again as head, almost quadrate, slightly trans- 
verse, emarginate in front, almost straight behind, the sides rounded, 
sinuate before hind angles, and a little more contracted in front than 
behind, broadest a little before middle; front angles not much 
rounded, hind angles obtuse, but this is because the basal margin 
makes a slight bend forward on each side when near the angle; 
surface fairly flat, but declivous at front angles; puncturation 
strong especially over the basal third, not close, sparse on disk; 
reflexed border very narrow, a broad short shallow furrow near 
hind angles, transverse impressions nearly obsolete, central furrow 
very fine not reaching margins. 

Elytra rather less than half as wide again as prothorax, nearly 
parallel, basal margin straight to base of fourth stria, then bending 
forwards to the shoulder, where it makes a very wide angle with 
the side margin, border narrow and only slightly sinuate near apex 
which is rounded; striae finely punctate-striate, intervals very 
faintly convex; the whole surface moderately punctate, the punc- 
tures laterally confluent, but not close enough to give the elytra 
an opaque appearance. 


124 Mr. H. EF. Andrewes on the 


Metepisterna without furrow near outer margin; prosternal 
process faintly margined; underside punctate, rather closely 
along the sides of the ventral surface, more sparsely along its median. 
line, on the prosternal process and the pro- and meso-episterna. 
Front femora without tooth; dilated joints of tarsi a little longer 
than wide, joint 1 elongate-triangular, 2 and 3 rectangular but 
contracted at base. 

Surface of the body pubescent (type much rubbed), the pubescence 
being much closer on the elytra than on the head and thorax. 
Prosternal process glabrous between the coxae, with a tuft of 
erect hairs at the apex. 


Closely allied to C. chalcothorax Wied., but less elongate, 
with side margins of thorax more distinctly sinuate before 
hind angles; head and thorax more, but elytra less closely 
punctured. Antennae of lighter colour. 

4. Pheropsophus (Brachinus) tripustulatus (Ent. Syst. 1, 
1792, 145). Bygone generations of Entomologists have 
been much exercised over this species. The trouble was 
originated by Westermann, who sent a Javanese insect 
to Dejean as “the veritable Brachinus tripustulatus of 
Fabricius.” Actually it was nothing of the kind, and 
Dejean, in describing it under the name of Helluo tripustu- 
latus (Spec. Gen. i, 1825, 286), indicates his scepticism 
sufficiently clearly. Hope (Col. Man. ii, 1838, 101) re- 
marks: “The specimens”’ [there seems to be only one] 
“in the Banksian Cabinet are decidedly of the genus 
Pheropsophus.” Motchulsky (Et. Ent. 1855, 55) says: 
‘““D’aprés la Col. de Banks cette espéce est voisine du 
Br. marginalis Schonh., mais non un Macrocheilus, ainsi 
que c’est le cas pour l’exemplaire conservé dans la Col. 
de Copenhague.” I gather from this that both he and 
Hope saw the type in the Banks Collection; also that in 
the Copenhagen Collection a Macrochilus figures as the 
Fabrician insect. No further effort seems to have been 
made to elucidate the matter, and among the specimens 
in the Banks Collection I found, indicated as “type?”’, 
three examples of the species at present known as Macro- 
chilus bensoni Hope (but see under OxtvreR), the continental 
representative of Dejean’s Macrochilus (Helluo) tripustu- 
latus. On one of these examples is a note by the late 
C. O. Waterhouse dated 2. x. 1883: ‘‘ These specimens 
were found in the Supplementary drawer at end of Banks 
Coll, with no label.’ The description, however, left little 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 125 


doubt in my mind that the insect described by Fabricius 
was a Pheropsophus, and in going through the supple- 
mentary drawers again I discovered a specimen of that 
genus bearing the label “ trvpustulatus’’—no doubt the 
type specimen from which the description was drawn up. 

In the Transactions of 1901 Mr. G. J. Arrow reviewed 
the genus Pheropsophus, and described some new species. 
He also had the opportunity of comparing specimens in 
the British Museum Collection with some of Chaudoir’s 
types. A specimen labelled “ India (Bowring Coll.) ”’ was 
found by Mr. Arrow, after comparison with the type, to 
be identical with Chaudoir’s P. amoenus (Bull. Mosc. 
1850, i, 78). This specimen agrees well with tripustulatus, 
which name accordingly replaces Chaudoir’s. The type 
came from Siam; Chaudoir did not know the locality 
of his P. amoenus. I have not seen any other specimens. 

5. Craspedophorus (Carabus) angulatus. [ suppose few 
species have given rise to such a Comedy of Errors as 
this one. The specimen in the Banks Collection was 
originally described by Fabricius in Spec. Ins. i, 1781, 
302, and the description reappeared in Mant. Ins. i, 1787, 
197, and Ent. Syst. i, 1792, 148. In Syst. Eleuth. i, 
1801, 203, the name reappears, but the insect is a totally 
different one. I am not sure that it has been identified 
with certainty, but there seems little doubt that it is the 
same thing as Dejean’s Pachytrachelus (Agonoderus) oblongus 
(Spec. Gen. v, 1831, 813). 

To add to the confusion another example of angulatus 
(1781) served as type for Pimelia fasciata (Spec. Ins. 1, 
1781, 318; Mant. Ins. i, 1787, 209; Ent. Syst. i, 1792, 
104). I have not had the opportunity of seeing the type, 
but I see no reason to doubt the identity of the two species. 
(See further remarks under the next species Craspedophorus 
reflexus.) 

Vigors next described the species (Zool. Journ. i, 1824, 
537, t. 20, f. 1) under the name of Panagaeus tomentosus, 
and this name was subsequently adopted by Dejean (Spec. 
Gen. i, 1826, 284, and v, 1831, 598) and Laferté (Ann. 
Soc. Ent. Fr. 1851, 220). The type specimen described 
by Vigors is in the British Museum collection. 

It was left to Chaudoir, however, to render confusion 
worse confounded. He first of all described the genus 
Epicosmus (Bull. Mosc. 1846, iv, 512 (note) ) expressly for 
this species. In his “ Révision des espéces qui rentrent 


126 Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


dans l’ancien genre Panagaeus”’ (Bull. Mosc. 1861, iv, 336) 
he changes Fabricius’ fasciata to bifasciata, but the other 
references are correct, and we have Epicosmus angulatus 
Fab. = Panagaeus tomentosus Vig.= Pimelia bifasciata 
Fab. 

Later on in his “ Essai monographique sur les Pana- 
géides *’ (Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg. xxi, 1878, 133), not only is 
the species allotted to a new genus, but the name of 
angulatus has disappeared and we have only Hudema 
hfascratum Fab. = Panagaeus tomentosus Vig. Having 
thus eliminated the correct name and introduced an 
erroneous one, Chaudoir makes his own error the pretext 
for changing Castelnau’s Craspedophorus bifasciatus into 
C. castelnaut Chaud. (Some remarks on Chaudoir’s 
Monograph will be found under the next species.) 

The species is common in South India, without apparently 
extending to Ceylon. There is an example i in the British 
Museum labelled “ Nepal, ” and two examples at Oxford 
labelled “Assam” and “Siam” respectively, but these 
indications seem to me doubtful. 

6. Craspedophorus (Carabus) reflexus. Although this is 
an African species, it was described as coming from India, 
and references to it in entomological literature are so wide 
of the mark that I refer to it here. Before doing so I 
must say a few words to illustrate Chaudoir’s remarkable 
proceedings when preparing his “‘ Monographie sur les 
Panagéides ” (Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg. xxi, 1878). Panagaeus 
was described by Latreille (Hist. Nat. Crust. et Ins. iu, 
1802, 91) and was used for many years as the genus of 
most of the then known species of the group. Hope 
(Col. Man. ii, 1838, 165) described the genus Craspedophorus 
for Fabricius’ Cychrus reflecus, and, although his reference 
to the species is erroneous, his description of the genus 
shows clearly that he had the type before him, and more- 
over he gives (t. 3, f. 1) a figure, which, except for the 
outline of the thorax, fairly represents it. Two years 
later Castelnau (Hist. Nat. Ins. 1, 1840, 137) indicated 
rather than described his genus Hudema for Panagaeus 
regalis Gory (Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1833, 213) from Senegal 
and C. reflecus Fab., which he makes a synonym of P. 
nobilis Dej. (Spec. Gen. v, 1831, 598) from the Cape of 
Good Hope; the two last-named species are quite different 
and probably it was P. nobilis he had before him. Chaudoir 
(Bull. Mosc. 1846, iv, 512 (note)) described his genus 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 127 


Epicosmus for P. tomentosus, by which we must under- 
stand Carabus angulatus Fab. (1781). I need not go any 
further than this with the various genera included. in the 
group. 

With this material to work on, together with some more 
modern genera, Chaudoir hit upon the following ingenious 
expedient. “Pour éviter de créer des noms nouveaux, 
j'ai approprié a chacune des divisions que j’ai introduites 
dans les grands Panagaeus a tarses simples un de ceux 
qui ont déja été proposés” (Mon. p. 90). Under this 
scheme of “appropriation” Hudema was attached to 
angulatus Fab. (1781) (under the guise of bifasciatus), 
Craspedophorus got the African species with a raised 
thoracic margin, while Hpicosmus (the reference to which 
is misquoted by its author) got the Indian and African 
species with narrower thorax and without raised margin. 
These names do not seem to me to indicate more than 
divisions of one genus, which should bear Hope’s name of 
Craspedophorus. 

Coming now to the species, we find that Fabricius him- 
self made an unfortunate blunder. Carabus reflecus was 
first described in Spec. Ins. i, 1781, 303, and the description 
is followed by the words “ Coromandel, Mus. Dom. Banks.” 
This is repeated in Mant. Ins. 1, 1787, 197, and Ent. Syst. 
i, 1792, 147. In Syst. Eleuth. i, 1801, 166, the species is 
put under the genus Cychrus, and followed by two refer- 
ences: (1) Carabus reflerus, Ent. Syst. 1, 1792, 147; 
(2) Pimelia fasciata, Ent. Syst. 1, 1792, 104. We then read 
with surprise: ‘‘ Habitat in Germania, Mus. Dom. Lund.” 
Fabricius, as we learn from Hope (Col. Man. 11, 1838, 165), 
labelled another species Carabus reflecus; Hope proposed 
the name of Panagaeus fabrici for this, but did not describe 
it. The specimen (which belongs to Schaum’s species Craspe- 
dophorus (Isotarsus) mandarinus, Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1853, 
436) is at Oxford, and Mr. Durrant identifies the Fabrician 
handwriting on the label. Fabricius had not therefore 
a very clear picture in his mind of his own species, and I 
think it almost certain that his memory was at fault again 
when he apparently identified a specimen in the Lund 
Collection as his own C. reflecus. Illiger (Mag. fiir Ins. 1, 
1802, 345) seems first to have drawn attention to the fact 
that “Germania” was an obvious mistake, and he tells 
us also that the specimen of C. reflexus in the Hellwig- 
Hofimannsegg Collection came from Sierra Leone. The 


128 Mr. H. KE. Andrewes on the 


fact appears to be that Cychrus reflexus (1801) = Pimelia 
fasciata (1792) = Carabus angulatus (1781). Both Hope 
(Col. Man. 1, 1838, 66 and 92) and Schaum (Stett. Ent. 
Zeit. 1847, 42) go into the matter, though they do not 
bring out all the facts. Hope (l.c. 66) proposed the genus 
Camptoderus for C. reflecus Fab., but did not describe it; 
by the time he got to p. 165 he seems to have forgotten 
about this, and without explanation proposed and briefly 
described the genus Craspedophorus for the same insect. 
Motchulsky (Et. Ent. 1855, 69) went quite astray, and 
Mr. Alluaud, who has quite recently published descriptions 
of new African species of Eudema (Bull Soc. Ent. Fr. 1915, 
152), has unfortunately followed him rather than Hope 
and Schaum. 

I give a description of the species, but the type is de- 
fective. Fortunately there is in the British Museum 
Collection another example labelled ‘“ W. Africa,” and 
this has enabled me to add some details which would 
otherwise have been wanting. 

Craspedophorus reflexus Fab. Length 29 mill. Width 
9 mill. 


Elongate, prothorax roughly sculptured, with widely reflexed 
margins. Black, elytra with four transverse orange spots, the 
apical margin of the last joint of all the palpi yellow. 

Head elongate, width 3°5 mill., labrum a little emarginate, clypeal 
suture invisible, middle of the head between the antennae raised, 
smooth, and polished, rugose and coarsely punctured in the frontal 
furrows and on the vertex. Mentum wide, with a short truncated 
tooth. Mandibles short and strong, hooked at the tip. Hope’s 
figures for these parts (I.c. t. 3, f. la and 1b) are fairly good. Maxillae 
strongly curved at tip, elongate and very sharp. The type has lost 
all the palpi, but they are present in the second specimen and are 
very long. The ante-penultimate joint of the maxillaries is about 
as long as the first joint of the antennae, the penultimate joint 
of both pairs two-thirds of this length, and the apical joint three- 
quarters. The outer margin of the apical joint is three times as 
long as the inner one, and the apical margin is slightly hollowed 
out; this joint is almost identical in both maxillaries and labials. 
The type has lost all but the first joint of the antennae, but in the 
second specimen joint 3 = 14+ 2= 4+ 5, but 1 is twice as long 
as 2, and 4 is very slightly shorter than 5. 

The representation of the prothorax in Hope’s figure is poor. 
Width 7 mill., length 5:5 mill.; front margin a little sinuate, hind 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 129 


margin straight (except at sides), more rounded than is shown in 
the figure, more contracted in front than behind, sinuate before 
hind angles; front angles rounded and hardly prominent, hind 
ones also rounded with a minute indentation at the angles; sides 
broadly reflexed, especially towards base; median furrow rather 
faint; the whole surface covered with large confluent punctures, 
giving it a very rough appearance. 

Elytra long, nearly parallel, shoulders not very much rounded ; 
border narrow, a little sinuate before apex; punctate-striate, striae 
deep, intervals convex and closely punctured, third interval with 
three punctures, 1 just before middle, 2 and 3 close together at 
about two-thirds from base; front orange spot narrow, transverse, 
at one-fourth from base, covering intervals 4-8 (in the type a little 
colour shows on 3), the colour on 6 extending furthest towards 
apex, and on 8 towards base, though in each case only a little 
way; hind spot at three-fourths, resembling front one, but colour 
extending furthest towards base on 6 (in the type hardly any colour 
is visible on 3 or 8). Episterna and sides of sterna and ventral 
surface very coarsely punctate, metepisterna rather longer than 
wide, median line of body finely but sparsely punctate and a little 
transversely rugose, prosternal process indistinctly bordered, front 
margin of ventral segments apparently not crenulate, a few large 
punctures on each side of last one, a little removed from margin. 


I have compared the type with a specimen of C. regalis 
Gory (Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1833, 213), to which’ it seems 
nearly related. The insect is smaller, the prothorax has 
not the Lebia-like produced base of C. regalis, the punctura- 
tion of the elytra is closer and finer, the yellow bands are 
narrower, extending inwards to stria 3 only, instead of 
to 1 in front and 2 behind as in regalts. 


OLIVIER. 


There is in the Banks Collection the type of a Carabid 
described by Olivier under the name of Carabus trimacu- 
latus. It bears no locality label, and Olivier did not know 
where it came from. It is probably due to this fact that 
the species has been overlooked, and no references to 
it have, as far as I know, appeared in entomological 
literature. 

Macrochilus (Carabus) trimaculatus (Enc. Méth. Ins. ii, 
1790; 347, t.179,f. 11; Kut. m, 1795,:35, 88, t..7, £. 85). 
An examination of this insect showed at once that it was 
identical with Hope’s Macrochilus bensoni (Col. Man. ui, 

TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PARTI, 11. (JULY) K 


130 Mr. H. EK. Andrewes on the 


1838, 166, t. 1, f. 5). As I shall discuss this species under 
the heading Horn, I will refer readers to my remarks 
there, and also to some remarks under Fasricrus (Phero- 
psophus tripustulatus). Olivier’s name being much older 
than Hope’s must, of course, replace the latter. 

Chaudoir has also described an Indian species under 
the name of Macrochilus (Acanthogenius) trimaculatus 
(Rev. et Mag. Zool. 1872, 171), and for this I propose the 
name of M. chaudoiri. 


KIRBY. 


There are three of Kirby’s types in the British Museum, 
and the descriptions of all of them appeared in the trans- 
actions of the Linnaean Society. 

1. Calosoma chinense (Trans. Linn. Soc. xii, 1818, 379). 
Redescribed by Dejean (Spec. Gen. v, 1831, 563), and 
referred to by various authors. The species is a well- 
known one and appears to be common in China. Bates 
records it from Japan (Trans. Ent. Soc. 1883, 232), and 
also informs us (Entom. xxiii, 1890, 212) that it occurs as 
far North as the River Amur. Motchulsky’s C. aeneum 
(Bull. Mosc. 1859, iv, 489) from the Amur may be the 
same species. 

2. Catascopus hardwicki (Trans. Linn. Soc. xiv, 1825, 
98, t. 3, f. 1). The type of this species, which is also the 
genotype, came from “ India,” and the only other example 
I have seen, which bears no locality-label, is in the Hope 
Collection, at Oxford. The locality from which the type 
came is a little mysterious. Kirby says: “ The individual 
specimen here described being transfixed by the same 
peculiar pin which Major-Gen. Hardwicke used for all the 
small insects that he collected in India (many of which 
he gave to the late Mr. Marsham, at whose sale I purchased 
it), I think I am warranted in my conjecture that this was 
one of them.” We know that Hope described a number 
of Carabidae taken by Gen. Hardwicke in Nepal, and there 
is some probability, therefore, that Kirby’s specimen came 
from the same locality. 

It was assumed by Dejean (Spec. Gen. i, 1825, 329) and 
by Schmidt-Goebel (Faun. Col. Birm.. 1846, 81) that 
Kirby’s species was identical with Wiedemann’s C. (Car- 
abus) facialis (Zool. Mag. i, 3, 1819, 165), which is far 
from being the case. Chaudoir in his two discourses on 
Catascopus (Berl. Ent. Zeit. 1861, pp. 116-23, and Rev. et 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 131 


Mag. Zool. 1872, pp. 244-50) did not think it worth while 
to refer to the type of the genus. I give a detailed descrip- 
tion, as Kirby’s brief diagnosis appears to be the only one 
extant. 

Catascopus hardwicki. Length 9 mill. Width: head 
2°0, prothorax 1°75, elytra 3°25 mill. 


Piceous, upper surface of head and prothorax dark blue, sides 
of elytra dark aeneous green, mouth-parts (except mandibles), 
femora, and trochanters brownish. Surface finely shagreened. 

Head wide, shiny, finely rugose with faint puncturation, smooth 
on neck, bicarinate on each side, inner ridge running forward to 
end of clypeal suture, frontal margin almost straight in middle, 
with a fine short longitudinal incised line running backwards from 
its centre, its sides forming angular projections; clypeus smooth, 
emarginate, with a seta on each side, labrum porrect, rounded in 
front, with a small excision, eyes very prominent, mandibles strong, 
hooked at tip. 

Prothorax a little wider than long, widest at a fourth from apex, 
slightly emarginate in front and bisinuate at base, sides bordered 
and reflexed, with pores at a third from apex and on hind angle 
(setae abraded), gently rounded in front, strongly and widely 
sinuate behind, front angles very little rounded, but not projecting, 
hind angles acute, projecting laterally, and a little reflexed, base 
bordered (except in middle); front transverse impression shallow, 
basal one deep, median line deep, forming elongate foveae at ex- 
tremities, reaching base but not apex, basal foveae deep, rounded, 
close to hind angles; surface shiny with fine cross wrinkles and 
extremely fine scattered puncturation, the course of the front 
transverse impression finely rugose. 

Elytra short, square, parallel, about three times as long as thorax, 
shoulders well marked, margin finely bordered, sinuate at a third 
from base, obliquely truncate at apex, truncature slightly emarginate, 
outer angle quite rounded, inner angle narrowly truncate, extreme 
apex fairly sharp; striae almost impunctate on disk, strongly 
punctured at sides, 3 with three punctures at a fifth, a half, and 
four-fifths from base respectively, a short striole between 1 and 
suture, intervals smooth, the three inner ones fairly flat, 4 raised 
at base and again in middle, leaving a depressed area at about a 
third from base, which extends on to the adjoining intervals, 5 and 
6 narrower, the former carinate on its middle third, 7 very narrow, 
carinate throughout, a marginal series of large umbilicate punctures, 
interrupted in middle, one or two very long setae issuing from them 
(others probably abraded). 


132 Mr. H. KE. Andrewes on the 


Underside (as far as it can be seen) smooth, prosternal process 
very finely bordered at apex, metepisterna elongate. 


The elytra differ in colour from those of C. facialis Wied., 
and the size is much smaller, head with two carinae on 
each side (instead of one), front angles of prothorax less 
projecting, hind angles acute and projecting (instead of 
right), elytra shorter, fourth interval depressed near base, 
outer angles of apical truncature rounded instead of 
toothed. 

3. Hexagonia terminata (Trans. Linn. Soc. xiv, 1825, 
564). Kirby’s genus was subsequently described by 
Dejean (Spec. Gen. v, 1831, 288) under the name of T'rigono- 
dactyla. It has been dealt with by numerous authors, 
the latest of whom, Commandant Dupuis, gives details 
of the genus and a list of the species and their synonymy 
(Gen. Ins. Hexagoniinae 1913, 2). In this list we read, 
“19? (Description insuffisante) H. terminata Kirby, etc.,” 
from which the casual inquirer is left in some doubt whether 
the genotype belongs to the genus at all. Kirby’s descrip- 
tion is certainly a very poor one, as was pointed out by 
Schmidt-Goebel (Faun. Col. Birm. 1846, 50), who discusses 
both genus and species at some length. lLacordaire (Gen. 
Col. 1, 1854, Atl. t. 3, f. 1) gives a figure alleged to be 
Trigonodactyla terminata Kirby; in the “ Explication des 
planches,” however, it appears correctly as 7. terminata 
De}. (= terminalis Mun. Cat.), an African species. 

This type, like the last, was bought by Kirby at Mar- 
sham’s sale, and, as it was pinned in the same way, he 
assumed—probably rightly—that it came from India. 
I have seen another example from Munshiganj (Bengal) 
in the Pusa Collection, and Mr. Vitalis de Salvaza has taken 
a third specimen at Vientiane in Laos. 

I give below a fresh description of the species. 

Hexagonia terminata, 9. Length 9 mill. Width: head 
and, prothorax 1°75, elytra 3:0 mill. 


Piceous, basal two-thirds of elytra, epipleurae of elytra, first two 
joints of antennae, femora, trochanters, and apex of last ventral 
segment testaceous, margins of prothorax (narrowly), mandibles, 
middle of metasternum, abdomen, tibiae, and tarsi reddish-brown, 
joints 3-11 of antennae fuscous. 

Head flat, wide, smooth, shiny, hexagonal, gradually contracted 
behind eyes for a distance about equal to their diameter, then sharply 
constricted into a narrow neck, which forms a peduncle; frontal 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 133 


impressions extending from mid-eye level to the front margin of 
clypeus, gradually contracted in front, and bounded outwardly by 
a ridge, area between them slightly depressed, clypeal suture well 
marked, front margin of clypeus faintly emarginate, a seta on each 
side, labrum truncate, 6-setose; a narrow furrow running along 
inner margin of eye, widening behind eye and turning obliquely 
inwards for a short distance, just beyond its termination a large 
shallow pore. (These pores are no doubt setiferous, as in other 
species, but the setae, as in the case of the front supra-orbital pores, 
have vanished). Mandibles small, sharp, eyes moderately prominent, 
front margin close to buccal fissure; antennae reaching base of 
thorax, setose from first third of joint 4, 2 very short, rest about 
equal, but 3 a little shorter and 4 a little longer than the rest. 

Prothorax more or less hexagonal, flat, widest at two-fifths from 
apex, truncate in front and behind, front angles adjoining neck 
and quite inconspicuous, margin finely bordered, forming an obtuse 
angle a little before middle, strongly arcuate in front of this, straight 
behind, but sinuate near hind angle, which is right, a (presumably 
setiferous) pore at side angle, none visible at basal angle; trans- 
verse impressions obsolete, median line deep and wide, almost 
reaching extremities, basal foveae elongate, a ridge running inside 
border from near basal angle to near apex, leaving a more or less 
explanate area between it and margin (coloured red), widest opposite 
side angle; surface shiny, a little transverse striation at sides, some 
coarse confluent punctures on base and basal foveae. 

Elytra parallel, rather flat, shiny, base bordered, border forming 
an angle over interval 5, shoulders evident but rounded, margin 
sinuate before apex, striae punctate-striate, a scutellary striole 
between 1 and suture, intervals flat, 3 with three punctures, one 
near base adjoining stria 3, second rather behind middle, and third 
not far from apex, both adjoining stria 2, 5 with a single puncture 
at a third from apex, marginal series interrupted in middle. 

Underside smooth, prosternum and pro-episterna coarsely punctate 
except in middle, metasternum lightly punctate at sides, metepi- 
sterna very long and narrow, smooth, two pores at each side of 
last ventral segment a little removed from margin. 


Compared with H. bowringi Schaum (Berl. Ent. Zeit. 
1863, 73 and 433, t. 3, f. 3) from Penang, this species— 
in addition to its quite different coloration (H. bowringi 
being uniformly piceous)—has a narrower head, narrower 
frontal impressions, bounded by more obvious ridges, 
prothorax much narrower and less contracted behind, 
sides angular instead of rounded, surface less convex and 


134 Mr. H. KE. Andrewes on the 


less smooth; elytra rather flatter, but the pores on intervals 
3 and 5 are deaeolt 


VIGORS. 
One type only,: viz. :— 
Craspedophorus (Panagaeus) tomentosus (Zool. Journ. 1, 
1824, 537, t. 20, f. 1) = C. (Carabus) angulatus Fab. (1781). 
This species has already been referred to among the 
Fabrician types. 


W.S. Mactray. 


Macleay’s “‘ Annulosa Javanica”’ and the first volume of 
Dejean’s “ Species Général des Coléoptéres ’’ both appeared 
in the year 1825, the former during the summer (though I 
have not been able to ascertain the month of publication) 
and the latter in September. Any doubts, however, 
regarding priority are set at rest by the mention of Macleay 
and the “ Annulosa Javanica ” in the “‘ Table Alphabétique 
des Auteurs, etc.,”’ at the commencement of Dejean’s book. 
Macleay’s work does not compare in magnitude with 
Dejean’s; he goes into considerable detail, however, in 
describing his new genera, and, although the descriptions of 
species are often very short and imperfect, we have to thank 
him for making known many insects from Java, the 
entomological fauna of which must at that time have been 
almost unknown. It is unfortunate that the types of 
Carabidae which he described have been so little studied ; 
I hope by my remarks to make them rather better known. 

The collection of Coleoptera and other insects made by 
Dr. Horsfield in Java during the years 1812-1817, and de- 
scribed in part by Macleay, was deposited and remained 
for many years in the Museum of the East India Company. 
It was during this period that it was examined by Hope, who 
in his Coleopterist’ s Manual (Part II, 1838) gives a few refer- 
ences to Macleay’s genera and species, and on plate 2 
figures six of the latter with anatomical details. In 1860 
it was removed to the British Museum, where it was 
certainly seen by Schaum and possibly by Chaudoir. 
References to the collection in entomological literature are 
few and generally take the form of guess-work. Even 
Bates was not exempt from this, though the collection was 
known to and occasionally examined by him. 

I propose to go through Macleay’s genera and species, 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 135 


offering such observations and additional descriptions as I 
think may be of use. 

1. Craspedophorus (Panagaeus) cereus. The type is 
unique. No mention of the species seems to have been 
made until Chaudoir (Rev. et. Mag. Zool. 1869, 116) believed 
that he recognised it in a Javan specimen he had lately pur- 
chased. Nine years later, when he published his “ Essai 
monographique sur les Panagéides ”’ (Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg. 
xx1, 1878) all doubt had been resolved, and we find it figuring 
(l.c. 150) without query as “ Dischissus cereus Macl.” The 
fourth tarsal joint of Macleay’s insect, however, is entire, 
and the genus to which it belongs is Craspedophorus. To 
prevent further confusion I suggest for Chaudoir’ S species 
the name of D. chaudoirv. 

Craspedophorus cereus. Length 12 mill. Width 5 5 mill. 


Black, each elytron with two yellow spots, extreme apex of palpi 
yellowish. Head square, coarsely punctured, middle of front and 
neck smooth, frontal foveae fairly deep; antennae long and slender, 
joint 1 = 3, 2= about two-fifths of 1, the remainder about two- 
thirds of 1 ; maxillary palpi long and slender, labials shorter, terminal 
joint (for the genus) not much dilated. 

Prothorax half as wide again as head, truncate at extremities, sides 
sharply rounded a little behind middle, where it is widest, with an 
extremely narrow margin—not reflexed; front angles contiguous 
to neck, hind angles obtuse but not rounded, with a minute indenta- 
tion in the sides, just in front of them, forming a small right-angled 
tooth; surface a little convex in the middle, flat at sides, even more 
coarsely punctured than the head, transverse impressions obsolete, 
median line reaching margins, a fairly deep fovea on each side of the 
base, within which is a furrow reaching nearly to the middle of the 
prothorax. 

Elytra half as wide again as prothorax, not very convex, a little 
dilated behind middle, margin sinuate near apex; striae well marked, 
finely punctured, intervals finely and moderately closely punctured, 
though leaving the surface rather shiny; front spot extending from 
stria 4 to margin and beyond it on to the epipleura, running a little 
obliquely towards the shoulder on intervals 8 and 9, extending 
furthest towards apex on 6 and 8, hind spot covering intervals 5-8, 
projecting a little towards base on 5 and 6, and towards apex on 7 and 
8. Sterna and sides of first two ventral segments coarsely punctured, 
ventral surface generally finely punctured; metepisterna much 
longer than wide; front margin of ventral segments crenulate ; 
fourth tarsal joint simple. 


136 Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


Allied to C. bifasciatus Cast.; head wider, antennae longer, 
prothorax flatter, less coarsely punctured, sides less sharply 
rounded, hind angles more evident, elytral spots extending 
inwards to stria 4 “only. 

2. Chlaenius (Lissauchenius) rufifemoratus. The species 
is figured on the plate (t. 1, f. 1). Put forward originally 
by Macleay as a subgenus of Panagaeus, Lissauchenius has 
now been merged in the genus Chlaenius. In his ‘‘ Mono- 
graphie des Chléniens” (Ann. Mus. Civ. Gen. 1876, 34) 
Chaudoir retains the name for a small group comprising 
Macleay’s species and his own C. medioguttatus from India, 
characterised principally by the slender labial palpi with 
a widely dilated apical joint and an ovate prothorax. 
Macleay considered his insect very near Chlaenius (Carabus) 
posticus Fab. (Suppl. Ent. Syst. 1798, 57), a species hitherto 
not satisfactorily identified, though Chaudoir (Mon. 55) has 
some remarks on it. Wiedemann’s Panagaeus chalco- 
cephalus (Zool. Mag. 1, 1, 1823, 57), which Macleay also 
mentions, belongs almost certainly to Bates’ genus Pristo- 
machaerus (Trans. Ent. Soc. 1873, 323). 

The type is unique. Chaudoir describes in his Monograph 
(p. 35) a specimen from Siam, which he regarded as belong- 
ing to Macleay’s species. As I am not convinced of this, I 
think it best to give a detailed description. 

Chlaenius rufifemoratus, g. Length 11 mill. Width 
3°5 mill. 


Black, head and thorax dark metallic green; elytra very dark 
blue with a moderately large yellow spot on each, the centre of which 
is at about three-fifths from base; femora (except apex) and hind 
trochanters red, apex of mandibles, first joint of antennae, labial 
palpi and apex of maxillary palpi more or less tinged with red. 

Head shiny, long, contracted at neck, flat and smooth in front, with 
shallow foveae, some longitudinal wrinkles near eyes, and a narrow 
furrow along margins to behind eyes, vertex and sides of front finely 
and sparsely punctured; eyes rather prominent; labrum a little 
emarginate; antennae with joint 1 = 3, 4a shade longer (remainder 
wanting); last joint of maxillary palpi slightly dilated to middle, 
then cylindrical to apex, which is obliquely truncate; penultimate 
joint of labial palpi compressed and slightly curved, apical joint 
nearly as long as penultimate, at base strongly but then gradually 
dilated, flattened, subtruncate, and rather hollowed out at apex. 

Prothorax narrow, not much wider than head, elliptical with trun- 
cated ends, very little broader behind than in front, no sinuation 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 137 


before hind angle, side margins narrowly bordered, flattened out a 
little behind; all the angles obtuse but not rounded; surface shiny, 
fairly strongly but not closely punctate, more sparsely on disk, 
though more closely along median line, the last named fine and 
bounded by the transverse impressions, which are faint, basal foveae 
small but fairly deep, near hind angles. 

Elytra rather more than half as wide again as prothorax, ovate, 
widest a little behind middle, shoulders strongly rounded, as also is 
the junction of the basal and side margins, the latter sinuate towards 
apex; striae deep, finely and closely punctured, intervals convex, 
shiny, rather finely but not closely punctate, pubescence abraded 
except at sides; the spot covers intervals 4-8, transverse, a little 
oblique (outwards and backwards), the colour on interval 6 projecting 
a little towards apex. 

Underside shiny, prosternal process bordered, the whole of the 
sterna and episterna (except outer part of pro-episterna, and lower 
half of meso-episterna) rather coarsely but not closely punctate, 
first two or three ventral segments coarsely punctate at sides, the 
rest of the ventral surface finely and remotely punctate ; metepisterna 
much longer than wide, suleate along outer margin; margin of last 
ventral segment emarginate on each side, a deep setiferous puncture 
opposite the emargination, but some distance from the margin. 
Front femora (3) toothed at base. 


No doubt C. rufifemoratus is closely allied to C. mediogut- 
tatus Chaud., and C. orbicollis Chaud., but until the types 
of these two species are available I cannot attempt any 
comparison. 


3. Chlaenius cinetus. Macleay identifies his species with 
C. conctus Fab. (see above) and C. xanthacrus Wied. (Zool. 
Mag. u, 1, 1823, 51), but it has little relationship with 
either—indeed Wiedemann’s species, which was redescribed 
by Redtenbacher (Reis. Novar. ii, Col. 1867, 9) under the 
name of Chlaenius hiigeli, is not a Chlaenius at all. 
Macleay’s C. cinctus = C. javanus Chaud. (Bull. Mose. 1856, 
iil, 229; Mon. 115), and I strongly suspect that this will 
prove to be identical with C. circumdatus Brullé (Silb. Rev. 
Ent. iti, 1835, 283). If so, the species has a wide range, 
extending from India and Ceylon to Indo-China, and south- 
wards to the large Malay islands. I have no records, how- 
ever, from China or Japan. | 

4. Chlaenius apiecalis. In view of Wiedemann’s C. 
apicalis (Zool. Mag. i, 3, 1819, 166) the name of Macleay’s 


138 Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


species was changed by Gemminger and Harold te C, 
mutatus (Mun. Cat. 1868, 222). The description is so short 
that I give a fresh one. 

Chlaenius mutatus Gemm. and Har. = apicalis Macl., 
36 2 (2 ex.). Length 15 mill. Width 5°5 mill. 


Black, head green, thorax dull coppery-greenish at sides, apex 
of elytra, first joint of antennae, labrum, base of palpi, femora, tibiae, 
and hind trochanters yellowish, remaining joints of antennae, coxae, 
and tarsi brown. 

Head longitudinally rugose at sides, smoother on vertex, neck 
coarsely punctured and a little constricted; labrum slightly 
emarginate ; antennae with joint 1 short and tumid, half as long again 
as 2, 3 a little longer than 1 + 2, and about half as long again as 
the succeeding joints; palpi slender, last joint truncate. 

Prothorax one-third as wide again as head, very little wider than 
long (wider in 3 than 9), widest at middle, equally contracted and 
truncate at extremities, uniformly rounded at sides without trace of 
sinuation before hind angle, all the angles moderately rounded, re- 
flexed side border very narrow, a setiferous puncture at one-fourth 
from base; surface moderately convex, declivous towards front 
angles, finely and sparsely punctured, more strongly and closely 
towards base, which is longitudinally strigose in the middle, a short 
slight pubescence at sides; median line fine, not reaching margins, 
transverse impressions nearly obsolete, basal foveae rather shallow, 
rugosely punctured. 

Elytra not very convex, nearly half as wide again as prothorax, 
widest a little behind middle, margin without angle at shoulder, 
slightly sinuate before apex, which is narrowly yellow, the colour 
extending forwards to a little beyond the sinuation; striae deep, 
minutely punctured, intervals moderately convex, finely shagreened, 
smooth but with a row of punctures with short setae on each side of 
the striae, the two outside intervals and the apical area more finely 
punctured and with a more evident pubescence. 

Underside smooth, ventral surface minutely rugose at sides; 
prosternal process bordered ; metepisterna and sides of metasternum 
with coarse shallow punctures, the former half as long again as wide 
and without external furrow. Front femora (3) without tooth. 


Closely allied to C. cambodiensis Bates. Head narrower, 
more coarsely sculptured, neck a little more constricted ; 
thorax equally contracted at extremities, and more coarsely 
sculptured at base; elytral intervals more convex, apical 


yellow spot a little narrower, colour otherwise uniformly 
black. 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 139 


5. Chlaenius quadricolor. This—one of the best-known 
species of Eastern Chlaeniws—was originally described by 
Olivier (Enc. Méth. v, 1790, 344). Later on Dejean (Spec. 
Gen. ii, 1826, 339) described it under the name of Chlaenius 
orientalis, and Laferté (Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1851, 263) as 
Amblygenius chlaenioides. Motchulsky’s Poeciloistus laevi- 
collis (Bull. Mose. 1864, iv, 348) is probably the same thing. 
It is a common species in India and Ceylon, Bates records 
it from Bhamo, and Mr. Vitalis de Salvaza has taken it in 
Indo-China. I have seen no examples from the Malay 
region, except Java. 

The Chlaenius (Carabus) tenwicollis Fab. (Syst. Eleuth. 1, 
1801, 185) mentioned by Macleay is an African species. 

6. Chlaenius micans. Macleay considered his specimen 
identical with Carabus micans Fab. (Ent. Syst. i, 1792, 151) 
and probably also with Carabus analis Oliv. Neither of 
these species has been satisfactorily identified, and I do not 
know at present where the types are, or even if they are in 
existence. In any case I think C. analis, which came from 
Senegal, may be excluded. Chaudoir (Mon. 62) thought 
C. micans Fab. might be the same thing as his C. hamifer 
(Bull. Mosc. 1856, 11, 209), but that C. micans Macl. (Mon. 
52) was a different species; in this latter view I concur, 
though the evidence furnished by Fabricius’ very brief 
description is inconclusive. With his original description 
no locality is given, but later on (Syst. Eleuth. i, 1801, 191) 
he mentions Bengal. As all the examples of Macleay’s 
species which I have seen come from the Malay region, I 
redescribe it under the name of C. macleayt. 

Chlaenius macleayi=—C. micans Macl., ¢. Length 11 
mill. Width 4 mill. 


Black, head and thorax dark green, elytra black with greenish 
reflection, a comma-shaped spot at apex of elytra, two first joints of 
antennae, basal joint and apex of palpi, front margin of labrum, apex 
of ventral surface, legs (except coxae) reddish yellow; margin of 
thorax, coxae, and remaining joints of antennae and palpi brown. 

Head finely punctured, nearly smooth in front with faint longi- 
tudinal striation near eyes, frontal foveae moderately deep, labrum 
truncate in front, eyes prominent; antennae reaching a little beyond 
base of thorax, joint 1 = 4, a little longer than 3, twice as long 
as 2; last joint of palpi not dilated. 

Prothorax quadrate, one-third as wide again as head, a little more 
contracted in front than behind, truncate at extremities, rounded at 


140 Mr. H. EH. Andrewes on the 


sides, without trace of sinuation before hind angles, which, like the 
front angles, are rounded; sides finely bordered, with a seta near 
base; surface moderately convex, declivous towards front angles, 
fairly strongly but not closely punctate on disk, more closely at sides 
of base, an irregular row of punctures on each side of median line, 
which is very fine and does not reach the margins, faintly pubescent 
near hind angles; transverse impressions very slight, a short longi- 
tudinal furrow on each side of base, and rather distant from basal 
margin. ‘ 

Elytra not very convex, width compared with prothorax as 5 to 3, 
margin rounded at shoulder, slightly sinuate before apex, striae fairly 
deep, punctured, intervals rather flat, very closely and finely 
punctate, the whole surface covered with a dense short greyish 
pubescence; apical spot covering apex and running back narrowly 
to the marginal sinuation, whence (leaving the margin) it extends 
backwards on intervals 6, 7, and 8, and in front sends an arm inwards 
to stria 3. 

Underside smooth, shining, prosternal process faintly bordered 
at apex, a few punctures on middle of prosternum, metasternum with 
a few coarse punctures at sides, metepisterna nearly smooth, half as 
long again as wide, with a furrow along outer margin. Front 
femora (3) without tooth. 


The species is evidently extremely close to C. bihamatus 
Chaud., but is a little smaller than specimens in my collec- 
tion which I identify with Chaudoir’s species; the hind 
angles of prothorax more evident, surface rather more 
closely punctured, elytra darker, apical spot smaller. 

In addition to the type there are specimens in the British 
Musuem Collection from Borneo, labelled ‘‘ Sarawak,” 
‘“Sanga-Sanga,” and “Kuching.” In these, the pro- 
thorax is more contracted behind than in the type, and 
the elytral spot is rather smaller—indeed, in one example 
it is reduced to only half the normal length, and does not 
nearly reach the apex. As the species is apparently a 
variable one,.it may prove that it is really identical with 
C’. bihamatus, but this can only be settled when the type of 
the latter is available for comparison. As Chaudoir’s de- 
scription is a short one, I shall in any case have done no 
harm in giving a fuller one. 

It may be worth while pointing out here that when 
C. bihamatus was described (Bull. Mose. 1856, i, 210) 
Chaudoir said he had received two examples taken by Capt. 
Boys in N. India, and another from Tranquebar; C. hamifer 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 141 


(l.c. 209) was said to come from Java. In the Monograph 
(Ann. Mus. Civ. Gen. 1876, 62) he tells us that he has two 
examples of C. bihamatus from Java and one from Hong- 
Kong, while C. hamifer now inhabits “ toute la presqwile 
Cisgangétique.”’ It is evident to me that in 1856 he trans- 
posed the localities, but no word of this appears in the 
Monograph, where the necessary rectification is made. 

7. Chlaenius flaviguttatus = C. binotatus De]. (Spec. Gen. 
ii, 1826, 302). The species has hitherto been known under 
the latter name, for which Macleay’s must be substituted. 
Chaudoir (Bull. Mosc. 1856, iii, 200) redescribed the species 
as C. punctatus, a name which Gemminger and Harold 
changed to puncticeps (Mun. Cat. 1868, 224). Castelnau 
(Notes on Australian Coleoptera, 1867, 62) again described 
it as C. maculifer. A form from the Philippine Islands, in 
which the spots at the apex of the elytra are much reduced, 
broken up into several small ones, or wanting altogether 
was described by Eschscholtz (Zool. Atl. v, 1833, 26, t. 25, 
f. 8) as C. guttatus. 

The species is recorded from Java, Sumatra, and the 
Eastern Coast of Australia; the form guttatus from the 
Philippine Is., New Caledonia, and New Guinea. 

8. Catascopus elegans = C. facialis Wied. (Zool. Mag. 1, 
3, 1819, 165). Macleay supposed his species to be the same 
as Catascopus (Carabus) elegans Fab. (Syst. Eleuth, i, 1801, 
184) = Catascopus (Elaphrus) elegans Weber (Obs. Ent. 
1801, 45), but he was mistaken. Wiedemann’s C. facialis 
came from Bengal, and Dejean (Spec. Gen. i, 1825, 329) 
redescribed it, also from a Bengal specimen (teste Chaudoir, 
Bull. Mosc. 1850, ii, 352) sent to him by Westermann; later 
on (l.c. v, 1831, 452) he referred a Javanese specimen to the 
same species. After examining a large number of specimens 
from all parts of the East, I have come to the conclusion 
that C. facialis Wied., C. elegans Macl., C. angulatus Chaud. 
(Berl. Ent. Zeit. 1861, 117), and C. oxygonus Chaud. (l.c. 117) 
are all the same species. The colour is variable, blue pre- 
dominating in India and a brassy tint in the Malay region; 
as a rule the prothorax has sharper hind angles, projecting 
a little laterally, in examples with a brassy colour, but there is 
no question of a local race, as there is little constancy in 
either of these characters. The species is very common 
throughout 8.E. Asia and the Malay Archipelago. 

9. Perieallus (Catascopus) quadrimaculatus. Macleay recog- 
nised that this species differed in several respects from 


142 Mr. H. KE. Andrewes on the 


his Catascopus elegans, but it did not strike him that 
it belonged more properly to his own next succeeding 
genus. Castelnau redescribed it as Catascopus quadrisig- 
natus (Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1832, 392). Chaudoir proposed 
a new genus, Coeloprosopus, for the species (Bull. Mosc. 
1842, iv, 840), but subsequently withdrew it (Berl. Ent. 
Zeit. 1861, 123). The descriptions of Macleay and Castel- 
nau are both so short that I give a rather more detailed 
one. - 

Pericallus quadrimaculatus, 3. Length 6.25 mill. Width 
3 mill. 


Head and prothorax metallic green, the former bluish on middle 
of front, elytra dull purple with greenish reflections, each with two 
yellow spots; femora (except apex), hind trochanters, and labrum 
red; first joint-of antennae, base and apex of palpi and mouth 
parts generally, apex of femora, tibiae, and tarsi more or less reddish. 

Head wide, finely and intricately wrinkled, longitudinally striated 
near eyes; eyes large and very prominent; antennae long and 
slender, joint 1 thick = 3, 4 a little shorter, 2 shortest of all, 5-11 
equal in length and a little longer than 1. 

Prothorax small, much narrower than head (with eyes), more or 
less quadrate, slightly transverse, a little emarginate in front, base 
truncate; sides rounded in front, then strongly sinuate, with a 
seta at one-third from apex and another at hind angle; hind angles 
acute and projecting laterally, median line fine, forming a fovea 
at junction with front transverse impression, which is faintly marked, 
and then just visible to front margin, more strongly marked towards 
base, hind transverse impression very deep, ending on each side in 
a deep fovea near basal angles; surface finely and transversely 
wrinkled, very finely punctate along front margin, basal area 
(between the transverse impression and the margin) relatively 
smooth. 

Elytra rather more than twice as wide as prothorax, 4 mill. in 
length, shoulders very square, a little wider behind middle, apex | 
widely and obliquely truncate, truncature a little emarginate with 
a small spine at both ends; striae deep, rather faintly punctured,. 
intervals convex, smooth, and finely shagreened, third with 3 pores, 
1 at a sixth from base, 2 at two-fifths, 3 at three-quarters, ninth 
with some large punctures bearing long setae, very noticeable at 
each end of the truncature; the front spot is small on intervals 4-6 
and tapers outwards (in some examples the colour spreads on to 
3 and 7), hind spot larger on 3-7 (sometimes 8), forming on 3-6 
a more or less oval spot, the colour on 7 beginning and ending 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 143 


further towards apex, but overlapping that on 6. (If a series of 
specimens is examined the form of both spots is seen to be very 
variable.) 

Underside more or less smooth, head finely rugose at sides, 
ventral surface finely but not closely punctate, the last segment 
with two setae on each side, emarginate in ¢; prosternal process 
bordered ; metepisterna long and narrow. Front tarsi ¢ with first 
three joints a little dilated, biseriately squamose beneath. 


A little smaller than P. tetrastigma Chaud. Apart 

from the quite different colour, P. quadrimaculatus has 
the head more strongly striated, prothorax shorter, elytra 
shorter, squarer at base, more widened out behind, with 
deeper striae, and hind spot generally much larger. 
- Most of the examples I have seen come, like the type, 
from Java, but I identify with the species examples in 
the British Museum taken by Doherty in Perak and Siam 
(Renong). 

10. Pericailus cicindeloides. Figured on the plate (t. 1, 
f. 2). Brullé refers to it in Audouin and Brullé’s Histoire 
Naturelle (Ins. iv, 1834, 230), and Commandant Dupuis 
(Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg. 1913, 82) gives a table including this 
species and its allies. Macleay thought his new genus was 
allied to Sphodrus Clairv., but this is not the case. There 
is a second specimen (¢) in the British Museum, also from 
Java. As there seems to be no detailed description 
* extant, I give one as follows :— 

Pericallus cicindeloides, 9. Length 10 mill. Width 
4 mill. 


Very dark brown; head and prothorax (above and below) dark 
blue, shiny (neck a little brassy in the type); elytra (including 
epipleurae) violet-blue, opaque; clypeus black, labrum with red 
margin. 

Head broad, smooth on neck, vertex, and middle of front, strongly 
longitudinally striated at sides, and more faintly on clypeus; eyes 
very prominent; joint 2 of antennae short, the rest nearly equal in 
length, 4 a little shorter. 

Prothorax a little narrower than head, very nearly as Jong as 
wide, strongly emarginate in front, truncate behind; sides rounded 
in front, sinuate at some distance from hind angles, then straight 
to base, widely but not strongly reflexed, a (probably setiferous) 
puncture at one-third from apex and another at basal angle (but 
all the setae—if ever present—have disappeared on both specimens) ; 


144 Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the y 


front angles porrect, only a little rounded, hind angles right, strongly 
reflexed; surface finely transversely wrinkled, front transverse 
impression obsolete in middle, forming a shallow furrow on each 
side, hind transverse impression deep, median line deep not reaching 
margins, an irregular furrow running forward on each side from 
the ends of the basal transverse impression and ending in a shallow 
fovea situated midway between the median line and the ‘side 
margin, and at about one-third from apical margin. 

Elytra twice as wide as thorax, and rather more than twice as 
long, short, widened behind, margin narrow but widened out in 
niddle, truncate and emarginate at apex, with a tooth (not a spine) 
at each end of the truncature; surface finely shagreened, striae 
deep, finely crenulate, intervals raised, third with 3 pores, 1 near 
base, 2 just behind one-third from base, 3 at four-fifths, ninth with 
a few large (presumably setiferous) punctures, but the only seta, 
visible (and that one on the second specimen) is close to the external 
angle of the truncature. 

Underside smooth, shiny, head finely rugose at sides, prosternum 
and ventral surface finely and remotely punctate, prosternal process 
not bordered, metepisterna long and narrow, last ventral segment 
with two setae on each side, the outer one on margin, the inner 
one at some distance from margin. (Front tarsi in 3 with three 
first joints slightly dilated, and biseriately squamose beneath.) 


Closely allied to P. longicollis Chaud., but without spots 
on the elytra. Head wider, less constricted behind; pro- 
thorax wider, front angles more, hind angles less prominent, 
surface flatter with deeper impressions; elytra similar in 
shape, but the apical portion less pointed. 

11. Diplochila (Rhembus) polita. Herbst’s Carabus in- 
dicus (Fuessly’s Archiv. V, ii, 1784, 138, t. 29, f. 11) seems 
to be the same species as Fabricius’ Carabus politus (Ent. 
Syst. i, 1792, 146), and was so considered both by Macleay 
and Chaudoir (Bull. Mose. 1852, 1, 67). Herbst’s name, 
however, has never come into general use, perhaps from 
some doubt about the identification, which I cannot at 
present resolve. Numerous references to the species will 
be found in entomological literature. 

The genus Rhembus, under its French name, was first 
mentioned by Latreille (Hist. Nat. et Icon. Col. Eur. 1822, 
i, 85), but it was first described under its Latin name by 
Dejean (Spec. Gen. 1, 1826, 380). Meanwhile Germar had 
in 1824 applied the same name to a genus of Curculionidae, 
and Brullé’s name of Diplochila (Audouin and Brullé’s Hist. 


Types of Orental Carabidae. 145 


Nat. Ins. iv, 1834, 407) now replaces it. (See Bedel, Cat. 
rais. des Col. du Nord de 1|’Afrique, 1897, 102 note (1).) 
Nietner’s Synvphyus unicolor (Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist. 
3, 1, 1858, 180) from Ceylon is probably the same species, 
but I have not yet traced the type. 

The species ranges from India to Indo-China, and 
southwards into Java. 

12. Dirotus subiridescens. The genus is fully described 
by Macleay, who thought it not far from Dolichus, but it 
seems more closely allied to Bates’ genus Onycholabis 
(Trans. Ent. Soc. 1873, 329). The description of the 
species is so short that I am giving a fresh one. In addi- 
tion to the type (9), there are two examples (¢Q) also 
from Java in the British Museum Collection, the 9 taken 
by Dr. Horsfield, the ¢ ex coll. Bowring. I have seen no 
other specimens. 

Dirotus subiridescens, g. Length (incl. mandibles) 9°5 
mill. Width 4 mill. 

Figured by Hope (Col. Man. ii, 1838, t. 2, f. 1): I shall 
refer to the figure in the course of the description. 


Black, iridescent; maxillae, palpi, antennae (exc. joint 3), tro- 
chanters, tarsi, and apex of femora and tibiae red-brown (the palpi 
rather lighter than the other parts); mandibles, labrum, and 
joint 3 of antennae dark brown. 

Head smooth, not so wide nor so deeply sunk in the prothorax as 
shown in the fig., with shallow foveae between the antennae, clypeus 
truncate, suture well marked, a setiferous pore near front angles, 
labrum slightly emarginate, with 6 setae, the outer ones longest; 
eyes rather fiatter than shown in the fig., two supra-orbital pores, 
the hind one distant from eye and rather behind the hind margin 
of the eye; antennal joints approximately equal, except 2, which 
is half as long as the others, pubescent from middle of 4; mandibles 
and palpi very long, penultimate joint of labials distinctly longer 
than in fig., maxillae Jong (but shorter than mandibles) and hooked 
at tip, with a serrate inner margin (not shown in fig.), the teeth 
not very close together, buccal fissure very close to eye. 

Prothorax a little wider than head, much more contracted at 
the extremities than in fig., truncate at base, a trifle emarginate at 
apex, front angles projecting a little, rather sharp, sides sinuate 
before base, hind angles right, side border very fine (apparently 
without setae); surface smooth, rather convex, declivous towards 
front angles, which are near to though they do not touch the neck, 
median line much finer than in fig., not quite reaching margins ; 

TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PARTS I, II. (JULY) L 


146 Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


transverse impressions obsolete, slight longitudinal furrows near 
hind angles, basal area faintly punctate. 

Elytra rather more than twice as wide as prothorax, rather square 
at shoulders, though widely rounded, parallel to three-fifths from 
base, then rounded to apex without sinuation; striae deep, smooth, 
a well-developed scutellary striole between 1 and suture, intervals 
convex, flatter on disk, third with 3 pores, 1 near base (adjoining 
stria 3), 2 and 3 not far from apex (adjoining stria 2), ninth with 
some large umbilicate pores, from which issue long setae (though 
these are largely abraded). 

Underside smooth, shiny, prosternal process not bordered, met- 
episterna narrow, bordered along inner margin, a shallow furrow 
running along outer margin, ventral surface finely and remotely 
punctate, last segment with two setae on each side in 3, a row of 
setiferous pores along hind marginin 9. Tarsal joints smooth on 
upper surface ; in the hind tarsi joint 1 = 5, 2 = two-thirds of 1 = 3 
+4. Front tarsi of g with three feebly dilated joints, clothed 
beneath with scanty white filamentous scales. Fourth joint in all 
feet of both sexes with a thin curved membranous appendage on 
each side beneath, extending underneath from apex to rather more 
than half the length of joint 5. Claws simple. 


As this is the only known species of the genus, I cannot 
compare it with any other, but I may say that superficially 
there is a strong likeness between it and Bates’ Pirantillus 
feae (Ann. Mus. Civ. Gen. 1889, 109). 

13. Colpodes brunneus. Figured in the plate (t. 1, f. 3). 
Macleay’s specimen, the type of a vast genus, is the only 
example of the species I have seen. Macleay was quite 
right in associating his new genus with Sphodrus and 
Anchomenus. In his Monograph of the genus Colpodes 
(Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1859, 359) Chaudoir just mentions the 

genotype, but in his subsequent and much more extended 
‘“ Révision ”’ (Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1878) he ignores it alto- 
gether. Mr. Alluaud (Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1916, 78) has 
recently drawn attention to Chaudoir’s Observations on 
the genus (Mon. 292), which I think worth quoting, as an 
amusing instance of his methods: “‘ On remarquera que 
Jassigne & mes Colpodes une dent un peu variable mais 
toujours bien distincte au fond de l’échancrure du menton 
tandis que Mac Leay dit du sien: mentum sinu simplice ; 
mais comme les insectes recueillis par Horsfield ne parais- 
sent pas avoir été dans le meilleur état, il est fort possible 
que cet organe a été mal observé; si je me suis trompé, on 


Types of Orrental Carabidae. 147 


en sera quitte pour ne pas laisser le nom de Colpodes a 
l’espéce de Mac Leay.” Fortunately the mentum has in 
reality a well-developed tooth, and Macleay may therefore 
rest at peace in his grave. Nothing further having been 
published regarding the species, I give a fresh description 
of it. 

Colpodes brunneus, 9. Length 12°5 mill. Width 4°5 mill. 


Dark brown, palpi, antennae from joint 4, and tarsi a little 
lighter. 

Head smooth, wide, rather tumid, with deep frontal foveae, 
which are longitudinally striate, some faint irregular surface mark- 
ings on vertex, neck quite smooth, clypeus with a seta on each side, 
labrum a little emarginate; eyes very small and very prominent, 
antennae more than half as long as body, joint 3 a little longer 
than 4, slightly curved, a narrow ridge separating eye from buccal 
fissure; mandibles long, hooked at apex, mentum with a strong 
tooth in the emargination. 

Prothorax one-third as wide again as head, contracted rather 
more in front than behind, front margin strongly, hind margin 
slightly emarginate; sides rather widely but not strongly reflexed, 
without visible setae, faintly sinuate before hind angles, which are 
obtuse but not much rounded, front angles porrect, only a little 
rounded; surface rather flat, with very faint transverse striation, 
transverse impressions moderately strong, bounding median line, 
which is not very deep and is interrupted in the middle (perhaps 
an individual peculiarity), hind transverse impression ending on 
each side in a shallow rounded fovea, from which a very shallow 
furrow runs parallel with the side up to the front margin. 

Elytra long, parallel, half as wide again as thorax; basal margin 
bisinuate, side border narrow, slightly sinuate below shoulder and 
more strongly near apex, which is minutely dentate; striae moder- 
ately strong, faintly crenulate, a well-developed scutellary striole 
between 1 and suture, intervals smooth, flat on disk, more convex 
towards sides. Both elytra have pin-holes through them, but 
there are apparently three punctures on interval 3, viz. 1 at a fifth 
from base (adjoining stria 3), 2 just before middle (in middle of 
interval), and 3 at three-fourths (adjoining stria 2); the punctures 
on interval 9 widely interrupted in middle. 

Underside smooth, shiny, prosternal process not bordered, met- 
episterna very long and narrow, surface a little uneven, sides of 
ventral surface minutely wrinkled, last segment with two setae 
on each side. Tibiae not grooved on outer side, upper surface of 
tarsi grooved on both sides, under surface clothed with dense yellow 


148 Mr. H. EK. Andrewes on the 


hairs, fourth joint bilobed on all feet, outer lobe longer in inter- 
mediate and hind pairs. 


I do not know of any other species with which I can 
usefully compare this, the swollen head, small but very 
prominent eyes, and Nebria-like thorax giving it an appear- 
ance unlke that of the other species of the genus known 
to me. 

14. Lesticus (Omaseus) viridicollis. A great stumbling- 
block to the entomologists of the early part of last century. 
Dejean (Spec. Gen. iii, 1828, 183) described a specimen 
which he supposed to belong to Macleay’s species as T'rigo- 
notoma viridicollis : this, however, teste Chaudoir (Ann. 
Soc. Ent. Belg. xi, 1868, 151), belongs to a different genus 
and is identical with Brullé’s T’rigonotoma indica (Audouin 
and Brullé’s Hist. Nat. Ins. iv, 1834, 333). Brullé also 
described a Trigonotoma viridicollis (l.c. 333, t. 12, f. 5), 
which he took for Macleay’s species : this is identical with 
Lesticus buqueti Cast. (Et. Ent. 1834, 77). Some descrip- 
tive notes on the species have been made by Tchitcherin 
(Hor. Soc. Ent. Ross. xxxiv, 1900, 176). It is now fairly 
well known and seems to be confined to Java. 

15. Catadromus tenebrioides Oliv. Described by Olivier 
(Enc. Méth. v, 1790, 324) and subsequently figured (Ent. 
ii, 1795, 35, 17, t. 6, f. 67), this species does not need further 
comment from me. I believe it to be confined to Java. 

Macleay, in an “ Observation,” differentiates his genus 
from Omaseus, but thinks it allied to Platysma and Broscus. 
Without any near Eastern congeners, Catadromus is related 
to the two first-named genera, but far removed from 
Broscus. 

16. Dicoelindus felspaticus. The species is figured in 
the plate (t. 1, f. 6), but has not hitherto attracted atten- 
tion. Schaum (see Berl. Ent. Zeit. 1863, 86) examined 
this insect at the British Museum, and expressed the view 
that it belonged to the genus Abacetus. Chaudoir (Bull. 
Mosc. 1869, 1, 356) was sceptical about this, and quite 
rightly so. 

Bates (Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist. 5, xvii, 1886, 145) 
described a Ceylon species taken by Mr. G. Lewis as 
? Lagarus impunctatus, and six years later (Ann. Mus. 
Civ. Gen. 1892, 365) he formed the genus Arsenoxenus for 
a species taken by Mr. Fea in Burma, to which he gave the 
name of A. harpaloides. Tchitcherm (Hor. Soc. Ent. 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 149 


Ross. xxxiv, 1900, 476) drew attention to the fact that 
Bates’ Ceylon species also belonged to the genus Arseno- 
xenus, and expressed surprise that Bates should not have 
detected this. Actually Bates’ genus is identical with 
Macleay’s Dicoelindus, and his A. harpaloides with D. 
felspaticus. 

Macleay thought his genus was connected through 
Microcephalus with Dicoelus; these are American genera, 
regarding which I can express no opinion. Bates says 
that his Arsenoxenus is allied to Loxandrus. No doubt 
Dicoelindus belongs to the group Pterostichini, but, as 
Bates points out, it differs from all members of that group 
in that the front tarsal joints of the ¢ are not dilated. 

In addition to Java, I have records from Palon, Bhamo, 
Tharrawaddy, and Rangoon in Burma, Jorhat in Assam, 
and Dacca and Sahibganj in Bengal. 

17. Amblystomus (Trechus) convexus. Macleay put this 
insect under T'rechus with considerable doubt. He tells 
us that the unique specimen was even then (1825) in such 
a bad state that he was unable to examine it for fresh 
generic characters. The species is, I think, the only one 
belonging to the genus Amblystomus so far recorded from 
Java. I add what I can to Macleay’s description. 

Amblystomus convexus. Length 3°25 mill. Width: 
head °75, thorax 1:00, elytra 1°50 mill. 


Black, moderately shiny, mouth parts and legs reddish-brown. 

Head wide, smooth, convex, frontal foveae shallow, clypeus 
emarginate, only slightly asymmetrical; eyes flat. 

Prothorax transverse, widest before middle, a little emarginate 
in front, rounded behind, the sides of the base coming forward 
to meet the hind angles, which are obtuse; sides narrowly bordered, 
not sinuate behind; surface smooth, convex, rather flattened out 
near hind angles, transverse impressions fairly well marked, median 
line faint. 

Elytra parallel, shoulders strongly marked, rounded behind 
without sinuation near apex, striae faint and very faintly punctate, 
obsolete at sides. 


The species resembles in form the example of Motchul- 
sky’s A. (Hispalis) fuscescens (Kt. Ent. 1858, 23) from 
F. Walker’s Collection, now in the British Museum, but it 
is smaller and the hind angles of the thorax are less rounded. 

18, Gnathaphanus vulneripennis, Macleay’s genus has 


150 Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


been dealt with by Lacordaire (Gen. Col. 1, 1854, 299), 
Chaudoir (Ann. Mus. Civ. Gen. xii, 1878, 503), and Mr. Sloane 
(Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 1898, 456) ; it was also redescribed 
by W. Macleay, jun., under the name of Pachauchenius 
(Trans. Ent. Soc. N.S.W. 1, 1864, 117). 

The species was figured by Hope (Col. Man. ii, 1838, t. 2, 
f. 2). Dejean described it (Spec. Gen. iv, 1829, 261) as 
Harpalus subcostatus, and Boheman (Eug. Res. Zool. Col. 
1861, 10) as Platymetopus melanarius. It does not seem 
common anywhere, but has a wide range. My notes give 
the following localities :—Ceylon, Kanpa (Central Pro- 
vinces), Dacca (Bengal), Sylhet, Burma, Indo-China, 
China, Philippine Is., Java, Borneo, and Celebes. 

Macleay thought that Harpalus thunbergi Quens. 
(Schénh. Syn. i, 1806, 188 (note) ) belonged to his genus 
Gnathaphanus, but it is actually placed in Dejean’s genus 
Platymetopus. 

19. Gnathaphanus (Harpalus) punetilabris. The type is a 
Q, but there were in all 2 gg and 2 99 in Dr. Horsfield’s 
Collection. Macleay did not realise that the species 
actually belonged to his own new genus. I think it ex- 
tremely likely that Dejean’s Anisodactylus javanus (Spec. 
Gen. iv, 1829, 146) will prove to be the same species. 
Walker subsequently redescribed it (Ann. and Mag. of Nat. 
Hist. 3, iii, 1859, 51) as Harpalus dispellens. Bates might 
have dispensed with the speculations he indulged in 
regarding the species (Ann. Mus. Civ. Gen. 1892, 327) by 
examining Macleay’s type. 

The species is very common, and widely spread through- 
out §.E. Asia, including the Philippine Is. and the Malay 
Archipelago. Both Macleay’s and Walker's descriptions 
are very inadequate, and, although Dejean’s is much fuller, 
I am not quite sure that his species is identical with 
Macleay’s, so I have described it afresh. 

Gnathaphanus punetilabris, 9. Length 13 mill. Width : 
head 3°5, thorax 4°25, elytra 5:25 mill. 


Black, mouth-parts a little reddish; surface dull (¢ rather more 
shiny). 

Head convex, smooth, clypeal suture fine, but well marked, 
ending in a small fovea, from which a fine line runs obliquely back- 
wards to the eye; clypeus with a setiferous puncture near the 
front angles; eyes moderately prominent, antennae reaching well 
beyond base of prothorax. 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 151 


Prothorax flat, declivous towards front angles, moderately emar- 
ginate in front, truncate behind, widest before middle, sides narrowly 
bordered and gently rounded, with a large setiferous pore at one- 
third from apex, front angles a little, hind angles strongly rounded, 
though still quite evident; surface smooth, rather silky in appear- 
ance, transverse impressions faint, median line fine, reaching 
extremities, a large flat round finely-punctate fovea on each side 
of base, the puncturation extending vaguely along margin towards 
front angles. 

Elytra square at shoulders, nearly parallel, sinuate before apex, 
striae sharply incised, finely crenulate, a scutellary striole between 
1 and 2, intervals only slightly convex, smooth, but finely punctate 
close to apex, 3, 5, and 7 with a row of punctures, third with 7 or 
8 punctures all adjoining stria 2, fifth with about 6 adjoining stria 
5 in front and 4 near apex, seventh with about 6 adjoining stria 7 
and all on the apical half of the elytra, ninth with a row of large 
umbilicate pores, setiferous near base and apex. 

Underside shiny, smooth, prosternal process not bordered, with 
a few bristles at apex; metepisterna bordered at sides, much longer 
than wide; last ventral segment with two setae on each side at a 
little distance from margin (2), with one seta only on each side, 
actually on the margin (3). 

Tarsi pubescent on upper surface, and densely clothed with hairs 
underneath; dilated joints of front tarsi in ¢ wide, contracted at 
base, joint 1 smaller and more triangular than the others, joint 2 
largest; joint 5 with setae beneath. 


The species is very closely allied to G. acutypennis Bates 
(Ann. Mus. Civ. Gen. 1892, 328) from India and Burma. 
Hind angles of thorax more evident, as are the pores on 
intervals 3 and 5 of the elytra (in G. acutipennis there are 
no pores on 7), and the sinuation at the apex is less 
deep. A point which Bates does not mention is that, 
whereas in G. acutipennis there are two marginal pores 
on the prothorax, one at a third from apex, the other 
at a fourth from base, G. ibalond has only the 
front one. 

20. Platymetopus (iianmaiaii punctulatus. Macleay left 
this insect in the genus Harpalus because it was such a 
poor specimen that. he could not determine the generic 
characters satisfactorily. The description being very 
inadequate, I give some further particulars. 

Platymetopus punctulatus, g. Length 8 mill. Width 
3°5 mill. 


152 fr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


Very dark brown, with an aeneous tinge over the upper surface ; 
legs (except coxae), base of antennae, and mouth parts red. The 
upper surface was no doubt closely pubescent, as in allied species, 
but this pubescence has largely worn away. 

Head wide, very short, convex, closely and finely punctate 
throughout, frontal foveae shallow, eyes rather flat, antennae 
stout, reaching base of prothorax. 

Prothorax transverse, about a third as wide again as head, rather 
flat, but declivous towards front angles, emarginate in front, nearly 
straight behind, widest a little before middle, sides gently rounded ; 
front angles fairly sharp, hind angles obtuse but not rounded; 
surface rugose-punctate, punctures fine but with many coarser 
ones in addition, transverse impressions obsolete, median line 
sharply incised, but extending over less than a third of the length, 
and rather nearer base than apex, basal foveae wide and shallow. 

Elytra about one-fourth as wide again as prothorax, sides gently 
rounded and sinuate before apex, punctate-striate, intervals flat, 
closely punctate, the odd ones a little wider than the even ones, 
ninth with large shallow punctures, more numerous towards apex. 

Underside shiny, more finely and much less closely punctate 
than the upper surface, ventral surface with an elongate depression 
in middle near base, penultimate and antepenultimate segments 
finely bordered behind. Tarsi pubescent on upper surface; the 
front and intermediate tarsi $ are narrowly dilated, and apparently 
clothed with whitish scales, but their condition does not allow this 
to be seen at all clearly. 


There is a second specimen in the British Museum Col- 
lection, also from Java, which I think belongs to the 
same species; in this there is a seta on the margin of the 
prothorax at one-third from apex, which is not visible in 
the type. 

I have compared the type with a specimen taken by 
Mr. Lewis in Ceylon and determined (I think nightly) by 
Bates, as P. (Ophonus) senilis Nietn. (Journ. As. Soc. 
Bengal, 1857, 11, 150). The two species are very much 
alike, but the Javan insect is a little smaller, the front 
margin of the prothorax is less emarginate, and the angles 
therefore less evident, the surface is more rugose, especially 
on disk, and the median line much shorter (though this 
may be an individual peculiarity), the odd intervals of 
the elytra are relatively wider, and are not more convex 
than the even ones, 

21, Hypharpax (Amara) tricolor, Macleay’s three species 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 153 


of Amara have nothing to do with that genus, which is a 
palaearctic one. His A. tricolor is the 2 of Hypharpax 
lateralis, and I shall refer to it again under that species. 

22. Gnathaphanus (Amara) subolivaceus. 

23. Gnathaphanus (Amara) subaeneus. 

There is one example of each species. I see no reason 
to doubt their identity, and I give a description below. 

Gnathaphanus subolivaceus, . Length 8 mill. Width: 
head 1:75, prothorax 2°75, elytra 3°25 mill. 

Gnathaphanus subaeneus, 3. Length 7 mill. Width: 
head 1°50, prothorax 2°25, elytra 2°75 mill. 


Black-brown, upper surface dark aeneous, rather shiny; front 
margin of clypeus and of labrum, palpi, joint 1 of antennae, tro- 
chanters, tibiae (darker at apex), and tarsi reddish. 

Head smooth, convex, clypeal suture fine, ending in a minute 
punctiform fovea, around which the surface is slightly depressed ; 
eyes moderately prominent; antennae reaching just beyond base 
of prothorax. 

Prothorax smooth, more or less quadrate, rather flat, a little 
emarginate in front, truncate behind, a little narrower in front 
than behind, all margins bordered, but the border is obsolete in 
the middle of front and hind margins; sides gently rounded, without 
sinuation, a (presumably setiferous) pore at one-third from apex, 
front angles rounded, inconspicuous, hind angles obtuse, a little 
rounded; surface smooth, transverse impressions and median line 
very faint, a shallow fovea on each side, which is minutely 
punctate. 

Elytra rather short, with well-marked shoulders, margin obtusely 
angulate at shoulder, sinuate before apex; striae well marked, 
impunctate, a scutellary striole between | and 2, intervals flat on 
disk, more convex at sides, almost carinate near apex, 3 with two 
or three punctures near apex, the odd intervals (especially 3) wider 
near apex than the even ones, 9 with a row of large umbilicate punc- 
tures, interrupted in middle, and a few smaller ones mingled with 
them. 

Underside smooth, prosternal process not bordered, a few stiff 
hairs at apex, metepisterna elongate, bordered, last ventral segment 
with one pore on each side close to margin. Tarsi pubescent on 
upper surface, clothed beneath with a dense brush of hairs; four 
dilated joints (3) in both front and intermediate tarsi, joint 4 
emarginate, joint 1 in front legs equal in length to the other joints, 
but a little narrower and more triangular, joint 1 in intermediate 
legs half as long again as the other joints, in hind legs 1 = 2 + 3; 


154 Mr. H. KE. Andrewes on the 


front tibiae with two or three minute bristles on outer side close 
to apex. 


G. subaenea differs only from G. subolivacea in being 
smaller, and in having a prothorax a little longer, a little 
narrower, and with hind angles a little less rounded. I 
cannot doubt, however, that the two species are identical. 

Closely allied to G. impressipennis Cast., thorax narrower, 
basal foveae and median line much less marked; elytra 
rather more shiny, striae shallower, third interval only 
with punctures, and these only two or three in number 
towards apex. 

24. Dioryche torta. Figured by Hope (Col. Man. ui, 
1838, t. 2, f. 4), I think Macleay is probably right in sup- 
posing that Carabus flavilabris Fab. (Suppl. Ent. Syst. 
1798, 59) belongs to this or an allied genus, though I do 
not know the Fabrician type. Hope took the same 
view (Col. Man. ii, 1838, 90). Motchulsky (Et. Ent. 1855, 
43) put the species under the genus Platymetopus. 

The specimen of D. torta is unique in the Museum col- 
lection, and as it is the type of a considerable genus, I 
have described it in some detail. I have in my collection 
a single specimen, also from Java, given to me by Mr. 
Sloane. 

Dioryche torta, fg. Length 7 mill. Width: head 1°50, 
prothorax 2°25, elytra 3:00 mill. 


Black, shiny, upper surface brassy, labrum dark brown, palpi 
and legs yellow, antennae reddish. 

Head wide, shiny, finely punctate, clypeus emarginate, leaving 
the basal membrane of the labrum exposed, clypeal suture fairly 
deep, ending in a punctiform fovea, from which a fine line runs 
obliquely backwards towards the eye; eyes rather flat, mandibles 
short and very strong. 

Prothorax transverse, not very convex, declivous to front angles, 
rather strongly emarginate in front, nearly straight behind, widest 
before middle, sides rounded in front then quite straight to hind 
angles, finely bordered, the border extending a little way from 
each angle along the front and basal margins, a setiferous pore 
at a third from apex, front angles rather sharp though rounded, 
hind angles obtuse, not much rounded; surface shiny, finely but 
not closely punctate, front transverse impression very shallow, 
hind one rather deeper, median line fine extending between them, 
a large shallow fovea on each side of the base, which is more closely 
punctate than the general surface. 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 155 


Elytra fairly short, with well-marked shoulders, at which the 
border is distinctly angled, margin strongly sinuate before apex; 
striae well marked, impunctate, a long scutellary striole between 
1 and 2, intervals flat, narrow and convex towards apex, where the 
odd are a little wider than the even ones, very finely but not closely 
punctate, 3, 5, and 7 with a series of about 15 larger punctures, on 
3 adjoining stria 2, on 5 adjoining stria 5, and on 7 adjoining stria 
7, 8 a little carinate towards apex, 9 wide—especially behind where 
the sinuation occurs and where there are two or three very large 
punctures. 

Underside smooth, shiny, prosternal process not bordered, metepi- 
sterna long and narrow with a furrow on inner side; last ventral 
segment with two setae on each side, both on the margin and widely 
distant from each other. Tarsi smooth on upper surface; front 
and intermediate tarsi (3) with the first four joints narrowly dilated, 
and apparently clothed with scales beneath; I cannot, however, 
see this as clearly as, from his figure, Hope must have done. 


In the fig. the ligula and labial palpi are badly done; 
the former is very narrow, with two bristles (one has dis- 
appeared), and it is enveloped by the paraglossae, which 
are glabrous, truncate in front, with the angles rounded. 
The penultimate joint of the labial palpi is plurisetose. 

Platymetopus amoenus was described by Dejean (Spec: 
Gen. iv, 1829, 73) from Java, and Bates identified with it 
a number of specimens from Bengal and Burma, some of 
which are in my collection. These insects are evidently 
closely allied to D. torta, but I doubt their identity with 
it, and I am not convinced that Bates’ determination 
is correct. I think probably D. torta= P. amoenus, and 
hope to elucidate this later on. Meanwhile I prefer to 
compare Macleay’s species with D. (Selenophorus) colom- 
bensis Nietn. (Journ. As. Soc. Bengal, 1857, 11,151). Size 
larger, colour very similar—though a little more coppery ; 
head much larger compared with prothorax; latter a 
little more convex and much more roughly sculptured ; 
elytra less elongate, striae deeper, intervals more strongly 
punctured. 

As I have maintained both the genera Platymetopus 
and Dioryche, hitherto treated as synonyms, I ought perhaps 
to say a word or two about them. Lacordaire (Gen. Col. 
i, 1854, 300) made Platymetopus the genus and Dioryche 
(which he spells inaccurately Dyoriche) the synonym. 
Gemminger and Harold (Mun. Cat. 1868, 287) reversed this 


156 Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


process, and in doing so aroused the ire of Bates (Trans. 
Ent. Soc. 1873, 271). I regard the genera as distinct, and 
am glad to find that Mr. T..G. Sloane takes the same view : 
I note, too, that Mr. Alluaud (Bull. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1917, 321) 
seems to have come to the same conclusion. The two 
genera have a very different appearance, but the head, the 
mandibles, mentum, palpi, etc., are very similar: on the 
other hand, there is a striking difference in the paraglossae, 
which does not seem hitherto to have attracted attention. 
I give a brief synopsis :— 


Dioryche. Ligula small, bisetose, surrounded by the paraglossae, 
which are glabrous and just meet above it, at which point there is 
an indentation, their front margin truncate, the angles rounded; 
mentum edentate; penultimate joint of labial palpi plurisetose ; 
upper surface brassy in colour, glabrous, elytra with seriate punctures 
on one or more of the odd intervals; upper surface of tarsi glabrous. 

Platymetopus. Ligula, mentum, and labial palpi as in Dioryche. 
paraglossae with more rounded sides, from which project on each 
side 6 or 8 stiff bristles; upper surface very dark, densely pilose, 
elytral intervals without seriate punctures; upper surface of tarsi 
pilose. 


Among the species originally included by Dejean in the 
genus Platymetopus, there is only one (P. amoenus) which 
belongs to Dioryche. 

25. Hyphaereon reflexus. Hope figures this species (Col. 
Man. ii, 1838, t. 2, f.5), but I can find no further references 
to either genus or species. 

Macleay’s account of his genus is incomplete, and I 
therefore give a few further details, though I have not 
been able to dissect the mouth-parts as I should like to 
have done. . 


Ligula of medium length, a little widened at apex, bisetose; 
paraglossae narrow, divergent, a little longer than ligula, which is 
free at apex; last joint of maxillary palpi tapering, rounded at 
apex, second and fourth joints equal, third a little shorter; last 
joint of labial palpi a little shorter than penultimate, which is pluri- 
setose; mentum with a short rounded tooth (not acute, as in both 
description and illustration), at base of which are two setae ; maxillae 
curved and sharply pointed, with a row of dense hairs on inner 
margin; mandibles long, curved, and pointed. 


Hyphaereon reflexus, 2. Length 7 mill, Width; head 
1:3, prothorax 2:0, elytra 3-0 mill, 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 157 


Pitch black, slightly iridescent; antennae (except Ist joint) brown ; 
margins of labrum and clypeus, joint 1 of antennae, palpi, maxillae, 
mandibles (except apex), apex of elytra and abdomen, and legs 
reddish-yellow, femora rather lighter. 

Head smooth, rather small, labrum truncate, with a few large 
scattered punctures, clypeus truncate, bisetose, suture very fine, 
frontal foveae deep, continued as a fine line towards the eye; eyes 
moderately convex, not reaching buccal fissure; antennae pubescent 
from middle of joint 3, joint 2 about half as long as 3, joint 3 = 1, 
the others a little shorter. 

Prothorax transverse, widest a little before middle, emarginate 
in front, truncate behind, finely bordered throughout except in 
middle of front margin; sides rounded, more contracted in front 
than behind, narrowly but fairly strongly reflexed in front, more 
widely behind, a setiferous pore rather before middle, none at basal 
angle; front angles rounded, hind angles a little obtuse, with a 
minute sharp tooth at apex; disk smooth, convex, and highly 
polished, transverse’ impressions and basal foveae shallow, a fine 
median line hardly reaching base or apex, whole basal area densely 
punctate, middle of front margin finely punctate. Elytra smooth 
and glabrous, rather more than two and a half times as long as 
prothorax, nearly parallel, the border angled at shoulder and slightly 
sinuate near apex; striae welt marked, impunctate, a scutellary 
striole between 1 and 2; intervals flat, more convex towards apex, 
a series of half a dozen small pores on third interval, adjoining stria 2. 

Abdomen smooth, prosternal process not bordered, metepisterna 
not much longer than wide, smooth, bordered; ventral segments 
with a shallow basal impression on each side near margin, a seta 
on each side of median line, the two setae rather close together on 
last segment and a little removed from margin. Tarsi smooth on 
upper surface, joint 1 of front tarsi a little shorter than 2 + 3 + 4, 
hind tarsal joints long, 1 = 2 + 3. 


In Hope’s figure the head is too big and too wide, the 
eyes are too prominent, the prothorax is too much rounded 
both in front and behind, the reflexed margin—which 
should be specially indicated at the hind angles—is hardly 
noticeable; the apex of the elytra is a great deal too much 
rounded, and the whole of it appears to be of a uniform 
dull red tint. Actually the extreme hind margin is tinged 
with red, the colour extending backwards some little way 
along striae 7 and (especially) 8. 

I know of no other insect to which I ean profitably 
compare this one. 


158 Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


26. Hypharpax lateralis, ¢ = H. (Harpalus) dentipes 
Wied. (Zool. Mag. ii, 1, 1823, 54). Hope has given a 
figure of the ¢ (Col. Man. ii, 1838, t. 2, f. 3). It was no 
doubt the different appearance of the sexes, which led 
Macleay to describe the 9 as Amara tricolor (see above). 
Redtenbacher described the species again (Reis. Novar. 
Zool. ii, Col. 1867, 14, t. 1, f. 7) under the name Sagrae- 
merus javanus, and further remarks have been made on 
it by Dr. Veth (Tijds. v. Ent. li, 1910, 305). The genus 
extends to Australia, and has been discussed by Chaudoir 
(Ann. Mus. Civ. Gen. xii, 1878, 496) and Mr. Sloane (Proc. 
Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 1898, 456). The species is apparently 
confined to Java. 

27. Anaulacus sericipennis. Figured on the plate (t. 1, 
f. 4). Both this and the succeeding genus are very closely 
allied to Dejean’s genus Masoreus (Spec. Gen. i, 1828, 
536): further remarks on it have been made by Schaum 
(Berl. Ent. Zeit. 1863, 76), and Chaudoir also discusses it 
in his “ Etude monographique des Masoréides, etc.” (Bull. 
Mose. 1876, iii, 12 and 25). I have seen no other example 
of the species, of which I will give some further description. 

Anaulacus sericipennis, 9. Length 6 mill. Width: head, 


4 


1:3, prothorax 2°1, elytra 2°5 mill. 


Black, shiny, surface of elytra opaque silky; two spots on each 
elytron, legs (exc. tarsi), palpi, and joint 1 of antennae yellow-red; 
border of prothorax, apex of abdomen, tarsi, rest of antennae and 
mouth-parts reddish. 

Head wide, smooth, convex but flat on disk, clypeal suture very 
faint ending in a minute pore, clypeus a little emarginate in front, 
a setiferous pore at each front angle, frontal impressions obsolete, 
labrum 6-setose; eyes prominent, hemispherical, one supra-ocular 
pore; antennae short and compact, hardly reaching base of thorax, 
joint 1 stout, twice as long as 3, which is a little longer, while 2 is a 
little shorter than the remaining joints. 

Prothorax rather more than twice as wide as long, flat, convex 
at sides, emarginate and a little bisinuate in front, basal margin 
gently rounded and bisinuate in middle; moderately contracted in 
front, very little behind, sides finely bordered, with half a dozen 
large pores within the border, from which issue long bristles, one 
of them being on the border exactly at the basal angle; surface 
smooth, transverse impressions obsolete, median line fine, some faint 
longitudinal wrinkles along base, a short fine impressed line on each 
side, nearer middle than side margin. 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 159 


Elytra short, shoulders very square, base exactly equalling base 
of prothorax, obliquely truncate, almost rounded behind, the trun- 
cature (of each elytron) almost straight; striae obsolete, but visible 
on the coloured spots, where traces of punctures can be seen, sutural 
stria more evident towards apex, close to which is a setiferous 
umbilicate pore, while just in front of this stria 8 is for a short distance 
strongly impressed, interval 9 with a row of large umbilicate pores, 
interrupted in middle, no doubt setiferous, though nearly all the 
setae have vanished; surface very smooth and silky. Front spot 
larger than hind one, in the form of a short blunt spearhead, directed 
towards, but not quite reaching the shoulder, and extending to a 
little less than one-third from base, hind margin tridentate, not 
reaching either side margin or suture; hind spot about half the size 
of front one, transverse, extending over intervals 4-8, widest 
externally, projecting furthest forward on 6 and 8, and emarginate 
behind. I am not able to detect any pores on interval 3. 

Underside smooth, prosternal process bordered between coxae, 
but only faintly at apex, which is glabrous; last ventral segment with 
a seta on each side, close to margin. Front tarsi with joint 1= 2 
+ 3+ 4, intermediate tarsi with 1 shorter than 2 + 3+ 4, hind 
tarsi wanting; front tibiae with half a dozen stout spines on outer 
margin, intermediate and hind tibiae with a row of bristles on 
outer margin. 


A good deal narrower than .fasciatus,Schm.-Goeb.(Faun. 
Col. Birm. 1846, 89). Head and prothorax very similar, 
but in A. fasciatus the short sulci on each side of the base 
of the prothorax are broader and shallower; further there 
are only two setae along the border, one at a third from 
apex and one on the border at basal angle. In A. fas- 
coatus, too, the elytra are wider, and the striation is more 
evident, while the yellow markings, which are not in the 
form of spots, cover the whole of the basal area and the 
sides of the apex. 

28. Aephnidius adelioides. Figured on the plate 
(t. 1, f. 7). For further information consult Schaum (Berl. 
Ent. Zeit. 1863, 76) and Chaudoir (Bull. Mosc. 1876, 1, 
11 and 15). The species is a common one and has a wide 
range; it was redescribed from Queensland by Mr. T. G. 
Sloane under the name of Masoreus australis (Proc. Linn. 
Soc. N.S.W. 1904, 535). I have records from all parts of 
the Hast, from India through S. China to Japan, and south- 
wards through Indo-China and the Malay Archipelago to 
Australia. 


160 Mr. H. EK. Andrewes on the 


29. Coelostomus picipes. Figured by Hope (Col. Man. 
1, 1838, t. 2, f. 6). Nothing further has apparently been 
published regarding this genus or species, and as both 
names replace later ones, | must go into some detail. 

Under the name of Drimostoma striatocolle (Spec. Gen. 
v, 1831, 747) Dejean described a species from Senegal, and 
identified with it another example he had received from 
the ‘‘ Indes Orientales.’” A new species was described by 
Nietner from Ceylon (Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist. 3, u1, 
1858, 178) as Drimostoma ceylanicum, and in the year 
following Motchulsky (Et. Ent. 1859, 34, t. 1, f. 6) described 
a new genus and species under the name of Stomonaxus 
sculptipennis. Two years later Boheman (Eug. Res. Zool. 
Col. 1861, 13) published his Drimostoma rufipes from China. 
In 1872 there appeared a memoir by Chaudoir entitled 
“* Essai monographique sur les Drimostomides ” (Ann. Soe. 
Ent. Belg. xv, 1872), in which Stomonaxus was admitted as 
a genus, and sériaticollis De}. appears (p. 13), accompanied 
by the following synonymy D. rufipes Boh., D. marginale 
Walk. (Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist. 3, ii, 1859, 51), 
S. sculptipennis * Motch., and D. ceylanicum Nietn. 
Walker’s species, as I shall mention later, belongs to quite 
a different genus. I think very likely S. sculptipennis 
Motch. = D. ceylanicum Nietn., and both may prove to 
be identical with D. rufipes Boh.; I have, however, no 
means at present of determining this. Bates (Trans. Ent. 
Soc. 1873, 283) records S. striaticollis from Japan, and later 
on from various other Kastern localities. Tchitcherin 
described S. japonicus (Hor. Soc. Ent. Ross. xxxii, 1898, 
14) also from Japan, and two years later (l.c. xxxiv, 1900, 
262) published a paper in which he pointed out (1) that 
Bates’ Japanese 8S. striaticollis actually belonged to his 
S. gaponicus ; (2) that Dejean’s S. striaticollis from Senegal 
differed from the Asiatic species, which in his view should 
bear the name S. rufipes Boh. 

I find that Boheman’s species (though I have not seen 
the type) is identical with Macleay’s, so that a further, 
perhaps the final change to be made is the substitution of 
Coelostomus for Stomonaxus and picipes for rufipes. 

The species is widely distributed throughout 8.E. (Con- 
tinental) Asia, but the type is the only specimen I have 
seen from the Malay Islands. Tchitcherin, however, 
records a local form from Borneo under the name of 
Stomonaxus borneensis (l.c. xxxii, 1898, 13, and xxxiv, 1900, 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 161 


263). Chaudoir informs us (Col. Nov. i, 1883, 39) that the 
species occurs in Australia. 

30. Clivina sabulosa. Putzeys did not know this species 
(Mon. des Clivina et genres voisins, Mém. Liége, 11, 1846, 
577), but he rightly supposed (Révision générale des 
Clivinides, Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg. x, 1867, 119 (note) ) that 
it belonged to his lobata-group. I have not been able to 
identify it with any other described species, so I give some 
further details. 

Clivina sabulosa. Length 6 mill. Width 1:5 mill. 


Brown, shiny, head and thorax a little darker than elytra, tip of 
mandibles black, palpi testaceous. 

Head flat and smooth on vertex, a small shallow puncture in the 
middle, and a longitudinal furrow at each side near eye, bounded 
outwardly by a ridge, neck constricted, clypeal suture well marked, 
clypeus moderately emarginate, without any angle in the middle, 
surface a little uneven near angles, otherwise fairly smooth, the 
median portion of the clypeus is a little in advance of the rounded 
lateral parts, and separated from them by a deep notch, a smaller 
notch separating them on the other side from the frontal plates, 
frontal impressions very deep; labrum truncate, mandibles short 
and strong but acute, antennae not quite reaching base of pro- 
thorax, last 8 joints moniliform, surface of mentum very uneven, 
side lobes truncate in front. 

Prothorax quadrate, a little wider than head, slightly narrower 
in front than behind, bordered at base and sides, the latter slightly 
sinuate, with a seta at one-third from apex, a small tooth with a 
second seta marking the hind angles, a strong groove running along 
the margin between the two setae; surface smooth, convex, some 
rather faint punctures on disk at each side, a furrow separating the 
general surface from the middle of the basal border. 

Elytra elongate, about as wide as thorax, punctate-striate, with 
a long scutellary striole, intervals smooth, convex, 3 with four 
well-marked pores, 8 carinate at shoulder and apex; first three 
striae free at base, marginal channel carried round shoulder to base 
of 5, which joins 4, inner striae not continued to apex, a narrow 
smooth shiny space being left between their termination and the 
apical portion of stria 7. 

Underside coarsely and confluently punctate, more coarsely on 
head, less so on ventral surface, which is smooth in the middle of 
the base, prosternum finely channelled in front of coxae, two setae, 
placed close together, on each side of margin of last ventral seg- 
ment. Front femora strongly dilated, but (excluding the projecting 
TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PaRTS I, Il. (JULY) M 


162 Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


trochanter) with only a small tooth on inner margin near apex; 
front tibiae sulcate, strongly digitate, but without any smaller teeth, 
though the margin is a little dilated behind the digitation, inter- 
mediate tibiae with a strong spine, at about one-third from apex. 


I have compared the type with an example from Ceylon, 
determined by Bates as C. elongatula Nietn. (Journ. As. 
Soc. Beng. 1856, v, 390). 

Macleay’s species is very similar, but lighter in colour, 
the whole surface of the head much smoother, joint 2 
of the antennae wider and longer, thorax less parallel, 
puncturation similar, but no transverse striation, elytra 
shorter. 

31. Searites semicireularis. Chaudoir was unable to 
identify Macleay’s species (Mon. des Scaritides, Ann. Soc. 
Ent. Belg. xxiii, 1880, 127), but I feel no doubt that his 
own S. subproductus (Mon. 90) from Siam is the same species. 
I have seen no other specimen from Java, but Mr. Lesne 
(Miss. Pavie 1904, Col. 63) records the species from 
Cambodia, and Mr. Vitalis de Salvaza has in recent years 
taken it commonly in Tonkin, Laos, and Annam. 

Macleay thought his species might be Wiedemann’s 
Scarites punctum (Zool. Mag. ii, 1, 1823, 38), which comes 
from Bengal and not from Senegal as indicated; this 
seems very unlikely. I find that Wiedemann’s description 
agrees very well with Chaudoir’s Distichus (Taeniolobus) 
puncticollis (Bull. Mose. 1855, i, 47), which ought in that 
case to take the name of D. punctum Wied. 

32. Distichus (Searites) indus. Identified by Macleay 
with Olivier’s Scarites indus (Ent. ii, 36, 1795, 9, t. 1, 
f. 2). This was an error, as the insect belongs to Motchul- 
sky’s genus Distichus (Et. Ent. 1857, 96). No other 
Distichus is recorded from Java, and the nearest species 
seems to be Chaudoir’s D. dicaelus (Mon. 52) from Singa- 
pore. Macleay’s insect does not quite agree with Chau- 
doir’s description, so I give a fresh one under the name of 
D. macleayi. 

Distichus macleayi. Length (incl. mand.) 12 mill. 
Width 3 mill. 


Black, shiny, base of antennae, palpi, and legs more or less dark 
red. 

Head quadrate,*with the front angles rounded, middle of front 
and a small area near front angles smooth, all the rest of the surface 
including the shallow frontal impressions longitudinally striate, a 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 163 


few punctures behind at sides, extending on to the neck, which is 
otherwise smooth; clypeus a little emarginate in middle, with two 
short teeth at the ends of the emargination, and two minute 
protuberances in the middle of it, labrum with 3 setae and a 
median tooth, mandibles large, flat, a little striate on upper surface, 
the inner carina running straight from base to apex; eyes small, 
enclosed behind by the genae, which project outwards to the same 
level as the eye, antennae short, almost moniliform, not reaching 
base of prothorax. 

Prothorax a trifle wider than head, emarginate in front, widest 
just behind front angles, which are rather sharp and projecting, 
gradually narrowed to hind angles, which are faintly dentate; sides 
bordered, a seta at a fifth from apex and another at hind angle, 
basal margin bordered; front transverse impression deep, rather 
distant from margin, median line well marked, not reaching extremi- 
ties, but joining the front impression; surface smooth, base finely 
rugose. 

Elytra as wide as prothorax, parallel, dentate at shoulder, striae 
well marked, crenulate, no scutellary striole, intervals smooth, 
3 with a large setiferous puncture at two-thirds from base and 
another close to apex, 8 and base finely and densely aciculate, 
marginal row of punctures close and uninterrupted. 

Underside, except along median line, finely and densely punctate ; 
paragenae both emarginate and dentate, prosternal process not 
bordered, metepisterna elongate, two setae on each side of last 
ventral segment; front tibiae with two extra denticulations, 
intermediate tibiae with a strong spur near apex. 


Macleay’s insect is evidently related to Chaudoir’s 
D. dicaelus, of which I have not seen an example. The 
latter, however, is smaller, has a sharp prominent tooth 
at the hind angle of the prothorax, which is finely punc- 
tured instead of smooth, while the sides of the base are 
apparently punctured instead of rugose. 

33. Mochtherus (Dromius)  tetraspilotus. Macleay per- 
ceived that his insect did not accord very well with the 
genus Dromius. He thought it allied to Carabus notulatus 
F. (Syst. Eleuth. i, 1801, 201), a species now to be included 
in the genus Craspedophorus, and therefore far removed 
from Dromius. The genus Mochtherus is due to Schmidt- 
Goebel (Faun. Col. Birm. 1846, 76), and it is dealt with 
both by Bates (Ent. Month. Mag. vi, 1869, 71), and by 
Chaudoir in his “ Mémoire sur les Coptodérides ’’ (Ann. 
Soc. Ent. Belg. xii, 1869, 240). The Species is widely 


164. Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


distributed and much described, as will be seen from the 
following synonymy :— 


Dromius tetraspilotus Macl., Ann. Jav. 1825, 25. 

Thyreopterus tetrasemus De}., Spec. Gen. v. 1831, 448. 

Mochtherus angulatus Schm.-Geob., Faun. Col. Birm. 
1846, 76. 

Panagaeus retractus Walk., Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist. 
3, li, 1858, 203. 

Cyrtopterus quadrinotatus Motch., Bull. Mosc. 1861, i, 106. 


It is spread over the whole of the Indo-Malay region, 
including Indo-China, and extends to Christmas Island ; 
I have, however, seen no examples from China or Japan in 
the north, or from New Guinea or Australia in the south. 

34. Colpodes (Lamprias) ruficeps. The species belongs 
to Macleay’s own genus Colpodes, a circumstance he did 
not detect. Eschscholtz (Zool. Atl. ii, 1829, 6, t. 8, f. 3) 
provided for it a new genus, which he named Lozocrepis. 
Brullé (Audouin and Brullé’s Hist. Nat. Ins. iv, 1834, 325, 
t. 12, f. 2) adopted Eschscholtz’s name, but applied it to a 
different species, viz. Dicranoncus amabilis Chaud. (Ann. 
Soc. Ent. Fr. 1859, 350 (note) and 359). Bates quite 
misconceived Macleay’s species, and followed Brullé: the 
various references to Colpodes ruficeps Macl. in Bates’ works 
(Trans. Ent. Soc. 1883, 263; Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist. 
5, xvii, 1886, 147; Ann. Mus. Civ. Gen. 1892, 376) must 
all be read as Dicranoncus amabilis Chaud. Bates com- 
mented on the species freely, and blamed Chaudoir—quite 
rightly—for confusing with it Schmidt-Goebel’s Euplynes 
cyanipennis (Faun. Col. Birm. 1846, 52). Chaudoir, how- 
ever, knew Macleay’s species, and refers to it correctly 
both in his “‘ Monographie du genre Colpodes ” (Ann. Soc. 
Ent. Fr. 1859, 348), and in his subsequent ‘“‘ Révision des 
Colpodes ”’ (Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1878, 376), but he did not 
know the genus ELuplynes, and even went so far as to pro- 
pose the new name of schmidti for Schmidt-Goebel’s species 
(Mon. 360). Chaudoir gives a full description in his Mono- 
graph (p. 348), and I need not therefore give a fresh one. 
Eschscholtz’s example was taken at Manilla. Apart from 
the type, all the examples I have seen came from India 
and Ceylon, and Macleay himself remarks that the species 
appears to be less common in Java than in India. 

35. Callida (Lebia) splendidula. This species is not intro- 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 165 


duced by Macleay as being identical with Carabus splen- 
didulus F., but they are in fact the same, and it seems to 
be only a coincidence that Macleay gave his specimen 
the name already employed by Fabricius. Macleay sup- 
posed that his species was closely allied to Wiedemann’s 
Lebia marginalis (Zool. Mag. ii, 1, 1823, 60), for which a 
new genus Promecoptera was proposed by Dejean (Spec. 
Gen. v, 1831, 443). I have not at present been able to 
identify Wiedemann’s species, but it cannot be very closely 
connected with Macleay’s, which has pectinate claws and 
a cleft fourth tarsal joint—characters which are not 
presented by Promecoptera marginals. 

The following references seem worth noting down : Fab., 
- Syst. Eleuth. i, 1801, 184; Dej., Spec. Gen. v, 1831, 341; 
Schm.-Goeb., Faun. Col. Birm. 1846, 32; Motch., Et. Ent. 
1855, 51; Chaud., “ Monographie des Callidides.” Ann. 
Soc. Ent. Belg. xv, 1872, 113; Bates, Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 
1889, 283; id. Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg. 1892, 233; Lesne, 
Miss. Pavie 1904, Col. 81; Maindron, Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 
1905, 334. 

The species has a wide distribution throughout the Indo- 
Malay region, including South China, Indo-China, and the 
Philippine Is. 

36. Orthogonius picilabriss This genus, named by 
Dejean, was first described in the ‘‘ Annulosa Javanica,” and 
must accordingly be attributed to Macleay. O. picilabris = 
O. femoratus Dej. (Spec. Gen.i, 1825, 281), but Macleay’s 
name has priority. Chaudoir in his “ Essai monographique 
sur les Orthogoniens ” (Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg. xiv, 1871, 122) 
gives priority to Dejean, but he recognised that the two 
descriptions referred to the same species. In addition to 
Java, it is recorded by Chaudoir from Penang and Malacca. 

37. Orthogonius brunnilabris = O. (Carabus) acrogonus 
Wied. (Zool. Mag. i, 3, 1819, 167). The species was also 
described by Dejean (Spec. Gen. v, 1831, 398) under Wiede- 
mann’s name, and its identity with Macleay’s species is 
referred to by Chaudoir in his Monograph (lc. 104). It 
appears to be peculiar to Java. | 

38. Orthogonius alternans. Macleay believed that his 
species was identical with O. (Plochionus) alternans Wied. 
(Zool. Mag. ii, 1, 1823, 52). Chaudoir mentions Macleay’s 
citation (I.c. 102), but expresses no opinion. The species 
of Orthogonius allied to O. alternans Wied., with elvtral 
intervals alternately wider and narrower, seem to me 


166 Mr. H. £. Andrewes on the 


variable, but after comparing Macleay’s type with Wiede- 
mann’s description, and examining a number of specimens 
from different localities, I think the species are distinct, 
and for Macleay’s I propose the new name of O. macleayt. 
To settle the matter beyond doubt, it will be necessary to 
wait till Wiedemann’s type is available for examination. 
Macleay’s species seems to be confined to Java. Wiede- 
mann’s is recorded also from Burma, Indo-China, and the 
Philippine Is. . 

Orthogonius macleayi. Length 18 mill. Width: head 
3°25, prothorax 4°5, elytra 6°25 mill. 


Dark brown, ventral surface and mouth-parts a little lighter. 

Head wide, intricately wrinkled, more lightly behind and more 
deeply in front, a small smooth space in the middle of front, just 
behind which are two short impressed longitudinal lines (possibly 
individual), frontal impressions rather concealed by the strigose 
surface, clypeus truncate in front, its surface raised in the middle 
behind, suture deep; labrum porrect, 6-setose, a little raised at 
side margins; eyes projecting, two supra-orbital setae; antennae 
short, stout, just reaching base of prothorax; ligula bisetose at 
apex. 

Prothorax slightly convex, much wider than long, truncate in 
front, a little bisinuate behind, bordered in front and at base,’ 
explanate at sides, more widely behind, sides rounded, more so in 
front than behind, so that the front angles have disappeared, but 
the hind angles are merely obtuse and rounded; front transverse 
impression weakly, hind one strongly marked, median line faint, 
basal foveae deep; surface rather finely transversely wrinkled, 
more coarsely along base, longitudinally strigose along the front 
transverse impression, explanate side margin uneven. 

Elytra parallel, square at shoulder, a deep impression on each side 
in front of base of stria 4, margin rounded at apex, punctate-striate, 
a scutellary striole between 1 and 2, joining 1 behind; odd intervals 
much wider than even ones, 2 with a single row of punctures reach- 
ing middle, 4 irregularly but thinly punctured up to two-thirds from 
base, 6 more closely punctured (roughly in two rows) up to three- 
quarters, 8 with an irregular row stopping at two-thirds, 3 with 
two large setiferous punctures near apex adjoining stria 2, 5 with 
two or three large setiferous punctures near base, 7—which is very 
narrow—with a row of about twelve setiferous punctures extending 
along its entire length (the setae on these are very conspicuous), 
9 with an uninterrupted row of large punctures, some of which 
certainly have small setae. 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 167 


Underside smooth, prosternal process bordered, metepisterna 
smooth, elongate, ventral surface with a small callosity on each side 
of last segment near side margins, two setiferous foveae on each side 
of anus. Front tibiae dilated at apex into a strong external tooth, 
joint 4 of tarsi bilobed in all feet, spines on hind tibiae short and 
strong but not spathulate, claws pectinate (but hind ones wanting). 


Compared. with Macleay’s type, the examples of O. alter- 
nans Wied. which I have seen are darker and more elongate, 
the hind angles of the prothorax more rounded, the even 
intervals of the elytra—especially 6—more finely and 
much more closely punctured, 7 with only half a dozen 
setiferous punctures. 

39. Drypta lineola. Named by Dejean, this species is 
here described for the first time by Macleay. Dejean 
described it subsequently (Spec. Gen. i, 1825, 184) and the 
name has hitherto been ascribed erroneously to him. It 
is a common species and often referred to in entomological 
literature; it varies a good deal and several local forms 
have been described, among which I may mention D. wirgata 
Chaud. (Bull. Mose. 1850, i, 34), which extends over Burma, 
S. China, and Indo- China, and D. philuppinensis Chaud. 
(Bull. Mose. 1877, u, 262) from the Philippine Is. Bates’ 
D. japonica (Trans. Ent. Soc. 1873, 303) is closely allied, 
but seems a fairly distinct species. Following Macleay’s 
description is an “ Observation,” in the course of which 
he indicates an Australian species under the name of 
D. australis; this may, perhaps, also rank as distinct. 
In its various forms the species is spread all over 8.E. Asia 
and the Malay region. 

40. Desera (Drypta) unidentata. Described later on by 
Klug (Jahrb. 1834, 53) under the name of D. coelestina. 
Both descriptions are so inadequate that I give a more 
detailed one. The species is apparently confined to Java. 

Desera unidentata. Length 11°5 mill. Width: head 
1°6, prothorax 1:4, elytra 3:5 mill. 


Dark blue, elytra blue-black ; femora (except apex) and trochanters, 
palpi, antennae (joint 1 at base only, joint 3 at base and apex) red; 
mandibles and tarsi brown; apex of femora, tibiae, joint 1 of 
antennae (except base) and a ring round joint 3 black. Covered 
throughout with short grey pubescence. 

Head elongate, rather flat, closely, coarsely, and confluently 
punctate, with a very small, smooth area in middle of front, neck 


168 Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


smooth, clypeal suture fine, labrum with front margin arcuate, 
two large pores with long setae at each end, a smaller one on each 
side in the middle, mandibles strong and elongate, palpi very long 
and slender, last joint securiform and obliquely truncate, much 
larger in the maxillaries than in the labials, joint 1 of antennae very 
long = 2 to 6 (about) taken together, eyes prominent, distant 
beneath from buccal fissure. 

Prothorax nearly twice as long as wide, more or less cylindrical, 
widest at middle, densely and coarsely punctate, more coarsely 
than head, punctures strongly confluent at sides; sides nearly 
parallel, moderately constricted at a third from base, side margin 
well marked in middle only. 

Elytra elongate, shoulders strongly rounded, a little widened 
towards apex, where truncate, outer angle with a short strong tooth, 
sutural angle fairly sharp but not toothed; punctate-striate with a 
long scutellary striole between 1 and suture; intervals closely 
punctate, the punctures much finer than on head and prothorax. 

Underside shiny, more finely punctured, and with finer pubescence 
than upper side; last ventral segment apparently with one large 
setiferous puncture on each side, but owing to the puncturation and 
pubescence this is not easy to see. Joint 4 of all the tarsi strongly 
bilobed; claws finely pectinate. 


Colour bluer and darker than in D. geniculata Klug (Jahrb. 
1834, 52), without any brassy tint, and with black tibiae. 
Head, prothorax, and elytra all longer, surface rougher 
and more strongly punctate throughout, outer angle of 
truncature dentate—not merely sharply angled, joint 1 
of antennae relatively longer. 

In an ‘“ Observation ” “Macleay incidentally describes | 
Desera longicollis, another species hitherto attributed to 
Dejean (Spec. Gen. i, 1825, 185). The description, it is 
true, is a slender one, but it must stand. He also adds 
quite truly that Wiedemann’s Drypta flavipes (Zool. Mag. ii, 
1, 1823, 60) is a distinct species; its locality, however, is 
N. India, not Brazil. 

41. Pheropsophus (Aptinus) occipitalis = P. fuscicollis Dej. 
(Spec. Gen. i, 1825, 306). Although Macleay’s description 
was the earlier, the species has always been known by 
Dejean’s name, probably because Chaudoir, in his “ Mono- 
eraphie des Brachynides ” (Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg. xix, 1876, 
42) wrongly identifies P. occipitalis with Dejean’s P. java- 
nus (lc. 305). Mr. G. J. Arrow (Trans. Ent. Soc. 1901, 
204) first pointed out the identity of P. occitalis and 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 169 


P. fuscicollis, though he was not then able to determine 
the question of priority. 

Very common in India, Ceylon, and Burma, this species 
extends through the Malay Peninsula to Java and Borneo, 
but I have seen no examples from Siam or Indo-China. 

Macleay discusses the genera Aptinus and Brachynus, 
but Pheropsophus, to which his species belongs, was not 
described till eight years later by Solier (Ann. Soc. Ent. 
Fr. 1833, 461). 

42. Planetes bimaculatus. Macleay placed his genus 
between Tarus Clairv. (= Cymindis Latr.) and Helluo 
Bon., but it is not very closely related to either genus, and 
Bates I think is right (Trans. Ent. Soc. 1873, 304) in putting 
it near Galerita. Nietner redescribed it (Journ. As. Soc. 
Beng. 1857, 1, 141) under the name of Heteroglossa, but 
his H. bimaculata (I.c. 144) is another species, identical 
with P. ruficeps Schaum (Berl. Ent. Zeit. 1863, 81). I 
have seen specimens from Java, Sumatra, Burma, Siam, 
and Indo-China. 

Bates (l.c.) identifies Japanese specimens with this 
species, and it is one of the few cases in which he tells us 
he has consulted Macleay’s types. I am unable to agree 
with his identification, or with Putzeys’ (Compt. rend. Soc. 
Ent. Belg. 1875, 52) or Heyden’s (Deutsch. Ent. Zeit. 1879, 
329), and have recently described the Japanese and Chinese 
species, of which I have seen a good many examples, under 
the name of P. puncticeps (Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist. 9, 
i, 1919, 480). 

In an “ Observation’? Macleay refers to several other 
species, which he supposes to be allied to his. Carabus 
stigma Fab. (Syst. Eleuth, 1, 1801, 192) is a Strigia, and Helluo 
distactus Wied. is probably a Creagris; neither of these 
comes very near Planetes. 


Hope. 


The types of Oriental Carabidae described by Hope and 
preserved in the British Museum may be divided into 
three groups, of which the first is the most important. 

(1) In the Zoological Miscellany 1831, p. 21, Hope 
published a ‘‘ Synopsis of the new species of Nepaul 
Insects in the collection of Major-General Hardwicke.” 
This synopsis was never amplified, and the descriptions 
are extremely meagre, seldom exceeding a couple of lines. 


170 Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


As a result the species are little known, and have seldom 
been referred to by subsequent writers, except occasionally 
with a mark of interrogation. General Hardwicke’s 
Collection was fortunately bequeathed to the nation, and 
all the types of the Carabidae in question (with one 
exception) are at South Kensington. 

I propose to go through the various species comprised in 
this paper in the order in which Hope mentions them, and 
add such comments and descriptions as appear necessary. 

1. Desera nepalensis. The genus was indicated rather 
than described by Hope (Col. Man. ii, 1838, 105). The 
name never came into general use, and was supplanted 
by Schmidt-Goebel’s genus Dendrocellus (Faun. Col. Birm. 
1846, 24), which held the field until during the last few 
years Hope’s name was reintroduced by Commandant 
Dupuis, and as the older name should stand. 

Hope’s species was identified by Chaudoir (Rev. et. 
Mag. Zool. 1872, 102) with his D. rugicollis (Bull. Mose. 
1861, 11, 546), a name designed to replace D. flavipes Schm.- 
Goeb. (not Wied.) (l.c. 24). With this view I do not agree, 
and I think Dohrn (Stett. Ent. Zeit. 1879, 457) was prob- 
ably nght in identifymg D. nepalensis with D. discolor 
Schm.-Goeb. (l.c. 24). Bates later on (Compt. rend. Soc. 
Ent. Belg. 1891, 336) identified as D. discolor some speci- 
mens taken in Bengal and Assam, but without attributing 
them to Hope’s species. There are examples in the British 
Museum from Manipur as well as Nepal, and Mr. R. Vitalis 
de Salvaza has recently taken specimens at Chapa in 
Tonkin. I have also in my collection specimens from 
Madura in S. India. As Schmidt-Goebel’s description 
is good, I need not add any description of my own. 

2. Searites geryon = S. suleatus Oliv. (Ent. ii, 36, 1795, 
7, t. 1, f.11). A well-known insect, the habitat of which 
extends from Central India, through Assam, N. Burma, 
Indo-China, Formosa, and EK. China to Korea. Chaudoir 
in his ‘‘ Monographie des Scaritides’’ (Ann. Soc. Ent. 
Belg. 1880, 81) gives a note to this species, recording a 
small local race from Java; of this I have seen no examples. 

3. Broseus (Pereus) nepalensis = B. (Cephalotes) punctatus 
Dej. (Spec. Gen. ii, 1828, 431). Dohm (Stett. Ent. 
Zeit. 1879, 458) seems to have suspected the identity of 
these two species, and I have no doubt about it. Originally 
described from the Sinai Peninsula, the species ranges from 
Egypt, through Arabia and Mesopotamia, to N. India. 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 171 


Bates (Scient. Results of Sec. Yark. Miss. 1891, Col. 4) also 
records ? Yarkand and China. In all probability B. lim- 
batus Ball (Bull. Mosc. 1870, iv, 327), and B. batesi Sem. 
(Hor. Soc. Ent. Ross. xxv, 1891, 276 (note) ) belong to this 
species. B. davidianus Fairm. (Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg. 1888, 
7) is a well-marked local race found in Yunnan and at 
Hong-Kong. 

4. Calosoma indicum. The type of this species cannot 
be traced, but I have little hesitation in identifying it 
with C. orientale Chaud. (Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1869, 368).* 
Chaudoir’s specimen came from Bengal, and Bates (Scient. 
Results of Sec. Yark. Miss. 1891, Col. 3) identifies examples 
from the Sind Valley and Kashmir with Chaudoiz’s species. 
My own records are all from N. India. 

The species only differs from C. chinense Kirby (Trans. 
Linn. Soc. xii, 1818, 379) in its rather darker colour, and 
shorter elytra; both of them—along with various other 
described species—are little more than local forms of 
C. maderae F. (Syst. Ent. 1775, 237), of which the type 
is in the Banks Collection. 

5. Carabus wallichi. The type agrees with Fairmaire’s 
description of his C. indicus (Bull. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1889, 15), 
and I feel little doubt as to the identity of these two 
species. Bates (Compt. rend. Soc. Ent. Belg. 1891, 324) 
records a single specimen taken by Pére Cardon at Konbir 
(Bengal). There are examples in the British Museum from 
Mungphu (British Sikkim), and Fairmaire’s specimen came 
from Darjiling. 

6. Chlaenius nepalensis = C. (Diaphoropsophus) mellyi 
Chaud. (Bull. Mose. 1850, 11, 407). Dohrn (Stett. Ent. 
Zeit. 1879, 458) seems first to have recognised that Chau- 
doir’s species was the same as Hope’s, but with only a 
two-line description before him he naturally hesitated 
to substitute nepalensis for mellyi. Laferté described 
the species twice over under the names of Barymorphus 
concmnus and B. planicorns (Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1851, 
236), and Bates described it yet again from Formosa as 
C. swinhoet (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1866, 342). It is found all 
over India, in Ceylon, Burma, Siam, Cambodia, 8.E. 
China, and Formosa. 

There is a specimen at Oxford also indicated as the 

* This was written some time ago. I now think Chaudoir’s 


species different from Hope’s. 1 accept the named specimen of 
C. indicum Hope in the British Museum as typical of that species. 


172 Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


type; I give the preference to the British Museum example 
only on the ground that the other Hardwicke types are 
at South Kensington. 

7. Colpodes hardwicki. Chaudoir, in his Monograph 
of the genus (Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1859, 359), mentions 
this species among others unknown to him, but in the 
“ Révision”’ (Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1878) he ignores it 
altogether. I have seen no examples of it other than 
the type, another specimen, labelled “India” in the 
British Museum, and a third taken quite recently at 
Gopaldhara, British Sikkim, by Mr. H. Stevens. The 
following is a description :— 

Colpodes hardwicki, g. Length 16 mill. Width 5°5 mill. 


Metepisterna twice as long as wide. Tibiae without external 
grooves. Tarsi without grooves. 

Dark red, underside (including epipleurae of elytra) a little 
lighter; disk of thorax darker; head (except labrum, front of 
clypeus, and appendages) dark brown; elytra very dark brown 
with bright green reflections in the type, blue-green in the second 
example. Head smooth, a little contracted behind, with faint 
frontal foveae and a furrow along the upper margin of the eye, 
extending forwards to the base of the antennae; joints of antennae 
relatively long, 1 three times as long as 2 and a little longer than 3; 
eyes rather flat. 

Prothorax one-third as wide again as head, widest before middle, 
strongly emarginate in front, truncate behind; front angles porrect 
but rounded, sides strongly rounded in front, then straight to hind 
angle, which is also rounded and obtuse; disk rather convex, 
explanate at sides, margins widely reflexed; a fairly deep fovea at 
each side of base near the angles, transverse impressions slight, 
median furrow faint, hardly reaching margins. . 

Elytra long, rather more than half as wide again as prothorax, 
nearly parallel, shoulders prominent, margin slightly sinuate behind, 
apex narrowly truncate, but without any spine at either angle of 
truncature; striae shallow, impunctate, intervals flat, the whole 
surface very smooth and shiny; interval 3 with three punctures, 
1 at fifth from hase, 2 just behind middle, 3 at a sixth from apex. 
Underside smooth, with some shallow depressions at sides of ventral 
surface. Legs slender; joint 4 of tarsi bilobed in all pairs of legs, 
the external lobe rather longer than the internal one in the inter- 
mediate and hind tarsi; joint 5 without setae beneath; front 
tarsi ¢ with three joints narrowly dilated, biseriately squamose 
beneath. 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 173 


The species is not unlike C. buchanani Hope, but it is 
considerably larger, and rather narrower. Prothorax re- 
latively wider .and more rounded, front margin more 
strongly emarginate, angles more rounded, and _ sides 
more widely reflexed. The second puncture on the third 
elytral interval is placed a little further towards apex, 
and the suture is not mucronate at the apex. Both tibiae 
and tarsi are without grooves. 

8. Colpodes buchanani = C. amoenus Chaud. (Ann. Soc. 
Ent. Fr. 1859, 326). Mentioned by Chaudoir in his 
Monograph (l.c. 359) among the species unknown to 
him, and also referred to vaguely in the “ Révision ”’ 
(Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1878, 367). Morawitz (Bull. Ac. St. 
Pet. v, 1863, 324) described the species again from Japan 
under the name of C. splendens. 

It has a wide range from India and Ceylon to Japan. 
Bates also records it from Java, and this is quite probable, 
as I have an example taken by Dr. M. Cameron in the 
Malay Peninsula. 

9. Pterostichus (Omaseus) indicus, 3. \ Length 14 mill. 

10. Pterostichus (Omaseus) aératus, 9. \ Width 5:5 mill. 

I take these together because I think they are probably 
the same species, but the type of P. aératus is in such 
poor condition that I cannot state this with certainty. 
There are only the two types in the British Museum 
Collection, nor have I seen any other examples elsewhere. 
In structure the two specimens agree, but in aératus the 
head, margins of prothorax and elytra, and first joint of 
the antennae are brassy, whereas in indicus the whole 
insect is black, and, as it is a male, the surface is rather 
more shiny than in the female aératus. I have not found 
any references in later writers, so I give a description :— 


Head smooth, with shallow frontal foveae, neck wide and rather 
tumid. Antennae reaching a little beyond the base of prothorax; 
palpi a little narrowed at apex and truncate. Prothorax one-third 
as wide again as head, transverse, width to length about 4 to 3 
(in aératus the prothorax appears rather wider than in indicus, 
but it is damaged and the wider appearance may be due to this 
cause); slightly emarginate in front and also (over the median 
portion of the base) behind; sides rounded in front, sinuate behind, 
reflexed margin well marked, a pore and seta at one-third from 
apex, and another at base near hind angle (this latter is only visible 
in aéralus); front angles rounded, hind angles about right, very 


174 Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


slightly projecting; surface smooth, both transverse impressions 
well marked, a deep basal furrow on each side, between which and 
the side margin the surface is convex, median furrow fairly strong, 
reaching base but not apex. . 

Elytra moderately wide, one-third as wide again as prothorax, 
margin sinuate towards apex; striae deep, intervals smooth, convex, 
one puncture on third interval a little before middle (the condition 
ot the surface does not allow me to see more, if they are present). 
Under surface smooth, shiny; prosternal process widened and 
rounded behind, furrowed in middle, not bordered; metepisterna 
hardly longer than wide; a setiferous puncture on each side of the 
last four ventral segments (¢), similar punctures () but two on 
each side of last segment. Joint 5 of tarsi with setae beneath. 


In size and general appearance rather like P. cristatus 
Duf. (parumpunctatus Germ.). Head wider; prothorax 
wider, more strongly rounded and more sinuate at sides, 
with sharper angles, side border thicker, surface more 
convex; elytra more rounded at shoulders, margin less 
reflexed, only one puncture (apparently) on third interval ; 
last ventral segment (jg) without cara; dilated joints 
of tarsi (¢) not so wide. 

11. Pterostichus (Platisma) gagates, 3. Length 12°5 mill. 
Width 4°25 mill. Another solitary specimen. 


Black; tarsi and apex of joints of palpi reddish. Head wide, 
smooth, with rather strong frontal impressions, faint wrinkles 
covering the anterior surface; neck tumid; antennae reaching just 
beyond base of thorax, joint 1 = 3. 

Prothorax a little transverse (about 8 x 7), not quite half as wide 
again as head, emarginate in front and behind, widest a trifle before 
middle, sides regularly rounded without sinuation from front to 
hind angles; front angles rounded, hind angles obtuse, margins 
narrowly raised, with a setiferous pore at one-fourth from apex, 
and another near hind angle; surface smooth, moderately and 
uniformly convex, declivous towards front angles, transverse im- 
pressions obsolete, median line fine, reaching very nearly to base 
and apex, a short strong furrow on each side of base rather nearer 
margin than median line. 

Elytra a little more than a third as wide again as prothorax, 
widened behind, the reflexed margin narrow with a faint sinuation 
near apex; striae deep, finely crenulate, intervals a little convex, 
third (apparently) with two punctures, one at about middle, the 
other about two-thirds from base. Underside smooth, ventral 
segments with a setiferous puncture on each side; prosternal process 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 175 


not bordered; metepisterna a little longer than wide; joint 5 of 
tarsi with setae beneath. (Both hind legs are wanting.) 


I know of no’ other species with which I can usefully 
compare this one. The hind angles of the prothorax are 
only obtuse and not rounded, or I should have put it into 
the Steropus group. 

12. Pristonychus (Sphodrus) brunneus, 9. Length 15 
mill. Width 5°5 mill. 

The simple claws and immarginate base of the pro- 
thorax put this species into the Antisphodrus group, which 
in Europe seems to be confined to caves and grottoes. 
The type is the only example I have seen. 


Dull red, head (except labrum) dark brown, hind margins of 
ventral segments light red. Head and thorax moderately shiny, 
elytra opaque. 

Head nearly smooth, frontal foveae shallow; only two supra- 
orbital setae on each side; eyes small and flat; antennae (up to 
joint 5—remainder wanting) stout, jomt 3 hardly longer than 1. 

Prothorax a third as wide again as head, as broad as long, a 
little emarginate in front, truncate behind; sides fairly widely 
reflexed—especially at hind angles, there is a puncture at the hind 
angle and several along the marginal channel but no setae are 
visible; front angles rounded but fairly sharp, hind angles right; 
disk a little convex, front transverse impression more marked than 
hind one, median line fine extending from the front impression to 
the base, a large shallow fovea on each side of the base, which is 
very faintly punctured. 

Elytra a little more than half as wide again as prothorax, finely 
shagreened, oval, basal margin bisinuate forming at shoulder a 
sharp angle with side margin, which is reflexed, sinuate behind 
shoulder but not near apex; surface rather flat and a little explanate 
at sides; striae fairly deep, closely and minutely punctured; in- 
tervals flat, smooth. Underside smooth and shiny; metepisterna 
a little longer than wide; prosternal process bordered. 


Broader than A. schreibersi Kiist., head relatively 
shorter and wider, eyes larger, prothorax wider, both 
front and hind angles less prominent, surface less smooth 
and shiny. 


(2) In the Coleopterist’s Manual, Part II, published in 
1838, a few new species of Oriental Carabidae are de- 
scribed. The types of two of these species are at Oxford, 


176 Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


and will be referred to later on; only one type is in the 
British Museum Collection. 

Macrochilus bensoni (l.c. 166, t. 1, f. 5). There is a 
specimen at Oxford, also indicated as the type, but Hope 
at the end of his description says: “‘ The above insect was 
originally described from Mr. Kirby’s Cabinet; in his 
MSS. he has given it the name of Macrocheilus bensoni, 
which I retain.” The British Museum example came from 
Kirby’s collection, and bears the name in his handwriting ; 
it is therefore no doubt the actual specimen referred to by 
Hope. I think it may fairly be regarded as the type, 
though the ambiguity of Hope’s observations leaves room 
for doubt. 

The species was redescribed by Guérin (Rev. Zool. 
1840, 38) under the name of Helluo quadrimaculatus, and 
it was generally known by that name until recent years, 
when Hope’s name was revived. Both names must now 
give place to Macrochilus trimaculatus Oliv. (See under 
OLIVIER.) 

It is a common species, taken almost always at light in 
the evening, and has a wide range from India and Ceylon, 
through Burma, the Malay Peninsula, and Tonkin to 
Hong-Kong. 


(3) In 1845 Hope wrote some “ Descriptions of New 
Coleoptera from Canton sent to England by Dr. Cantor” 
(Trans. Ent. Soc. iv, 13-17). Twenty-two species were 
described, and I give some notes on the six species of 
Carabidae in the order in which they appear in Hope’s 
paper. 

1. Harpalus sinicus. Redescribed by Motchulsky (Ht. 
Ent. 1860, 5) as Harpalus rugicollis, and by Morawitz 
(Bull. Ac. St. Pet. v, 1863, 327) as Harpalus japonicus ; 
the species has been referred to by numerous authors in 
dealing with Chinese and Japanese Carabidae. Tchitcherin 
(Hor. Soc. Ent. Ross. xxxvu, 1906, 253) is—as far as 
I know—the only author who has correctly identified 
Hope’s species, and he did so with hesitation. It belongs 
to the group formed by Des Gozis (Mitt. Schweiz. Ent. 
Ges. vi, 1882, 289) under the name of Pardileus. 

The species is commonly and widely distributed over 
China, Japan, Korea, and Formosa; Mr. Vitalis de Salvaza 
has lately taken it in Tonkin. Bates (Scient. Results of 
Sec. Yark. Miss. 1891, Col. 7) records the species from 


Types of Orrental Carabidae. 177 


Murree in N. India, but I accept this for the present with 
reserve. 

2. Iridessus (Amara) orientalis — Iridessus (Harpalus) re- 
lucens Bates (Trans. Ent. Soc. 1873, 264; abd. 1883, 240). 
Tchitcherin deals with this genus several times (Abeille, 
xxix, 1897, 60; Hor. Soc. Ent. Ross. xxxiv, 1900, 363; 
ibid, xxxv, 1901, 245; sbod. xxxvii, 1906, 284). In his 
diagnosis Bates said that the penultimate joint of the labial 
palpi was bisetose, but Tchitcherin (Hor. Soc. Ent. Ross. 
xxxvi, 1906, 285, note (9) ) says that, although at first he 
could distinguish only three setae, on dissection he dis- 
covered that there were actually four, two very short and 
fine, the other two longer and much more conspicuous. 
In Hope’s specimen, which is very poor and defective, the 
labial palpi are present, but their condition does not allow 
of more than a superficial examination. Tchitcherin in a 
further note (l.c. N.B.) points out that Bates, in his descrip- 
tion of the genus, contradicts himself regarding the form of 
the thorax; the Latin and not the English diagnosis should 
be treated as correct. In Hope’s type the neck is covered 
with short irregular longitudinal wrinkles, but I look upon 
this as an individual variation. 

The species is only known from China and Japan. 

3. Anoplogenius (Harpalus) eyanescens = A. (Megrammus) 
eircumeinctus Motch. (Et. Ent. 1857, 27). The genus 
Anoplogenius was published by Chaudoir (Bull. Mose. 
1852, 1, 88) five years before Motchulsky (l.c. 26) published 
his genus Megrammus; Nietner’s genus Lepithrix (Journ. 
As. Soc. Beng. 1857, 11, 151) seems to be identical. Schmidt- 
Goebel (Faun. Col. Birm. 1846, t. iii, f. 9) figures a species 
which he names Loxoncus elevatus, but there is no corre- 
sponding text; there is little doubt, however, that Loxoncus 
is identical with the other genera named, and, had Schmidt- 
Goebel published a description, his genus would have 
ranked in priority to Chaudoir’s. For the species Hope’s 
name must stand. 

It is common in China, Japan, and Korea. 

4. Stenolophus (Harpalus) difficilis— S$. chalceus Bates 
(Trans. Ent. Soc. 1873, 270). The solitary example was 
unnamed, and | attached little importance to it. Fortun- 
ately Mr. Arrow recognised the locality-label, and, with this 
as a guide, I was able to identify the specimen as being 
almost certainly Hope’s type of Harpalus difficilis, for which 
I had long sought in vain. Tchitcherin (Hor. Soc. Ent. 
TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PaRTSI, 1. (JULY) N 


178 Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


Ross. xxxv, 1901, 246 note (77) ) considered Bates’ S. chalceus 
identical with Redtenbacher’s S. iridicolor (Reis. Novar. 
Zool. ii, Col. 1867, 16). The species, which must bear the 
name of S. difficilis, occurs in China and Japan. Mr. Lesne 
(Miss. Pavie 1904, Col. 76) records it from Siam. 

5. Stenolophus (Harpalus) trechoides. An immature ex- 
ample, which I think is to be identified with the very com- 
mon and very variable S. smaragdulus Fab. (Suppl. Ent. 
Syst. 1798, 60). I consider S. quinquepustulatus Wied. 
(Zool. Mag. 11, 1, 1823, 58) and S. cyanellus, Bates (Ann. Mus, 
Civ. Gen. 1889, 103) to be respectively 5-spotted and 
spotless forms of this species, which is extremely common 
throughout the whole of 8.E. Asia, including the Malay 
Islands and New Guinea, and extends southwards into 
Queensland. 

6. Somotrichus (Coptodera) bicinetus. This species has 
had a curious history. Fabricius (Mant. Ins. 1, 1787, 198) - 
described a Carabus elevatus, the type of which is now in the 
Hunterian Collection at Glasgow. This is an American 
insect, now placed in the genus Scaphinotus. A little later 
(nt. Syst, 1, 1792, 162) he described quite another species 
under the same name of Carabus elevatus, and it is this 
description which was reproduced subsequently (Syst. 
Eleuth. 1, 1801, 204). The locality of this second species is 
indicated as Paris, and Hope’s Coptodera bicincta from 
Canton is identical with it. Dejean (Spec. Gen. v, 1831, 
389) next described if from Mauritius under the name of 
Lebia unifasciata, and two years later Brullé (Silb. Rev. ii, 
1834, 108) identified this with Fabricius’ species. In 1845 
came Hope’s Coptodera bicincta from Canton, and a year 
later the species is recorded by Schmidt-Goebel (Faun, Col. 
Birm. 1846, 43) from Calcutta. Three years later Fairmaire 
(Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1849, 419) redescribed it from Marseilles 
as Coptodera massiliensis. Mr. Bedel (Faune Seine, i, 1879, 
114 note (1) ) recorded it from Rouen and referred it to the 
genus Somoplatus; later (Cat. rais. Col. N. Afr. 1905, 243 
note (3), and 244) he tells us it has also been taken at Algiers. 

The genus Somotrichus was formed for the species by Seid- 
htz (Faun. Balt. Ed. ii, 1888, 7), and, in view of Fabricius’ 
double use of Carabus elevatus, the species should be known 
as Somotrichus unifasciatus De}. As will have been inferred 
from the above remarks, it is more or less a Cosmopolitan 
species, being carried from port to port by vessels trading 
in ground-nuts, etc. My records, in addition to the localities 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 179 


already mentioned, include Ceylon, Hong-Kong, Batchian, 
and Celebes. Mr. Bedel also mentions, though not on his 
own authority, the French ports of Caen, Le Havre, and 
Bordeaux, Tarsus (in Asia Minor), and Guadeloupe. 

But this does not complete the tale. Chaudoir had in 
his collection a specimen of a Coptodera received from 
Dohrn and taken by Bowring at Hong-Kong. Undeterred 
by the fact that his specimen was twice as long as Hope’s, 
he seems to have persuaded himself that the two were 
identical, which was far from being the case. The dimen- 
sions given by Hope are “ Long. lin. 2, lat. lin. 3,” and 
by Chaudoir “ Long. 8 m.; larg. 83 m.” (Mémoire sur les 
Coptodérides, Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg. xii, 1869, 187). For 
Chaudoir’s species I propose the name of Coptodera 
chaudoiri. I may add that its alleged width is exaggerated. 


WESTWOOD. 


Westwood does not seem to have been in the habit of 
writing the word “type” on the labels of the specimens 
he described as new. Of the three examples of Oriental 
Carabidae so described, the types of two should be in the 
British Museum, but I have been able to identify only one 
of them. . 

1. Clivina castanea (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1837, 128). A 
small and immature specimen, as I think, of ‘the species 
described by Putzeys in his “ Postscriptum ad. Cliv. Mon.” 
(Mém. Liége XViil, 1863, 60) under the name of C. parry. 
When writing his “ Révision générale des Clivinides ”’ 
(Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg. x, 1867), Putzeys tells us (p. 131 
note (1) ) that he sent a i type ” of C. parryi to Westwood, 
who compared it with his own species, and reported some 
slight differences, which seem to have been sufficient in 
Putzeys’ eyes to justify him in keeping the species distinct. 
No one seems to have examined Westwood’s type since, 
aud Putzeys’ name has been the one in common use. It 
may be mentioned that the species was figured in Schmidt- 
Goebel’s work (Faun. Col. Birm. 1846, t. 3, f..4) under the 
name of Hupalamus clivinoides, but no description appeared. 
Bates thought that Putzeys’ C. lata and C. agona (both 
- Révision,” p. 131) were either identical with or only 
slight varieties of C. parrya (vide Trans. Ent. Soc. 1876, 3, 
and Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1889, 262). In regard to the 
former I have no doubt he was right, but C’. agona, to which 
I shall refer later on, I consider a distinct species. The 


° 


180 Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


type of C. castanea came from Manilla. The species ranges 
over the whole of §.E. Asia, including Japan in the North, 
and the Malay Archipelago, with New Guinea, in the 
South. 

2. Oxylobus (Searites) sculptilis (Arc. Ent. i, 1843, 88, 
t. 23, f.1). This Indian type had no head when described, 
it was said to come from Van Diemen’s Land, and it is 
now lost. It ought to be either in the Linnaean Society’s 
collection, or in that of the British Museum, but I have 
searched both in vain; nor has it turned up at Oxford. 
It is evidently an Indian species of the genus Ozylobus, 
but I doubt whether it will ever be possible, unless the 
type is found, to identify it with certainty. See also 
remarks under O. designans Walk. 

3. Helluodes taprobanae (Trans. Ent. Soc. iv, 1847, 279, 
t. xxi, fig. B). I mention this well-known species here, 
as I am not likely to have any better opportunity. It 
is figured by Lacordaire (Gen. Col. 1854, Atl. t. 7, f. 1), 
but under the erroneous name of Physocrotaphus ceylonicus 
Parry. The species is confined te Ceylon. Westwood 
says that the specimen from which his description was 
drawn up was in Melly’s Collection, now in the Geneva 
Museum. I am informed by Dr. J. Carl that there is such 
a specimen now at Geneva, and, although it is not so 
marked, I have little doubt that it is the type of the genus 
and species. 


Apam WHITE. 


Macrochilus (Acanthogenius) astericus (Ann. and Mag. of 
Nat. Hist. xiv, 1844, 422). A well-known Eastern 
species, which was redescribed by Redtenbacher (Reis. 
Novar. Zool. ii, Col. 1867, 4, t. 2, f. 3) under the name of 
Planetes crucifer. See also Chaudoir (Rev. et Mag. Zool. 
1872, 172) and Bates (Ann. Mus. Civ. Gen. 1892, 389). 
All the specimens I have seen were, like the type, from 
Hong-Kong. Bates gives Bhamo and Assam also as 
localities. There is an example in the British Museum 
labelled “ Malabar,” but this is almost certainly an error. 


TaTuM 
Two types of Eastern Carabidae described by this author 


are in the British Museum, both belonging to the genus 
Carabus, and both belonging also to the group named 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 181 


Imaibius by Bates (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1889, 211), and 
subsequently Tropidocarabus by Kraatz (Deutsch. Ent. 
Zeit. 1895, 366).. 

1. Carabus lithariophorus (Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist. 
xx, 1847, 14) = Carabus caschmirensis Koll. and Redt. 
(Hiigel’s Kaschmir, iv, 2, 1844, 499, t. 23, f. 4). Bates 
(Scient. Results of Sec. Yark. Miss. Col. 1891, 3) records a 
specimen taken at Murree. Dr. Roeschke (Deutsch. Ent. 
Zeit. 1907, 541) gives a very full account of the various 
species in the Imaibius group, and deals with C. casch- 
marensis on pp. 544 and 549. 

The species is spread over the N.W. Himalayas at from 
5000-7500 ft., and is not uncommon. 

2. Carabus boysi (Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist. 2, vit, 
1851, 51). Recorded by Bates (Entom. xxiv, 1891, Suppl. 
8) from Kulu. Kraatz (Deutsch. Ent. Zeit. 1895, 366) 
misidentified the species with C. wallichi Hope (referred 
to elsewhere). Dr. Roeschke has written fully on it 
(l.c. 546 and 553). 

Like the previous species, this one is fairly common in 
the N.W. Himalayas, and at rather higher altitudes. 
Dr. Roeschke gives 6000-10,000 ft., and I have records 
from 7000 ft. and 9000 ft. 


WOLLASTON. 


Among the numerous types of Carabidae from Madeira, 
Cape Verde Is., ete., there is one which extends its habitat 
to the Oriental region, and I therefore include it here. 

Perigona (Trechicus) fimicola — Perigona (Bembidium) 
nigriceps Dej. This species in one or other of its mani- 
fold forms has an almost world-wide distribution. The 
synonymy seems to be as under :— 


Bembidium nigriceps De}. (Spec. Gen. v, 1831, 44). N. 
America. 

Trechicus umbripennis Lec. (Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. x, 1853, 
386). United States. 

Trechicus fimicola Woll. (Ins. Mad. 1854, 63). Cape 
Verde Is. 

Trechus jansonianus Woll. (Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist. 3, 
i, 1858, 19). Madeira. 

Nestra atriceps Fairm, (Ann, Soc. Ent, Fr. 1869, 184). 
Madagascar. 


182 Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


Trechicus japonicus Bates (Trans. Ent. Soc. 1873, 281). 
Japan. 

Perigona beccaria Putz. (Ann. Mus. Civ. Gen. 1875, 732). 
Sarawak. 

Perigona discalis Chaud. (Rev. et Mag. Zool. 1876, 553). 
K. Africa. 

Perigona suffusa Bates (Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist. 5, xvii, 
1886, 151). Ceylon. 

Extromus pusillus Pér. (Descr. Cat. 8. Afr. Ins. 11, 1896, 
587). 8S. Africa. 

Perigona australica Sloane (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 1903, 
635). Australia. 


JAMES THOMSON. 


Three types of Catascopus are at South Kensington. 

1. Catascopus (Pericalus) presidens (Arch. Ent. i, 1857, 
281). Chaudoir (Berl. Ent. Zeit. 1861, 122) expressed the 
tentative opinion that this species might be a variety of 
the same author’s C. cupripennis: I can find no further 
references. It is actually identical with Chaudoir’s C. 
costulatus (Rev. et Mag. Zool. 1862, 489), and Thomson’s 
name must replace Chaudoir’s. In the followmg year 
Saunders (Trans. Ent. Soc. 1863, 459, t. 17, f. 1) described 
_ it again under the name of C. splendidus. The species 
has been found in the Malay Peninsula, Borneo (Sarawak), 
and. Celebes. 

2. Catascopus (Pericalus) cupripennis (l.c. 282). A well- 
known species, about which no doubt exists, so that I 
need not refer to it further. The type came from the 
Malay Peninsula (Singapore), and I have records also from 
Penang, Malacca, Perak, Borneo (Sarawak, Labuan, and 
Pontianak), and Celebes. 

3. Catascopus (Pericalus) celebensis (l.c. 282). Identified 
by Chaudoir (Berl. Ent. Zeit. 1861, 120), I think quite 
rightly, as a form of C. (Carabus) elegans Fab. (Syst. Eleuth. 
i, 1801, 184), described a few months earlier by Weber 
(Obs. Ent. 1801, 45) as C. (Elaphrus) elegans. It differs 
from the type form in the colour of the elytra, which are 
a bright reddish-purple. The type form extends all over 
the Malay Archipelago as far as Northern Australia. On 
the mainland of Asia it ranges from Indo-China on the 
East to Bengal on the West, but I have not seen specimens 
from any other part of India, or from China. 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 183 


EF. WALKER. 


All Walker’s Ceylonese types of Oriental Carabidae are 
in the British Museum Collection, and the descriptions will 
be found in the Annals and Magazine of Nat. Hist. 3rd 
Series, vol. 11, 1858, pp. 202-204, and vol. ii, 1859, pp. 
51-52. It would serve no useful purpose to pretend that 
Walker’s descriptions have any scientific value, and the 
genera to which he attributes his species are almost in- 
variably wide of the mark. When Bates—also in the 
Annals and Magazine (5, xvu, 1886)—-reviewed the 
Carabidae taken by Mr. Geo. Lewis in Ceylon, he had to 
recognise Walker’s work; this evidently went against the 
grain, and the observations which he lets fall about it here 
and there cannot be described as flattering. However, the 
types are there, and it only remains to identify or re- 
describe them. Bates has already done this to a great 
extent’, but he frequently introduces his own names to take 
the place of Walker’s; this, of course, is inadmissible, and I 
shall indicate wherever changes have to bemade. As I shall 
have to quote rather frequently from Bates’ paper in the 
Annals and Magazine, I need not do more than give the 
page; any other quotation from his works will have a fuller 
reference. I shall take Walker’s species in the order in 
which he mentions them, dealing as briefly as possible with 
those already elucidated by Bates. 

1. Miscelus (Cymindis) rufiventris = M. ceylonicus Chaud. 
(Berl. Ent. Zeit. 1861, 125). Chaudoir’s description is no 
better than Walker’s, and is later. Bates merely records 
the synonymy (p. 202). I am inclined to think that 
M.javanus Klug (Jahrb. 1834, 82, t. 1, f. 9) is a red-spotted 
form of the same species, and I should not be surprised 
to find that M. unicolor Putz. (Mém. Liége, 11, 1845, 375) 
was the same thing. I hope I may later on be able to see 
the types, and settle the question. 

I have seen numerous examples from Ceylon (Colombo), 
Madras (Nilgiri Hills), and Bombay (Kanara); also solitary 
specimens labelled Kashmir, and Hong-Kong. Bates 
(Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1889, 283) records it from Indo-China. 

The existing descriptions are so very slender that I give 
a more detailed one. 

Miscelus rufiventris. Length 8°5 mill. Width 3 mill. 


Pitch black, labrum, palpi, joint 1 of antennae, legs, sterna, and 


184. Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


ventral surface reddish (in the type), or more generally pitch-brown. 
The marginal and other setae are nearly all extraordinarily long. 

Head small, convex, shiny, smooth—except for a few minute 
punctures here and there, frontal foveae faint, clypeal suture finely 
marked and ending in a large shallow pore on each side, from which 
a very fine line runs towards the base of the antenna, a short, fine, 
longitudinal impressed line in middle of front, clypeus smooth, 
strongly emarginate, a seta)near each front angle, labrum porrect, 
as long as wide, rounded in front and 6-setose; eyes rather flat, 
with one supraorbital seta, neck slightly constricted, antennae 
reaching a little beyond base of prothorax, joints equal, except 2 
which is about two-thirds as long as the others, pubescent from 
middle of joint 3. 

Prothorax cordiform, a little wider than head, strongly emarginate 
in front, base truncate, widest at a third from apex, sides rounded 
in front, margin reflexed, widely so behind, a seta at a third from 
apex, another at hind angle, front angles porrect, a little rounded, 
hind angles rather obtuse; front transverse impression weak, hind 
one deep, median line well marked, deeper behind, reaching base 
but not front margin, basal foveae deep; surface less shining than 
that of head, smooth but with very fine transverse wrinkles, and a 
faint rounded impression on each side of disk, midway between 
median line and margin. 

Elytra elongate, rather flat, a third as wide again as prothorax, 
shoulders well marked, apex truncate with outer angle rounded, 
margin narrow, a little wider in middle, slightly sinuate at a third 
from base; striae finely crenulate, a scutellary striole between 1 
and suture, 3 joining 4 and 5 joining 6 a little before apex, 7 carried 
round nearly to apex; intervals slightly convex, 5 and 7 narrower 
and more convex towards base, 3 with a setiferous pore close to 
apex, 9 with a series of large setiferous pores, viz. half a dozen at 
shoulder, one or two at a fourth from apex, three or four at the 
external angle of the truncature, and one or two near apex. 

Underside smooth and shiny, head with half a dozen long erect 
setae, prosternal process not bordered, covered with minute erect 
setae, metepisterna long and narrow, last ventral segment minutely 
and sparsely punctate, with two setae on each side. Front tarsal 
joints short, hind ones longer, joint 1 rather shorter than 5, which 
very nearly equals 2+ 3-+ 4, 5 with a few setae at sides, claws 
simple. In the ¢ joint 1 of front tarsi = 2 + 3, the first three joints 
a little dilated, and biseriately clothed beneath with white filamentous 
scales. 


2, Dolichoctis (Dromius) marginifer, A unique specimen, 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 185 


which Bates described very briefly (p. 210), differentiating 
it from D. quadriplagiatus Motch. (Bull. Mosc. 1861, 
i, 106, t. 9, f. 4). . After examining a number of specimens, 
and noticing considerable differences in the form of the 
thorax and the size of the shoulder spots, I consider that 
D. marginifer is only a small dark example of Motchulsky’s 
species. Walker’s name is the earlier one. As will be 
seen later on, the species was again described by Walker 
as Colpodes marginicollis. 

3. Colpodes (Lebia) bipars. Redescribed by Bates (p. 147) 
under the name of Colpodes lampriodes. I think Bates 
must have recognised the identity of the two species, but 
he did not like Walker’s description. In this case Walker’s 
name must stand. This is apparently the species which 
Chaudoir (Révision des Colpodes, Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 
1878, 375) mistook for Nietner’s Huplynes dohrni. It 
seems to be confined to Ceylon. 

4. Catascopus reductus. Another unique specimen. 
Bates gives a short description (p. 210), and points out 
that the species is quite different from that which Chaudoir 
mistook for C. reductus (Berl. Ent. Zeit. 1861, 117). I 
think the latter will prove to be identical with Bates’ 
C. cingalensis (p. 203). Walker’s species requires some 
further description. 

Catascopus reductus. Length 10 mill. Width 3°75 mill. 


Black, with a brassy tinge on the elytra, head and thorax dark 
brassy green; antennae, mouth-parts, and legs brown-black. 

Head shiny, faintly punctate, a large shallow depression on 
middle of front, two ocular ridges on each side, the inner one carried 
forward beyond the base of the clypeus and ending in a large pore; 
clypeus finely and closely punctate, a depression in the middle near 
base, a seta at each anterior angle, suture fine, front a little emar- 
ginate; eyes moderately prominent, mandibles short, strong, hooked 
at tip, antennae slender, reaching a little beyond base of prothorax. 

Prothorax as wide as head, widest at a third from apex, a little 
emarginate in front, bisinuate at base, sides, base, and sides of 
front margin bordered; sides very gently rounded in front, with a 
long sinuation to hind angles, which are reflexed, right, and a little 
projecting, front angles not much rounded, a seta on the border 
just before middle and another on hind angle; front transverse 
impression shallow, hind one deep, median line well marked, deeper 
at extremities—especially behind, basal foveae deep; surface 
shiny, very finely punctate, with a little faint cross-striation, 


186 Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


Elytra rather short, half as wide again as prothorax, moderately 
convex, square at shoulder, dentate at outer angle of apical trun- 
cature, and close to apex, with a small re-entrant angle at suture, 
sides depressed before middle,-with a corresponding sinuation of 
the margin; punctate-striate, a scutellary striole between 1 and 
suture, intervals smooth, slightly convex, 7 carinate at base, 3 with 
three punctures, one near base, one about middle, and one at a 
fourth from apex. 

Underside smooth, ventral surface finely and sparsely punctate; 
metepisterna elongate smooth; two setae on each side of last 
ventral segment. 


In form C. reductus resembles C. fuscoaeneus Chaud., but 
the general colour is darker and there is no coppery ‘hue. 
The head is less strongly punctate, the ocular ridges less 
marked and the eyes less prominent, thorax wider, “elytral 
intervals flatter—especially 5, and apex of each elytron 
bidentate. 

5. Coptolobus (Searites) obliterans. \ Both = C. glabriculus 

6. Coptolobus (Searites) subsignans. \ Chaud. (Bull. Mose. 
1857, ui, 60), an oldername. Bates refers to the synonymy 
(p. 72). 

7. Oxylobus  (Searites) designans. Chaudoir, in his 
““ Monographie des Scaritides ” (Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg. XXil, 
1879, 133) identifies the species with O. (Scarites) sculptilis 
West., for further remarks on which see under WESTWoopD. 
Bates. (p. 210) did not agree with Chaudoir’s opinion, nor 
did he consider Walker’s species the same as Dejean’s 
O. (Scarites) lateralis (Spec. Gen. i, 1825, 400), in which 
I agree. In these circumstances I give a description of 
the type. 

Oxylobus designans. Length 18°5 mill. Width 5°75 mill. 


Black, shiny, palpi reddish. 

Head (excl. mandibles) transverse, flat, vertex smooth, two 
small depressed areas on each side of middle of front, frontal im- 
pressions in the forms of elongate narrow furrows extending back- 
wards to neck and forwards to clypeal suture, several short ridges 
with one or two punctures about level with hind margin of eyes; 
clypeus longitudinally striate at extremities, almost straight in 
front, labrum trilobed, the median lobe longest, neck not narrowed 
behind, eyes small, fairly prominent, mandibles as long as head, 
sharp but not hooked, finely striate, internal ridge a little sinuate 
in middle, each with three strong teeth, antennae short, monili- 
form, paragenae without tooth or emargination. 


Types of Orrental Carabidae. 187 


Prothorax convex, a third as wide again as head, a little wider 
than long, widest at a third from base, gradually and very slightly 
narrowing to front angles, a little emarginate in front, side margin 
strongly bordered, the border turning the front angle and meeting 
the end of the transverse impression without forming any fovea; two 
setae, close together, inside the side border at about a fifth from 
apex, another on the border at hind angle, which is completely 
rounded and without tooth; front transverse impression and median 
line both fine, hind transverse impression and basal foveae wanting ; 
surface smooth, except for a few transverse wrinkles along side 
margins and median line. 

Elytra very slightly wider than prothorax, oval, convex, base 
aciculate; 7 striae (including marginal one), not reaching base, 
impunctate on disk, widening out and strongly punctured near apex, 
6 ending long before apex, no scutellary striole; intervals smooth, 
flat, 6 narrower and more convex, joining sutural interval, 7 very 
narrow, carinate, all intervals subcarinate near apex, marginal 
interval with an uninterrupted series of small umbilicate 
punctures. 

Underside shiny, prosternum a little aciculate, ventral segments 
with an irregular transverse row of very large punctures, which 
are more numerous and very irregular on the last one; this has a 
large (presumably setiferous) pore at each side on the margin; 
epipleurae very wide at base, smooth; outer margin of abdominal 
tergites finely tranversely strigose. Front tibiae with three digita- 
tions (including apical one). 


Rather larger than O. lateralis Dej., which has a much 
smoother head, with frontal furrows not carried so far 
back, ending on a level with hind margin of eye, prothorax 
quite smooth, with one seta and pore at a fourth from apex, 
actually on border (showing a distinct nick in the marginal 
outline), striae punctured throughout, though very finely 
on disk, intervals 4 and 5 a good deal narrower than 1-3, 
and becoming carinate further from apex; epipleurae of 
elytra punctured on middle, but not at base or apex, 
ventral surface less punctured, last segment with only 6 
or 8 irregular punctures. 

There is a second example of O. designans, also from 
Ceylon, in the British Museum Collection. 

8. Clivina recta = C. indica Putz. (Mon. des Clivina et 
genres voisins, Mém. Liége, ii, 1846, 585 (67)). Bates 
expresses no opinion. Putzeys’ type is at Oxford and will 
be referred to later on. 


188 Mr. H. EK. Andrewes on the 


9. Morio trogositoides. \ Bates (p. 211) gives his views 

10. Morio cucujoides. regarding these two species, which 
he evidently considered different, and which he did not 
identify with any other described species. He was also 
uncertain whether the example, referred doubtfully by 
Chaudoir in his “ Essai monographique sur les Morionides ” 
(Bull. Mose. 1880, 11, 342) to Walker’s M. cucujoides, was 
in fact that species. Earlier in his paper (p. 143) Bates 
identified some specimens taken by Mr. Lewis as M. 
cordicollis Chaud. (Mon. 343). Iam unable to express any 
opinion regarding Chaudoir’s M. cucujoides, but I consider 
that M. trogositoides Walk. = M. cucujoides Walk. = M. 
cordicollis Chaud. The name trogositoides is preoccupied, 
and cordicollis was only described in 1880. I think the 
species should bear the name M. cucwoides Walk. 

It is widely spread through India, and I have seen 
examples from Siam (Renong), Andaman Is., Philippine Is., | 
Java, Gilolo, and Morty I. Mr. Vitalis de Salvaza has 
lately taken many specimens in Tonkin and Laos. 

11. Celaenephes (? Leistus) linearis = C. parallelus Schm.- 
Goeb. (Faun. Col. Birm. 1846, 78, t. 2, 1.5). Bates (p. 211) 
considered the reference of this species to the genus 
Leistus as “one of Walker’s greatest feats of random 
identification.” 

Bates tells us that this is a widely distributed Indian 
and Australasian species, but I have not myself seen 
examples from or found any record of examples taken in 
either India or Australia. I have seen specimens from 
Ceylon, Burma, and the Malay Peninsula; also many 
examples from the Malay Archipelago, including the 
Moluccas and New Guinea. There are records also from 
Siam, Indo-China, and New Caledonia. 

12. Dioryehe (Cardiaderus) scita — D. (Selenophorus) colom- 
bensis Nietn. Bates (p. 76) gives some details and 
identifies Walker’s species with Nietner’s. It is a common 
one in India and Ceylon, but does not seem to extend 
further. I have, however, seen examples from the 
Maldive Is. 

13. Anchomenus illocatus. Bates adopted Walker’s name 
here (p. 146) and redescribed the species. Walker described 
it again on the next page under the name of Argutor degener. 
It appears to be confined to Ceylon. 

14. Abacetus (Agonum) placidulus. Bates does not 
mention either this species or Selenophorus infixus described 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 189 


on the succeeding page. These are identical, and the 
species was redescribed by Bates (p. 144) as Abacetus 
carinifrons. It should be known as Abacetus placidulus 
Walk. 

I have records from Ceylon only, except for a solitary 
specimen in the British Museum Collection labelled “ Pon- 
dichery.”’ 

15. Mochtherus epee) retractus = M. tetraspilotus 
Macl. 

I have already given some notes on this under MAcLEAY. 

16. Orthogonius (Maraga) planigerus. Walker’s descrip- 
tion of his genus is quite inaccurate. Bates does not deal 
with either the genus or species. Chaudoir in his “ Hssai 
monographique sur les Orthogoniens”’ (Ann. Soc. Ent. 
Belg. xiv, 1871, 121) discusses both, but naturally could 
make little of them. C.O. Waterhouse (Ent. Month. Mag. 
x, 1873, 17) pointed out some of Walker’s errors, and 
also redescribed the species from the type. It is evidently 
very near O. parvus Chaud. (Mon. 112) from the Nilgiri 
Hills, but I do not consider the two species identical. I 
have not seen any other example. 

17. Anchomenus (Argutor) degener = A. illocatus Walk. 
and Bates, as already mentioned. 

18. Abacetus (Argutor) relinquens = A. (Argutor) anti- 
quus Dej. (Spec. Gen. ii, 1828, 246). Chaudoir in his 
“Essai monographique sur le genre Abacetus” (Bull. 
Mosc. 1869, 11, 400) merely mentions the species, but Bates 
(p. 144) identifies it not only with A. antiquus, but also 
with A. (Distrigus) submetallicus Nietn. (Ann. and Mag. of 
Nat. Hist. 3, u, 1858, 177). Chaudoir (Mon. 391) had 
already identified Dejean’s and Nietner’s species. 

It is not uncommon in Central and Southern India, as 
well as in Ceylon, but I have seen no specimens from N. 
India. Chaudoir gives Burma also as a locality. 

19. Stenolophus (Harpalus) stolidus = S. (Carabus) smarag- 
dulus Fab. (Suppl. Ent. Syst. 1798, 60). Bates (p. 80) 
could only suggest a ‘“‘ bluer colour and somewhat more 
robust form” to differentiate this species from S. 
5-pustulatus Wied. (Zool. Mag. 1, 1, 1823, 58). See also 
remarks under S. trechoides Hope. 

20. Siopelus (Curtonotus) compositus = S. ferreus Bates 
(p. 76}. Bates evidently suspected the identity of the two 
species (p. 211), and I feel no doubt about it. The species 
should therefore be known as Siopelus compositus Walk. 


190 Mr. H. EK. Andrewes on the 


In addition to the type, I have seen only the examples 
taken by Mr. Lewis in Ceylon. 

21. Abacetus (Selenophorus) infixus = A. (Agonum) placi- 
dulus Walk. = A. earinifrons Bates. See above under A. 
placidulus. 

22. Acupalpus derogatus. Bates (p. 80) accepts Walker's 
name, but he gives such a short description that I propose 
to amplify it. The species is apparently confined to Ceylon. 
Walker’s type is a very poor specimen. 

Acupalpus derogatus. Length 3°5 mill. Width 1:25 
mul, 


Black, slightly iridescent; mouth-parts, antennae, legs, margin 
of prothorax, and margin and suture of elytra reddish. 

Head smooth, wide, convex, frontal foveae short, deep, curved 
towards eye behind, eyes flat, neck not narrowed. 

Prothorax rather wider than head, widest at a third from apex, 
a little emarginate in front, truncate behind, sides rounded in front, 
then straight to hind angles, which are obtuse; transverse impres- 
sions and median line all rather faint, basal foveae deep, joining 
marginal channel at sides, surface smooth, shiny. 

Elytra shiny, parallel, shoulders well marked, obliquely truncate 
at apex, striae fairly deep, impunctate, a short striole between 
1 and 3, intervals a little convex, 3 with a pore rather behind middle, 
marginal series interrupted. 


The black colour differentiates this species from its 
Eastern alles. It is rather similar in form to A. meri- 
dianus Dej., but smaller, thorax more narrowed behind, 
angles more rounded, basal area without punctures, elytra 
a little shorter and more strongly striate, the pore on 
interval 3 further forward, and distinguished at once by 
the absence of the basal yellow fascia. 

23. Tachyta (Acupalpus) extrema — T. (Tachys) umbrosa 
Motch. (Bull. Mose. 1851, iv, 507). As Bates points out 
(p. 151) “ only a fragment of Walker’s type in the British 
Museum remains for comparison,” but he considered 
the two species as being probably identical, and I quite 
agree with him. Schaum described it again (Berl. Ent. 
Zeit. 1863, 88) under the name of 7’. nietnerv. 

It occurs all over S.E. Asia and extends to the Malay 
Archipelago and New Guinea, but is replaced in Australia 
by T. (Bembidium) brunnipennis Macl., jun. (Trans. Ent. 
Soc. N.S.W. 1871, ii, 118), and in Japan by the palaearctic 
T. (Bembidium) nana Gyth. (Ins. Suec, 11, 1810, 30). 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 191 


24. Tachys (Bembidium) finitimus. A single specimen, 
and also a very poor one. Bates gives some account of 
it, but his description is so short that I give some further 
particulars. 

Tachys finitimus. Length (approx.) 2°5 mill. Width 
(approx.) 1°5 mill. 


Dark brown, elytra reddish, but darker along suture and at 
margins, labrum, joint 1 and base of joint 2 of antennae (rest darker), 
and legs testaceous. (The elytra are partially dissociated from the 
body, and, being translucent, probably appear lighter in colour 
than they really are). 

Head smooth, not contracted behind, eyes moderately prominent, 
labrum slightly emarginate, frontal grooves short but fairly deep, 
bounded by an external ridge, as in 7’. haemorrhoidalis Dej. 

Prothorax transverse, widest rather before middle, wider than 
head, front emarginate, base slightly arcuate; sides rounded, 
sinuate just before hind angles, narrowly bordered, a seta at two- 
fifths from apex and another at hind angle, front angles quite rounded, 
hind angles right; front transverse stria obsolete, hind one well 
marked, punctured, median stria very faint, not ending in a puncture 
behind, basal foveae bounded outwardly by a fine carina. 

Elytra half as wide again as prothorax, with two sutural im- 
pressed striae, the front discal pore and seta at a third from base, 
hind one at a little more than a third from apex, the inner stria 
extends in each direction rather beyond the pores, eighth stria 
entire, with three or four setiferous pores along its course. 


Very close to Bates’ T. peryphinus (p. 153), but dis- 
tinguishable by the (apparently) reddish elytra, only 1} 
(instead of 33) basal joints of the antennae testaceous, and 
the fact that the median line does not terminate in a fovea 
at the base. 

25. Tetragonica (Dromius) repandens. Another unique 
specimen. Bates says only a few words about it (p. 210), 
so I give below a rather longer description. 

Tetragonica repandens. Length 3°75 mill. Width 1:25 
mill. : 


Brown, disk of elytra (except suture) light brown; palpi and 
labrum testaceous; border of prothorax and head pitch black, 
latter a little lighter on vertex; upper surface finely shagreened. 

Head smooth, shiny, convex, frontal foveae shallow, bounded 
externally by a short ridge running from middle of eye to base 
of antennae, clypeus with a seta on each side, labrum slightly 


192 Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


emarginate, eyes moderately prominent, antennae reaching rather 
beyond middle of body. 

Prothorax a shade narrower than head (with eyes), as long as 
wide, widest at a third from apex, a little convex, truncate at 
extremities, but sides of base turn forward to meet hind angles; 
sides narrowly bordered, gently rounded in front, widely but only 
slightly sinuate before hind angles, which are obtuse, with a pore 
and seta just before the angle, a second pore visible at each side 
on the border at a fifth from apex, but the setae have disappeared ; 
front angles rounded, transverse impressions, median line, and basal 
foveae all moderately deep, the last named joining marginal channel ; 
surface smooth, shiny, with faint transverse wrinkles. 

Elytra nearly three times as long, and a little more than twice 
as wide as prothorax, flat on disk, but rather convex at margins, 
which are explanate behind, shoulders strongly, sides gently rounded, 
apex obliquely truncate, outer angle of truncature rounded, sutural 
angle rather sharp; striae fairly deep, with large very faint shallow 
punctures, no scutellary striole, intervals gently convex, 3 with two 
large punctures occupying the whole width of the interval, one at a 
third from base, the other at a sixth from apex, a third very small 
puncture at extreme apex of interval adjoining stria 2, some large 
setiferous punctures along margin. Fourth joint of tarsi strongly 
bilobed; claws pectinate. 


I put this species in the genus Tetragonica with some 
hesitation. Walker’s specimen is unique, and more 
material is required for dissection. The prothorax is 
more convex and much more narrowed behind than in the 
other described species of the genus, the elytra are shorter, 
with more rounded shoulders, and more squarely truncate 
apex. 

26. Dolichoctis (Colpodes) marginicollis = D. (Cyrtopterus) 
quadriplagiatus Motch. (Bull. Mosc. 1861, i, 106, t. 9, f. 4). 
As already mentioned, both species are identical with 
Walker’s D. marginifer, and this is the name which should 
be used. 

The species is apparently confined to Ceylon, though 
Bates (Compt. rend. Soc. Ent. Belg. 1891, 339) mentions 
a solitary specimen from Tetara, differing, however, in 
some respects from the typical form. 

27. Diplochila (Platysma) retinens. The genus was 
identified by Bates (p. 212) with Chaudoir’s Eccoptogenius 
(Bull. Mosc. 1852, i, 72), and he considered the species 
closely allied to, if not identical with H. moestus Chaud. 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 193 


(l.c. 74). Ido not share this opinion, and identify Walker’s 
species with D. (Rhembus) distinqguenda Laf. (Ann. Soc. 
Ent. Fr. 1851, 278). Bates himself later on not only 
described the species, but did so twice over—though each 
time under the same name of Rhembus rectificatus (Compt. 
rend. Soc. Ent. Belg. 1891, 329, and Ann. Mus. Civ. Gen. 
1892, 325). 

The species is common throughout India and Burma, 
but its habitat does not seem to extend further. 

28. Gnathaphanus (Harpalus) dispellens = G. (Harpalus) 
punetilabris Macl., referred to elsewhere. 

29. Lamprophonus (? Drimostoma) marginalis. Bates 
says (p. 212): “A Harpalid, with upper surface finely 
punctured and frontal furrows as in Bradycellus and allies. 
The type being female, its generic position cannot be 
ascertained.” The species actually belongs to Bates’ 
own genus Lamprophonus, described three years later 
(Ann. Mus. Civ. Gen. 1889, 101), and I consider the type 
to be a male. There is a further example from Ceylon in 
the British Museum Collection, and one in my own collec- 
tion, but like the type they are old. I have also a speci- 
men, only partly developed, from the Nilgini Hills. 

Lamprophonus marginalis, ¢. Length 7 mill. Width 
3 mill. 


Piceous, upper surface aeneous, side margins of labrum and 
clypeus, base of mandibles, palpi, mentum, antennae, legs, margin 
of prothorax (widely), side and apical margins of elytra (the latter 
more widely), epipleurae of prothorax and elytra, and sides of 
abdomen reddish-testaceous, undersides of middle and hind femora ~ 
each with two dark longitudinal streaks, apex of hind trochanters 
infuscate. 

Head wide, convex, moderately shiny, closely and finely punctate, 
frontal foveae rounded, rather shallow, clypeus truncate with a 
seta on each side, suture well marked, mandibles strong, blunt, eyes 
prominent, nearly reaching buccal fissure, antennae reaching a 
little beyond base of prothorax, first two joints glabrous. 

Prothorax transverse, hardly wider than head, widest at a third 
from apex, rather flat, but declivous towards front angles, a little 
emarginate in front, base slightly emarginate in middle, the sides 
coming forward to meet hind angles; side margins finely bordered, 
very slightly explanate in front, sides gently rounded, faintly and 
widely sinuate behind, a seta at two-fifths from apex, none at hind 
angles, front angles touching neck, hind angles sharp, very little 
TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PARTS I, II. (JULY) ) 


194 Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


more than right; transverse impressions vague, median line reaching 
apex but not base, well marked only in middle, basal foveae shallow; 
surface moderately shiny, closely and finely punctate, more closely 
and confluently at base and sides. 

Elytra short, moderately shiny, narrowly bordered, shoulders 
not much rounded, margin sinuate near apex; striae rather fine, 
impunctate, a scutellary striole between 1 and 2, intervals flat, 
closely and finely punctate, rather more coarsely near margins, a 
large pore on 3, adjoining stria 2, at a third from apex, punctures 
of marginal series wider apart in middle; testaceous border covering 
intervals 8 and 9 up to two-thirds from base, then widening out 
over the apical area, the edge of the aeneous discal area being 
irregular, with projections towards the apex on intervals 6 and 4. 

Underside smooth, but with some fine puncturation along the 
median line of the body, especially on the prosternal process, meta- 
sternum, and basal segment of abdomen, metepisterna elongate, 
prosternal process not bordered, a few small hairs at apex, two 
widely distant setae on each side of margin of last ventral segment; 
testaceous margin not uniform, but formed by a series of small 
triangular patches, each segment with a small rounded depression 
on each side. Hind femora compressed and strongly curved (? if 
natural); tarsi smooth on upper surface, in the hind tarsi 1 = 2 + 
3-+ 4; in the type one front leg is wanting, but the first four joints 
of the other one appear to be slightly dilated, and squamose beneath. 


The species is smaller and less elongate than L. lucens 
Bates, with wide testaceous margins to both thorax and 
apex of elytra, the shallow basal furrows present in L. 
lucens are wanting. Otherwise the species are remarkably 
alike. 

Bates says nothing in his diagnosis of the genus about 
the ligula and paraglossae; the former is narrow and bise- 
tose at apex, the paraglossae are glabrous and mem- 
branous, wider and longer than the ligula, rounded at 
the sides, with an angle at the apex, not meeting in front. 
The penultimate joint of the labial palpiis plurisetose. Of 
the front tarsi in the 3 Bates says, “ quatuor subtus pilis 
oriseis erectis dense vestitis,’ which is entirely erroneous. 
The tarsi are, in fact, biseriately squamose, as in Harpalus ; 
I cannot, however, detect any squamae on joint 1. 

30. Selina (Pselaphanax) setosa = S. westermanni Motch. 
(Et. Ent. 1857, 110, t. f. 6). Walker did not recognise 
the family to which this insect belongs, but put it among the 
Pselaphidae. Schaum redescribed and figured the species 


¢ 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 195 


(Berl. Ent. Zeit, 1860, 172, t. 3, f. 11), and three years later 
(le. 1863, 74) created for it—quite unnecessarily—the 
new genus Steleodera. Further observations have been 
made by Bates (Ent. Month. Mag. vii, 1871, 31, and Ann, 
and Mag. of Nat. Hist. 5, xvu, 1886, 199), Chaudoir (Bull. 
Mose. 1872, i, 396), Mr. R. Oberthiir (Notes Leyd. Mus. 
v, 1883, 223), and Mr. Reitter (Wien. Ent. Zeit. 1, 1883, 
96). C. O. Waterhouse figures the species in his “ Aid to 
the Identification of Insects ” (xv, 1882, t. 120, fig.). 

The species occurs all over India, and in the British 
Museum Collection there is an example labelled ‘‘ Hong- 
Kong.” Mr. Vitalis de Salvaza has recently sent a 
specimen from Cambodia. 

* * * * * * 

Tachys rufulus. Putzeys (Ann. Mus. Civ. Gen. 1875, 
737) refers to a Tachys rufulus Walk., and Bates also 
mentions it (p. 212), but I have been unable to find any 
description and should be grateful to any one who could 
tell me where it appeared. I fancy it will prove to be a 
MS. name. There is no trace of any specimen bearing 
this name in the British Museum Collection. 


PASCOE. 


Only one type is in the British Museum Collection. 

Omophron brettinghamae (Journ. of Entom. i, 1, 1860, 
38). Chaudoir gives a few notes on the species in his 
“Note monographique sur le genre Omophron ”’ (Rev. et 
Mag. Zool. 1868, 56). See also Dr. Rousseau (Gen. Ins. 
Omophroninae, 1908, 3). Dr. Gestro (Ann. Mus. Civ. Gen. 
1888, 172) described a species taken by Mr. Fea in Burma 
as O. levigatus, and Bates refers to this in his detailed work 
on Mr. Fea’s Carabidae (Ann. Mus. Civ. Gen. 1892, 269). 
Dr. Gestro, who suspected that his insect might be the 
same as Pascoe’s, tells us that he sent a specimen to 
Bates, who compared it with the type of brettinghamae, 
and decided that the two species were different. In my 
collection is a cotype of O. levigatus, which I have com- 
pared with Pascoe’s type; I find the two specimens to 
be exactly alike. Possibly the species is a variable one. 
Pascoe’s locality was Dacca, Dr. Gestro’s Teinzo (Upper 
Burma). I know of no other, 


CHAUDOIR. 
Opisthius indicus (Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1863, 449). Until 


196 Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


I read the description of this species I was not aware that 
there was a single type of Chaudoir in the British Museum. 
However, at the end of his description Chaudoir remarks : 
“Cette intéressante espéce, qui habite le nord de I’Inde, 
fait partie de la collection du Musée britannique, ot elle 
nest representée que par un individu unique.” This 
individual, unique no longer, was placed in the collection 
alongside another example labelled in Mr. René Oberthiir’s 
handwriting, “Comparé au type.” It would appear, 
therefore, that there is another “type” in his collection, 
but the description leaves no doubt as to the authenticity 
of the British Museum example. This is one of the very 
few Chaudoir types not in Mr. Oberthiir’s Collection. 

This genus has been dealt with by Commandant Dupuis 
(Gen. Ins. Opisthiinae 1912, 2), and O. indicus appears 
on the plate, figs. 1 and 8-10. The species seems to be 
common where it occurs; Mr. H. Stevens has taken it in 
considerable numbers at Nagri Spur, near Darjiling (Sik- 
kim), and once at 9000 ft. at Kalapokri in Eastern Nepal. 
The type came from “N. India,” and other examples in 
the British Museum come from Mungphu and Khamba 
Jong, both in Sikkim (the latter at 15,000-16,000 ft.), and 
Guentok. 


H. W. Bates. 


When Bates was describing a new species he did not 
make a practice of designating a particular insect as the 
“type,” so that, except in the case of unique specimens, 
there is only a typical series. In such cases it is I believe 
the practice, and I think rightly so, of indicating as the 
type the specimen labelled by the author in his own hand- 
writing; if more than one specimen is so labelled, the one 
most nearly agreeing with the description will be chosen. 
I mention this matter because there are two important 
collections of Oriental Carabidae now in the British Museum, 
both made by Mr. George Lewis, one in Ceylon, the other 
in Japan, the new species in which were described by Bates, 
the Ceylon collection in Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist. 5, xvii, 
1886, and the Japanese collection in Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. 
1873, 1876, and 1883. The new species are numerous, 
and specimens labelled by Bates are indicated as the 
types. I think it quite unnecessary to go through the 
long list. 

The types of the “new genera and species of Geode- 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 197 


phagous Coleoptera from China” described by Bates in 
Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. 1873 are not in the British 
Museum. 

In addition to the above, types of four species of Carabidae 
from N. Borneo (Mt. Kinibalu), from the collection of the 
late Alexander Fry, are now at South Kensington. These 
are as follows :— 

1. Simous borneensis (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1889, 384). Found 
also in 8.E. Borneo. 

2. Colpodes fryi (I.c. 384). 

3. Euplynes aurocinetus (l.c. 384). Taken also by Dr. 
Beccari in Sumatra, and by Mr. G. E. Bryant at Quop, 
W. Sarawak. 

4. Dinopelma plantigradum (1.c. 385). A second specimen 
is in my collection. 


C. O. WATERHOUSE. 


Of these more modern types I need, I think, give a list 
only. { 

1. Callida terminata (Trans. Ent. Soc. 1876, 11). Borneo 
(Sarawak). 

2. Catascopus cupreicollis (l.c. 1877, 1). Andaman Is. 

Bates points out (Ann. Mus. Civ. Gen. 1892, 410) that, 
apart from colour, there is nothing to distinguish this 
species from C. aeneus Motch. (Bull. Mose. 1864, iv, 303) = 
C. fuscoaeneus Chaud. (Rev. et Mag. Zool. 1872, 247) from 
Burma, Malay Peninsula, Siam, and Indo-China. There 
is, however, some little doubt about the identification of 
Motchulsky’s species. 

3. Adelotopus collaris (l.c. 1877, 2). Siam. 

4. Cryptocephalomorpha (Adelotopus) marginata (l.c. 1877, 
2). Java. 

Ritsema points. out (Tijds. v. Ent. xxii, 1879, Verslag. 
87) that Waterhouse’s species is identical with his previously 
’ described Cryptocephalomorpha gaverei (l.c. xvii, 1875, 
Verslag. 93). 

5. Paussotropus parallelus (l.c. 1877, 3). Batchian. 

6. Callistomimus dicksoni (Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist. 5, 
xiv, 1884, 429). Formosa. 


G. Lewis. 


Mouhotia convexa (Ent. Month. Mag. xix, 1883, 193). 
Laos. | 


198 Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


G. J. Arrow. 


1. Pheropsophus nigricollis (Trans. Ent. Soc. 1901, 203, 
t. 9, {. 2). 8S. India (Bangalore). 

2. Pheropsophus bimactlatus L. var. posticalis (l.c. 203). 
S. India (Mt. Kodeicanel). 

3. Pheropsophus curtus (l.c. 204, t. 9; f. 3). 8. India 
(Malabar, Kanara). 

4. Pheropsophus heathi (l.c. 205, t. 9, f. 1). Burma 
(Maulmein). 


Morcuutsky. 


Motchulsky’s collection, formerly in Moscow, is under- 
stood to have perished as a result of neglect—a matter of 
special regret in view of the numerous and very imperfect 
descriptions of this author. Some reputed “ typical ” 
specimens, however, are in existence in foreign Museums 
and private collections. A few such specimens, all from 
Ceylon, found their way into F. Walker’s Collection, now 
incorporated in that of the British Museum ; Motchulsky 
and Walker were describing Ceylonese insects at about 
the same time, and no doubt some exchanges were made 
between them. The specimens in question, according to 
the British Museum Register, were typical examples from 
Motchulsky’s Collection, so that they may be regarded 
as cotypes, and have consequently considerable importance. 
Unfortunately they are few in number and poor in quality. 
They are all small species, mounted on shiny cardboard, 
generally much blackened on the upper surface. The 
species are as under :— 

Amblystomus (Hispalis) fusecescens (Ht. Ent. 1858, 23). 
Vex; 

Tachys flaviculus (l.c. 1859, 39). 1 ex. 

This example exactly resembles infans Bates (Ann. 
and Mag. of Nat. Hist. 5, xvii, 1886, 154), and no doubt they 
are the same species, though there are only three juxta- 
sutural striae on each elytron instead of four, as in Mot- 
chulsky’s description. I have seen examples from Perak, 
Penang, Philippine Is., and Hong-Kong. Bates records it 
also from various parts of Burma (Ann. Mus. Civ. Gen. 
1892, 294). 

Tachys suturalis (Bull. Mosc. 1861, iv, 508). 2 ex. 

Tachys (Lopha) ovatus (l.c. 509). 1 ex. 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 199 


A widely-spread Eastern species, described also from 
Hong-Kong by Schaum as 7. albicornis (Berl. Ent. Zeit. 
1860, 199). I have seen specimens from Ceylon, various 
localities in India, Burma, Malay Peninsula, Hong-Kong, 
and Celebes. 

There is an example in the British Museum labelled 
“'N. China,” but I think this probably refers to the neigh 
bourhood of Hong-Kong. 

Tachys politus (l.c. 509). 1 ex. 

A very common species, which is probably identical 
both with Nietner’s 7. (Bembidium) ebeninus (Ann. and 
Mag. of Nat. Hist. 3, 1, 1858, 424) and Putzeys’ 7’. bioculatus 
(Ann. Mus. Civ. Gen. 1875, 743). 

Tachys suleatus (l.c. 509). 1 ex. 


There are a few examples from the Jekel Collection, 
some of them mounted on the same shiny blackened card- 
board, which are probably also from the Motchulsky 
Collection, but satisfactory evidence is wanting. 


Il. Types in the Hope Department of the Oxford University 
Museum. 


These are to be found either in the Hope Collection proper, 
or in the more recently acquired Chevrolat Collection. I 
will deal with these separately. 


(1) Hope Collection. 


Hope. 


Although Hope put manuscript names on a large number 
of the specimens of Oriental Carabidae in his collection, 
he actually described very few of them. Most of the 
published descriptions appeared in the Coleopterist’s 
Manual, vol. 11, regarding which I give some notes below. 
In the Transactions of “the Zoological Society, 1, 1833, 
pp. 91-3, Hope also published “ Characters and Descrip- 
tions of Several New Genera and Species of Coleopterous 
Insects.” Two of the three species of Carabidae were 
figured and the figures are well executed; the descriptions 
too are fuller and better than those referred to elsewhere. 
These insects formed part of the Sykes Collection, which 
seemed to have disappeared altogether until quite recently 


200 Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


I found one of the three types in question at Oxford. The 
other two cannot at present be found, but I give a few notes 
on all three. 


1. Anthia (Pachymorpha) orientalis (Col. Man. 11, 1838, 
163, t. 3, f. 4). 

Hope proposed his genus (l.c. 51) for the Asiatic as dis- 
tinguished from the African species of the genus Anthia, 
but the name is now used only as a group index. I con- 
sider A. ortentalis a local race of A. sexguttata F. (Syst. 
Ent. 1775, 236), though Chaudoir (Bull. Mose. 1861, ii, 563), 
Motchulsky (Bull. Mosc. 1864, ii, 216), and Bates (Scient. 
Results of Sec. Yark. Miss. 1891, Col. 19) all treated it as 
a distinct species. See also Obst’s “Synopsis des Col. 
Gen. Anthia”’ (Arch. fiir Naturgesch. 1901, 286), and 
Dr. Rousseau (Gen. Ins. Anthiinae, 1905, 5). 

The type of A. orientalis is much smaller than the 
ordinary A. sexguttata-form, and (including mandibles) 
is only 24 mill. in length. The proportions are about the 
same, but the head is less inflated. The puncturation of 
the elytra, especially towards the apex, is much finer and 
closer, and near the apex the surface is finely rugose. The 
coarse erect pubescence is black (or dark brown), as in the 
serguttata-form, but the fine recumbent pubescence is 
brown (in other examples, however, this recumbent pubes- 
cence is grey-black). The fourth and fifth ventral segments, 
though with a few stray punctures, are very smooth along 
the median line. 

Hope seems right in thinking that A. orientalis is con- 
fined to Western India. The type came from the neigh- 
bourhood of Poona, and other examples in the British 
Museum come from Bangalore. He mentions also a speci- 
men from the Himalayas, but it is to be noted that N. 
Indian examples, though in other respects resembling 
A. sexguttata, are generally much smaller than those from 
S. India, viz. about 35 mill. against 45 mill. 

2. Catascopus whithilli (l.c. 164, t. 3, f. 2). Hope says: 
“ This magnificent insect is named in honour of Col. Whit- 
hill, who brought it with him from Darpouillie.” I imagine 
that this locality is in N. India; I have not, however, so 
far been able to identify it, and shall be glad of information 
as to its whereabouts. The species does not seem a common 
one, but I have seen examples from all the three Indian 
Presidencies, and Commandant Dupuis records it from 
Laos (Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg. 1914, 119). I cannot find that 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 201 


anything more than Hope’s brief diagnosis has ever appeared, 
so I give a description. 

Catascopus whithilli. Length 20 mill. Width: head 
and prothorax 4 mill, elytra 6 mill. 


Blue-violet; middle of sterna, ventral surface (hind margins of 
segments lighter), epipleurae of elytra (more or less), coxae, tro- 
chanters, underside of femora, and joints 5-11 of antennae reddish- 
brown; clypeus, labrum, palpi and joints 1-4 of antennae (apex 
of joints lighter), tibiae and tarsi piceous. 

Head large, shiny, gradually narrowed behind eyes, moderately 
punctate on vertex and at sides, frontal foveae short but moderately 
deep, a single short ridge on each side close to eye, clypeus with a 
seta near each front angle, eyes prominent, mandibles strong, hooked 
at tip, antennae reaching a little beyond base of prothorax, pubescent 
from middle of joint 4. 

Prothorax cordate, convex, shiny, moderately transverse, widest 
at a fourth from apex, emarginate in front, faintly bisinuate behind, 
sides gently rounded in front, sinuate long before base, side margin 
narrowly bordered and reflexed, a seta at a third from apex and 
another at hind angle; front angles well marked but rounded, 
hind angles right, base with a narrow border; transverse impres- 
sions, median line, and basal foveae all strongly marked, a vague 
shallow impressed line running parallel with side margin and at a 
little distance from it; surface smooth, with very fine transverse 
wrinkles. 

Elytra relatively short, parallel, very square at shoulders, sides 
rather compressed and margin sinuate at a third from base, apical 
truncature emarginate, outer angle toothed, inner angle narrowly 
truncate; punctate-striate, the punctures much stronger at sides, 
a rather deep scutellary striole between | and suture, intervals rather 
flat on disk, faintly depressed at about first third, 3 slightly raised 
over a short distance near base, 5 and 7 carinate up to two-fifths 
from apex, a pore close to base between 1 and scutellary striole, 
3 with five pores nearly evenly distributed along its length, marginal | 
pores rather far apart, closer near shoulder, with very long setae. 

Underside smooth, shiny, middle of sterna and base of first ventral 
segment more or less punctate and pilose, prosternal process not 
bordered, punctate and pilose, metepisterna long, narrow, smooth, 
and deeply channelled, last ventral segment bordered on outer 
margin, a seta on each side in J, 2 setae in 9. 

Tarsi hairy on upper surface, ¢ with three first joints of front 
tarsi moderately dilated, and clothed beneath with white filamentous 
scales. 


202 Mr, H. KE. Andrewes on the 


Much larger than C. facialis Wied. (Zool. Mag. i, 3, 1819, 
165). The blue colour has more violet in it, and no green 
reflections; head smoother, but punctures larger, without 
longitudinal striation at sides of front; front angles of 
prothorax more rounded and basal transverse depression 
deeper; the carinae on intervals 5 and 7 of elytra sharper, 
though not extending quite so far towards apex, interval 3 
with five (instead of three) pores, tooth at outer angle of 
truncature not so sharp. 

3. Macrochilus bensoni (I.c. 166, t. 1, f. 5). An example 
marked “type”; for reasons already given, I consider 
the “ type’ to be in the British Museum. 

4, Chlaenius nepalensis (Zool. Misc. 1831, 21). There is 
also an example of this species marked “ type,” to which 
{ have already referred in my remarks (under Hopr) on 
the Hardwicke Collection, now in the British Museum. 

5. Gnathaphanus licinoides (Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist. 
ix, 1842, 427). This is a well-known Australian species, 
but I mention it here because its habitat extends to New 
Guinea. It.was described again by Montrouzier (Ann. 
Soc. Ent. Fr. 1860, 240) as Catadromus ? unpressus, and by 
Castlenau (Notes on Australian Coleoptera 1867, 99) a 
Harpalus alternans. Mr. T. G. Sloane has published a table 
(Deutsch. Ent. Zeit. 1907, 468) differentiating this and 
allied species. In addition to Australia and New Guinea, 
the species is found in New Caledonia. 

6. Brachynus (Aploa) pictus (Trans. Zool. Soc. 1, 1833, 
92, t. 13, f. 1). Sykes Collection : type lost. ae 
described by Chaudoir (Bull. Mosc. 1852, 1, 41) as B. figuratus. 
The species is omitted from the Munich On When 
Chaudoir came to write his “ Monographie des Brachy- 
nides”’ (Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg. 1876), he had discovered 
Hope’s description, and the species appears correctly under 
the name of pictus (p. 54). It is a well-known species, 
closely allied to B. nobilis Dej. (Spec. Gen. v, 1831, 415) 
from N. KE. Africa, but differing widely in appearance from 
most other species of the genus. Hope’s type, like the 
other two described from the Sykes Collection, came from 
Poona, and I have records also from Bengal, Delhi, Nagpur, 
Belgaum (Bombay), 8. India, and Ceylon. At Oxford 
there is a specimen labelled “Siam ’’-—the only extra- 
Indian locality I have come across—and this is possibly 
inaccurate, 

7. Calosoma orientale (l.c. 92). Sykes Collection: type 


. 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 203 


lost. I think this species is identical with Chaudoir’s 
C. squamigerum (Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1869, 368). Hope’s 
description here is a little thin, but as far as it goes it agrees 
fairly with Chaudoir’s, and no other species of Calosoma 
is known as yet from Central and Southern India. Hope’s 
type came from Poona, and Chaudoir’s two specimens 
came from Bengal and Coimbatore (Madras). I have 
records also from Khandwa (Central Provinces), Nasik 
(Bombay), and Manaparai (Madras). 

8. Chlaenius sykesi (l.c. 93, t. 13, f. 2). Until quite 
recently I believed that this, lke the other Sykes types, 
was lost, but it has turned up in the Hope Collection, 
though in a very battered condition. The species belongs 
to the group designated Humalolachnus by Laferté (Ann. 
Soc. Ent. Fr. 1851, 233 and 293); and retained by Chaudoir 
in his Monograph. Chaudoir did not possess it, and omits 
all reference to it, as does the Munich Catalogue (see Bates, 
Notes Leyd. Mus. xi, 1889, 207). It is closely allied to 
C. sexpunctatus Dej. (Spec. Gen. v, 1831, 616) from Abys- 
sinia, but even more closely to C’. panagaeoides Laf. (l.c. 
235) from Malabar. The type came from Poona, and I 
took another example (9) also at Poona in the year 1887; 
a third example (2) in the British Museum is labelled 
“India” only. I give below a detailed description, but 
as the type is too fragmentary for this purpose, I have 
described my own specimen, after comparing it, as far as 
circumstances permit, with the type. 

Chlaenius sykesi, 2. Length 19 mill. Width: head 3:5, 
prothorax 5:5, elytra 8 mill. 


Black, underside iridescent. Head aeneous-green, prothorax 
with faint greenish reflections, elytra sericeous, three spots on each 
elytron and labrum yellow, first three joints of antennae and tips 
of palpi red.. Upper surface covered, but not at all densely, with 
a pubescence of short black and yellow hairs. 

Head convex, moderately shiny, not contracted behind, coarsely 
but not closely punctate, with a few finer punctures, frontal foveae 
very faint, slightly furrowed near eyes, a large pore and seta on 
each side of clypeus, midway between base and apex; last joint 
of maxillary palpi moderately, of labial palpi more strongly dilated, 
eyes rather flat, antennae reaching beyond base of thorax, joint 3 
two and a half times as long as 1, half as long again as 4. 

Prothorax convex, moderately transverse, widest rather behind 
middle, narrower at apex than base, truneate at extremities, sides 


204. Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


gently rounded, narrowly bordered, with a long seta at about a 
fifth from (apparent) base, front angles hardly, hind angles almost 
completely rounded; transverse impressions obsolete, median line 
faint, basal foveae small, round, shallow; surface coarsely, eres 
and confluently punctate. 

Elytra convex, rather elongate, not wider at base than pro- 
thorax, dilated behind, widest at three-fifths from base, very finely 
bordered, margin faintly sinuate behind shoulders and again near 
apex; punctate-striate, a rather long scutellary striole between 
stria 1 and suture, marginal series interrupted in middle, intervals 
nearly flat, each with two more or less regular rows of setiferous 
umbilicate punctures, 2 and 3 (but only on disk) with a few similar 
punctures on middle of intervals; front yellow spot roughly rounded, 
covering the shoulder and extending inwards to stria 3, middle 
spot rather larger and a little transverse, reaching stria 2, on interval 
9 the colour running forward a little way towards the front spot, 
hind spot near apex, equal to front one and also rounded, extending 
inwards to stria 3, all spots reaching margin, but leaving the narrow 
border black, tapering a little towards suture. 

Underside shiny, all sterna and episterna coarsely but rather 
sparsely punctate, meso-episterna only on anterior half, ventral 
surface fairly strongly punctate at sides, very finely and sparsely 
in middle, prosternal process unbordered, pilose, metepisterna as 
long as wide, last ventral segment with half a dozen pores along 
margin on each side. 


Closely allied to C. panagaeoides Laf., but considerably 
larger and distinguished at once by the presence of six 
y ellow spots on the elytra instead of 4. Head more strongly 
punctured, eyes not quite so flat, prothorax much less 
contracted behind, elytral intervals flatter, colour of spots 


darker. 


GRAY. 


Orthogonius hopei (Griffith's Animal Kingdom, Col. 
1832, 273, t. 13, f. 4). Described again in ‘the cnilowing 
year by Gory (Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1833, 196) under the 
name of O. malabariensis. Gray’s species was said to 
come from India; the type bears a label, which I am 
unable to read. Gory’s species was said to come from 
Malabar. Provisionally I disbelieve both these state- 
ments. Chaudoir, in his “ Essai monographique sur les 
Orthogoniens”” (Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg. xiv, 1871, 103), 
describes the species and tells us that he possesses two 


Types. of Oriental Carabidae. 205 


specimens, one of which (Gory’s type) “ était indiqué comme 
venant des Indes orientales,’ the other coming from 
Malacca. 

In the British Museum there are examples from Malacca, 
Singapore, Penang, Tringanu, Pulo Aor (wherever that 
may be), and the N.E. coast of Sumatra. If Gray had 
no better indication of origin than the label on the type 
specimer, I do not know how he squeezed “ India ” out of 
it. Gory possibly misread “‘ Malacca”? for “ Malabar.” 
At all events I have seen no examples from India, and I 
regard the species as a Malay one. 


W. W. SAUNDERS. 


Catascopus wallacei (Trans. Ent. Soc. 1863, 462, t. 17, 
f. 4). There is in the Hope Collection a damaged specimen 
of this species, without a head, claiming to ‘be the type. 
It seems unlikely that one solitary type should have been 
detached from all the others described by Saunders in his 
paper. Mr. O. E. Janson tells me that the Saunders 
Collection of Carabidae was sold to Mr. Edwin Brown, 
and that on his death it was resold and probably went 
abroad. The species comes from Waigiou. 


PUTZEYS. 


There are four types of Clivina, all described. by Putzeys 
in his “ Monographie des Clivina et genres voisins ” (Mém. 
Liége, 11, 1846). The original descriptions are long and 
detailed, and no redescription appears necessary, though 
I give a few notes. 

1: Clivina assamensis (Mon. 584 (66) ). I cannot find 
any mention of this species since the description was 
published. Putzeys’ account of the head does not seem 
to me quite accurate, and the mentum—a very curious 
organ—is hardly mentioned. 


The sides of the mentum are nearly parallel, lobes obliquely 
truncate in front, epilobes projecting very slightly in front, general 
surface shagreened, surface of lobes slightlv striate, middle of basal 
area raised and longitudinally furrowed, tooth in the form of a cup, 
the concave area directed forwards, the upper margin projecting 
beyond the lower and a little emarginate, the lower margin forming 
a small rounded knob projecting downwards. 

Head with a curved ridge in front, convex part directed forwards, 
as in C. indica, a little behind and parallel with this a slight curved 


206 Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


furrow, and behind this another slight furrow curved so that the 
convex part faces backwards, on each side of middle of front a deep 
pit, with a short transverse furrow behind it; neck strongly punc- 
tured, two or three ridges between front and frontal plates. Hind 
angles of prothorax rounded, lateral grooves shallow, crenulate, 
extending to front margin. Elytra with striae 1-4 free at base, 
interval 3 without pores, 8 joining 7 before base, 6 at base, all a 
little carinate at base, 8 carinate at apex. Prosternal channel 
narrow; underside finely punctured, except along median line, 
last three ventral segments bordered, two setae—rather distant 
from each other—on each side of last one. 


2. Clivina indica (Mon. 585 (67)). One of the _ best- 
known and most widely distributed Eastern Clivinas. It 
was redescribed by Nietner (Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 1856, 
v, 390) as C. rugosifrons, and two years later by Walker 
(Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist. 3, 11, 1858, 203) as C. recta, 
I have seen examples from numerous localities in India, 
Ceylon, Burma, and Indo-China. In India the average 
length is 8 mill., but in Indo-China it is only 6°5 mill, 

3. Clivina melanaria (Mon. 586 (68)) =. (Searites) 
attenuata Herbst (Nat. Ins. Kaf. x, 1806, 264, t. 176, f. 7), 
Also described by Bonelli (Obs. Ent. 11, 1813, 481) as C, 
picipes. A common species in N. India, but I have not 
seen examples from any places further South than Nagpur 
(Cent. Prov.), and Bandra and Kalyan (Bombay). A 
local race was described by Bates from Bhamo (Ann. 
Mus. Civ. Gen. 1892, 275) as var. bhamoensis. The species 
reappears in Indo-China, where the dimensions, as in the 
case of C. indica, are 6°5 mill., compared with 8 mill. in 
India. 

4. Clivina striata (Mon. 592 (74)). Very closely allied 
to C. attenuata Herbst, the points in which it differs being 
well brought out by Putzeys. I have found no references 
to this species in entomological literature. It is fairly 
common in Southern India, and extends about as far 
towards the North as C. attenuata does towards the South. 


(2) Chevrolat Collection. 


CHEVROLAT. 


Among the types of Oriental Carabidae in this collection 
there are two described by Chevrolat himself. 
1. Pericallus guttatus (Mag. Zool. 1832, cl. ix, t. 46). 


Types of Oriental Carabidae, 207 


The description does not go into great detail, but it has 
been expanded by Chaudoir (Berl. Ent. Zeit. 1861, 123) 
and Commandant Dupuis (Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg, 1913, 82). 
The type came from Java, and so did nearly all the examples 
I have seen. There are, however, two specimens in the 
British Museum Jabelled respectively ‘India,’ and 
Mungphu (Sikkim): I think these indications should be 
accepted with reserve. 

2. Gnathaphanus (Amblygnathus) philippensis (Rev. Zool. 
1841, 221). Two examples (¢ 9), without any indication as 
to whichis the type. Chevrolat probably had both examples 
before him, and [ think they may fairly be treated as the J 
and 2 types. These came from Manilla, but the range of the 
species is from 8. India to tropical Australia. W. Macleay, 
jun., described it from Port Denison (Trans. Ent. Soc. 
N SW. 1864, 1, 117) under the name of Pachauchenius 
laeviceps, and Chaudoir added some further notes (Ann, 
Mus. Civ. Gen. xii, 1878, 511). Bates records the species 
from Rangoon, Chaudoir from Queensland, and Mr. Sloane 
adds Celebes and New Guinea. I have seen Indian speci- 
mens from Belgaum and Kanara (Bombay), and Virsee 
(Central Provinces). I believe the species to be fairly 
common in Australia, but it seems to be uncommon in the 
Indian region. 


CASTLENAU. 


Chlaenius flavofemoratus (Kt. Hnt. 1834, 81, t. 1, f. 3). 
Chaudoir did not apparently know this species, for in his 
“Monographie des Chléniens ” (Ann. Mus. Civ. Gen. 1876, 
93) he treats it as a synonym of C. femoratus Dej. (Spec. 
Gen. 11, 1826, 328). This is quite a mistake. It is actually 
identical with C. migricoxis Motch. (Bull. Mose. 1864, iv, 
339), by which name it has hitherto been known; this 
name must, however, give place to Castlenau’s much 
earlier one. Chaudoir (Mon. 94) gives a further descrip- 
tion of Motchulsky’s species, and Bates (Ann. Mus. Civ. 
Gen. 1892, 312) also has a reference to it. The type came 
from Java, Motchulsky’s species from Hong-Kong. Bates 
mentions Bhamo, Palon, and Karin Cheba (Burma); also 
Laos in Indo-China. 


PUTZEYS. 


There are in the Chevrolat Collection some Clivina types 
and cotypes. Putzeys’ types seem to be scattered, and 


208 Mr. H. EK. Andrewes on the 


without an examination of foreign collections, it is im- 
possible to decide whether certain specimens are types or 
not. 
1. Clivina agona (Rév. gén. des Clivinides, Ann. Soc. 
Ent. Belg. x, 1867, 131). After the description we read, 
“ Rapporté de Siam par M. de Castelnau 1 ind.” The 
label is marked “ Siam Castelnau type,” and there seems 
no reason to doubt that this specimen is actually the type 
of the species, though I find nothing in Putzeys’ writings 
to indicate that it was in the Chevrolat Collection. The 
species, of which I have seen no other example, is very 
much like C’. castanea (see under WEstwoop), and the only 
material difference I can detect between them is in the 
sculpture of the thorax. In C. castanea the surface is 
smooth or only slightly wrinkled ; in C. agona the transverse 
wrinkling is very marked. The longitudinal wrinkles are 
not so apparent; they are situated on each side of the 
median furrow, and though irregular run parallel with it; 
they may sometimes be seen indicated in C. castanea. 
The finely punctured spaces on the disk I have never seen 
on any of the numerous specimens of C. castanea I have 
examined. It is possible that this surface structure may 
be individual, and one would like to see more Siamese 
specimens. Bates thought C. agona a variety only of 
C. parryi Putz. (= C. castanea West.), but for the present 
I treat it as distinct. 

2. Clivina transversa (Rév. gén. 125). This is also a 
specimen taken by Castelnau in Siam, but it does not 
claim to be the type. Putzeys says, “Siam | ind. com- 
muniqué par M. Signoret.” I have not been able to learn 
what became of the Signoret Collection. 

I know of only one other reference to the species, viz. 
by Bates (Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1889, 262), who gives Mytho 
(Indo-China) as a locality. 

3. Clivina siamica (Rév. gén. 124). Six examples, all 
taken by Castelnau in Siam. These are possibly all co- 
types, and the labelled specimen may be the type, though 
this is not indicated. Putzeys had before him 7 examples 
taken by Castelnau in Siam. Bates (Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 
1889, 261) identified some examples from Saigon as 
belonging to this species. 

I think C. stamica may prove to be identical with C. 
lobata Bon. (Obs. Ent. ii, 1813, 481), but I have not the 
means at present of deciding this point. 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 209 


4. Clivina javanica (Mon. des Clivina et genres voisins, 
Mém. Liége, ii, 1846, 592 (74) ). The description is followed 
by the note “Java 1 ind. Coll. Chevrolat.” In going 
through the collection I was unable to find any specimen 
labelled C. javanica. I found, however, an example 
labelled ‘‘ Clivina indica (D. Bardel),’’ which has nothing 
to do with C. indica, and (except that the lateral groove 
on the thorax does not quite reach the anterior margin) 
agrees with the description of C. javanica. This specimen 
does not claim to be a type, but it is possible that some 
accidental confusion of labels has occurred, and in default 
of other competitors with better claims, I think it may be 
regarded as the probable type of the species. In the 
“ Révision générale” (p. 124) Putzeys mentions another 
specimen in his own collection from the same locality, 
and Bouchard (Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1903, 169) also records 
the species from Java. 

5. Clivina ephippiata (Mon. 602 (84)). Putzeys says, 
“ Java 1 ind. Coll. Chevrolat,’’ but I actually find two 
specimens designated “ type,’’ one labelled “‘ Java” twice 
over, the other labelled ‘‘ Java ”’ on one ticket and ‘‘ Macas- 
sar” on another. In his “ Postscriptum ad Cliv. Mon.” 
(Mém. Liége, xviii, 1863, 29) Putzeys remarks, “J’en ai 
vu un individu de Macassar. J’en posséde deux que j'ai 
recus de M. Stevens comme venant des Hes Célébes.” In 
the “ Révision générale ” (p. 185), the other localities have 
disappeared, and we are confronted with “ Iles Célébes ”’ 
only. It appears certain that one of the two Oxford 
specimens is the type, but there seems no longer any 
means of ascertaining which of the two enjoys that 
distinction. 

There is one specimen from Java in the British Museum, 
and I have one in my own collection, received from Mr. 
Sloane, labelled ‘‘ Sukabumi’”’ (EK. Java). 

6. Clivina lobata (Bonelli, Obs. Ent. u, 1813, 481; 
Dejean, Spec. Gen. i, 1825, 414). Though this species was 
not described by Putzeys, I mention it here because he 
makes it the tvpe of a considerable group. He did not 
know Bonelli’s type, but, for reasons given in the “ Ré- 
vision ”’ (p. 120), he considered that Dejean’s was identical 
with it. These reasons seem to me inadequate, but until 
Bonelli’s type (if it still exists) is available for examination, 
the question must remain open. In the Chevrolat Collec- 
tion there are two examples, one from Bengal, the other 
TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PARTS I, II. (JULY) P 


210 Mr. H. EK. Andrewes on the 


labelled “ Ind. Or.” and claiming to be a type of Dejean’s 
C. lobata. I think this unlikely, but it was probably com- 
pared with Dejean’s type. Putzeys says (Mon. 599 (81) ), 
“Indes Orientales (Bengale). 2 ind. coll. Dejean. 1 ind. 
coll. Chevrolat sous le nom de Cliv. fodiens Ilhg.” I have 
seen nothing with any such label attached. Redtenbacher 
(Reis. Novar. Zool. 11, Col. 1867, 8) records what he takes 
for this species from Shanghai. 

7. Ancus exeavaticeps (Rév. gén. 199). The locality is 
Siam, and Putzeys adds to his description, ‘“‘ J’en ai ex- 
aminé des individus dans les Collections de M. de Chaudoir, 
Signoret, et Chevrolat.”” At Oxford there are 5 examples 
taken by Castelnau in Siam. The labelled specimen might 
be regarded as the type, but in any case J think they may 
all be considered as “ cotypes.” 

Mr. Sloane kindly sent me two examples, also from Siam, 
and there are six specimens in the British Museum, three 
labelled “Siam” (ex coll. Bowring) and three labelled 
4 Malay-Castelnau ” (ex coll. Fry). 


INDEX OF AUTHORS. 


PAGE PAGE 

ARRow . . . 198 TSRWISh.c: ok ee LOT TATUM. ce st) asa ela 
Batts, H. W. . 196 LINNAEUS . . 120 Tuomson, J. . 182 
CASTELNAU . . 207 Macteray, W.S. 134 Vieors. .. . 184 
CHAUDOIR ... 195 MorcHutsKky . 198 WaLkeErR, F. . 183 
CHEVROLAT . . 206 OnivaeR, yo = 1.029 WATERHOUSE. 

Fasricius . . 120 IPASCOR?.0 195 CONST 
GRAY % 204 PUTZEYS 205, 207 WEstwoop. . 179 
Hope a 169, 199 SAUNDERS, Waitt, ADAM . 180 
IGIRBYS fete Given tloO W. W. 205 Wottaston . 18] 


INDEX OF GENERA AND. SPECIES. 


References to descriptions are given in heavy type. 


PAGE PAGE 
ABACETUS gen... . . « «148 Acupalpus derogatus Walk. . 190 
i, antiquus Dej. . . 189 3 extremus Walk. . 190 
se carinifrons Bates oe meridianus Dej. . 190 
189,190 Adelotopus collaris 

ce infixus Walk. 188, 190 C. O. Waterh. 197 

a placidulus Walk. ss marginatus 
188, 189, 190 C. O. Waterh. 197 
33 relinquens Walk. . 189 Aephnidius adelioides Macl. . 159 
rb submetallicus Agonoderus oblongus De}. . 125 
Nietn. 189 Agonum placidulum Walk.188, He 
Acanthogenius astericus White 180 AMARAgen. . 153 
” trimaculatus .» orientalis Hope ira bane {Zt 


Chaud. 130 »  subaeneus Macl. . . 158 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 


PAGE 
Amara subolivaceus Macl. . 158 
,. tricolor Macl. 152, 153, 158 
Amblygenius chlaenioides Laf. 139 
Amblygnathus philippensis 
Chevr. 207 
AMBLYSTOMUS gen. . 149 
rE convexus Macl. 149 
3 fuscescens 
Motch. 149, 198 
Anaulacus fasciatus 
Schm. 
Pe sericipennis Macl. 
ANCHOMENUS gen... 
as degener Walk. 
188, 189 
‘a illocatus Walk. 
188, 189 


-Goeb. 159 
158 
. 146 


Ancus excavaticeps Putz. . 
Anisodactylus javanus De}. 
ANOPLOGENIUS gen. . . . 177 
circumcinctus 
Motch. 177 
cyanescens 
Hope 177 
ANTHIA gen. . os, 200 
ell iptica Motch. . . 121 
- indica Chaud. . . 121 
orientalis Hope 
121, 122, 200 
- sexguttata F.. 121, 200 
ANTISPHODRUS gen. 4 Lib 
brunneus 
Hope 175 
schreibersi 
Kiist. 175 
Aploa picta Hope . . 202 
APTINUS gen. ._ - ay es LOD 


99 


3 


”° 


> 


a occipitalis Macl. . 168 
Argutor antiquus De}. He So, 
»,. degener Walk. 188, 189 

>  relinquens Walk.. . 189 
ARSENOXENUS gen. 148, 149 


harpaloides 
Bates 148, 149 
Barymorphus concinnus Lat. . 171 
fe planicornis Laf. 171 

Bembidium brunnipenne 

Macl., jun. 190 
ebeninum Nietn. . 199 
finitimum Walk. . 191 
ie nanum Gylh. . 190 
Ap nigriceps Dej. . 181 
BRACHYNUS gen. . Sie Wal 
figuratus Chand. 202 
_  marginalis Sch. . 124 
Piet Snobiie Deja.) ; 202 
pictus Hope. . 202 
iripustulatus FP. . 124 


99 


211 


PAGE * 


BRADYCELLUS gen. - 193 
Broscusigen! =.) . . .' . 148 
5 batesi Sem. . . . 171 
gf davidianus Fairm. . 171 
Fs limbatus Ball . . 171 
»,  nepalensis Hope. . 170 
punctatus De}. eA) 
Callida terminata 

C. O. Waterh. 197 
>  splendidula F. . 165 
33 Macl.. . 164 

Calli istomimus dicksont 
C. O. Waterh. 197 
CALOSOMA gen. . 203 
af aeneum Motch. . 130 
43 chinense Kirby 130, 171 
a indicum Hope < Lae 
ai maderdeh... .. «. Vil 


os orientale Hope. . 202 
a fy eChaud: 4. lt 

a squamigerum 
Chaud. 203 
CAMPTODERUS gen. - 128 
CARABUS gen. . . 180 
a acrogonus Wied. . 165 
24 analis Oliv. J (635) 


5 angulatus F. (1781) 
125, 127, 128, 134 
F. (1801) 125 


9° 93 


ne bimaculatus L. . . 120 
op boysi Tatum . . 181 
“i caschmirensis 

K. and R. 181 
he cinctus F. 122, 1238 
a5 elegans F. 141, 182 


35 elevatus ¥'. (1787) . 178 
5a paren (L792) as LAS 
op facialis Wied. . . 130 
¥ flavilabris F. - ba: 
indicus Herbst. . 144: 
Fairm. aelyAl 


99 9° 


Rs laevigatus I. . 122 
es lithariophorus 

Tatum 181 
3 micans F. . 139 
be notulatus F. “ 1NG8? 
»  politus F. . 144 
is posticus F. . . 136 


Ak reflecus F. 126, 127,128 
aA sexguttatus KF. . 121 
smaragdulus F. 178, 189 
a splendidulus F. . 165 
9% stigma F. RAL OG 
3 tenuicollis F . 139 
trimaculatus Oliv. . 129 
wallichi Hope utp 181 
Cardiaderus scitus Walk. . 188 
CATADROMUS gen. . 148 


212 


‘Catadromus impressus 


Led 


Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


PAGE 


Montrouz. 202 
tenebrioides Oliv. 148 


CaTascorus gen. . . 130, 182 


aeneus Motch. . 197 
angulatus Chaud. 141 
celebensis Thoms. 182 
cingalensis Bates 185 
costulatus Chaud. 182 
cupreicollis 
C. O. Waterh. 197 
cwpripennis 
Thoms. 182 
elegans Weber 141, 182 
35 F. 141, 182 
$3 Macl.141,142 
facialis Wied. 
130, 132, 141, 202 
fuscoaeneus 
Chaud. 186, 197 
hardwicki Kirby. 
130, 181 
oxygonus Chaud. 141 
presidens Thoms. 182 


quadrimaculatus 
Macl. 141, 142 
quadrisignatus 
Cast. 142 
reductus Walk. 
185, 186 
33 Chaud. 


(not Walk.) 185 
splendidus Saund. 182 
wallacet Saund. . 205 
whithilli Hope 

200, 201 


Celaenephes linearis Walk. . 188 


be 


parallelus 
Schm.-Goeb. 188 


Cephalotes punciatus Dej. geldO 
CabAENIUSgen, . . . . 136 


> 


analis Oliv. . . 139 
apicalis Wied. . 137 
>» . Macl. (not 

Wied.) 137, 188 
bihamatus Chaud. 

140, 141 

binotatus Dej.. . 141 

cambodiensis Bates 138 

chalcothorax Wied. 124 

cinctus F. 122, 123, 137 

>»,  Macl. (not 


Ey a37 
circumdatus Brullé 137 
concinnus Laf. se7i 


femoratus Dej.. . 207 
flaviguttatus Macl. 141 
flavofemoratus Cast, 207 


Chlaenius guitatus Eschsch. . 141 


PAGE 


hamifer Chaud. 
139, 140, 141 
hiigeli Redt. . . 137 
javanus Chaud. . 137 
macleayi Andr. . 189 
maculifer Cast. . 141 
medioguttatus 
; Chaud. 136, 137 
mellyi Chaud.. .. 171 
micans F. . . 2 139 
93° Mawel; «| 28S 
mutatus G. and H. 188 
nepalensis Hope 
171, 202 
nigricoxis Motch. . 207 
orbicollis Chaud. . 137 
orientalis Dej. . 139 
panagaeoides Laf. 
203, 204 
planicornis Laf. . 171 
posticus F. . . 136 
pulcher Nietn. . 122 
punctatus Chaud. . 141 
puncticeps ; 
G. and H. 141 
quadricolor F. . ~ . 139 
rufifemoratus Macl. 
136, 137 
sexpunctatus Dej. 203 
swinhoei Bates. . 171 
sykesi Hope 123, 208 
tenuicollis F. . . 139 
xanthacrus Wied. . 137 


Clivina agona Putz. . 179, 208 


99 


assamensis Putz.. . 205 
attenuata Herbst. . 206 
» var. bhamo- 
ensis Bates 206 

castanea Westd.. . 
179, 180, 208 
elongatula Nietn. . 162 
ephippiata Putz. . 209 
fodiens Illig.. . . 210 
indica Putz. 187, 206, 209 
javanica Putz. . . 209 
lata Putas os oe ae 
lobata Bon. . 208, 209 
“5 Deets eel 
melanaria Putz. . . 206 
parryi Putz. . 179, 208 
picipes Bon. . . . 206 
recta Walk. . 187, 206 
rugosifrons Nietn. . 206 
sabulosa Macl. . . 161 
siamica Putz. . . 208 
striata Putz. . . . 206 
transversa Putz. . . 208 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 


PAGE 

COELOPROSOPUS gen. . - 142 
COELOSTOMUS gen... . 160 
= picipes Macl. . 160 
COLPODES gen. 146, 164 
me amoenus Chaud. . 173 


a bipars Walk. . . 185 
a3 brunneus Macl. 146, 147 


a buchanani Hope 
172, 173 
oe dohrni Chaud. (not 
Nietn.) 185 
3 fryt Bates . » 197 
es hardwicki Hope . 172 


gs lampriodes Bates . 185 

=. marginicollis Walk. 
185, 192 
sf ruficeps Macl.. . 164 
s schmidti Chaud. . 164 
y splendens Moraw.. 173 
Coptodera bicincta Hope . . 178 
ss S eaChaud. 179 
i} chaudoiri Andr. . 179 
massiliensis Fairm. 178 


Coptolobus glabriculus Chaud. 186 

- obliterans Walk. . 186 

aa subsignans Walk. . 186 
CRASPEDOPHORUS gen. 

126, 127, 128, 135 


5 angulatus 
F. 125, 127, 128, 134 
a bifasciatus 
Cast. 126, 136 
"3 cereus Macl. 185 
3 castelnaut 
Chaud. 126 
— mandarinus 
Schaum 127 
54 notulatus F. 163 
reflexus F. 
125, 126, 127, 128 
53 regalis 
Gory 126, 129 
tomentosus 


Vigors 125, 126, 127, 134 
CREAGRIS gen. . ee 69 
Cryptocephalomor pha gaverei 
Rits. 
margin- 
“ata C. O. Waterh. 
Curtonotus compositus Walk. 
CYCHRUS gen... . 
‘<< reflexus F. 
CYMINDIS gen. - A eae Ot!) 
“ rufiventris Walk. . 183 
Cyrtopterus quadrinotatus 
Motch. 164 
x quadriplagiatus 
Motch. 185, 192 


197 


197 
189 
Syed) LAE 
126, 128 


213 
PAGE 
DENDROCELLUS gen. of iO 
Rs discolor 
Schm.-Goeb. 170 
Pe flavipes 
Schm.-Goeb. 
(not Drypta 
Wied). ..° 170 
‘a rugicollis 
Chaud. 170 
Descra coelestina Klug . . 167 
;, discolor Schm.-Goeb. . 170 


» flavipes Schm.-Goeb. 
(not Drypta Wied.) 170 


»  genculata Klug . 168 
», longicollis Macl. . 168 
35 59. ot Dey: . 168 
>  nepalensis Hope LTO 
» frugicollisChaud. . 170 
unidentata Macl. Slips 
Diaphoropsophus mellyt 
Chaud. 171 
DICOELINDUS gen. 2 1% 149 
45 felspaticus Macl. 
148, 149 
DIcOELUS gen. seis LAD 
Dicranoncus amabilis Chaud.. 164 
Dinopelma plantigradum 
Bates 197 
DIORYCHE gen. 155, 156 
93 amoena Dej. 155, 156 
colombensis Nietn. 
155, 188 


er scita Walk. : 

ne torta Macl. 154, 155 
DIPLOcHILA gen. : . 144 
33 distinguenda Laf. 193 


53 indica Herbst . 144 
5 polita F. . . 144 
3 rectificata Bates . 193 
x3 retinens Walk. . 192 
Dirotus subiridescens Macl. . 145 


Dischissus cereus Chaud (not 
Craspedophorus Macl.) 135 
=f chaudoiri Andr. . 135 
DISTICHUS gen. 162 
S dicaelus Chaud. 162,163 
nu macleayt Andr. 162 
a puncticollis Chaud. 162 


punctum Wied. . 162 
Distrigus submetallicus 
Nietn. 189 
Dolichoctis marginicollis Walk 
185, 192 
fe marginifer Walk. 
184, 185, 192 
a. quadriplagiatus 
Motch. 185, 192 
DoLicnHuUs gen. i, . . 145 


214 


PAGE 
Drimostoma ceylanicum Nietn. 160 
55 marginata Walk. 
160, 193 
. rufipes Boh. . . 160 
i striatocolle Dej. . 160 
DEROMTUS ental 2s Pe Oe 
fi marginifer Walk. . 184 
»  repandens Walk. . 191 

;,  tetraspilotus Macl. 
163, 164 
Drypta australis Macl. . . 167 
»  coelestina Klug . . 167 
», flavipes Wied.. . . 168 
» japonica Bates . . 167 
3) lingola Mack yrs) |. alG7 
' see Delve Syke. caelG7 
» philippinensis Chaud. 167 
»,  unidentata Macl. . 167 
virgata Chaud.. . . 167 
EccopToGENtus gente ie ee 182 


an moestus 
Chaud. 192 
Elaphrus elegans Weber. 141, 182 
Enceladus laevigatus F. . . 122 
EPicosMUS gen. 125, 127 
53 angulatus F. . . 126 


EUDEMA gen. 126, 127, 128 
>, bifasciatum Cast. . 126 
Eupalamus clivinoides 
Schm.-Goeb. 179 
KUPLYNES gens. Cs, «64 
a aurocinctus Bates . 197 
3 cyanipennis 
Schm.-Goeb. 164 
ys dohrni Nietn. . . 185 
Extromus pusillus Péring. . 182 
GarmRrraigens .) vets 9 2... 169 
GNATHAPHANUS gen. . . 150 


_ acutipennis 
Bates 151 
3 alternans 
Cast. 202 
55 dispellens 
Walk. 150, 193 
ES impresst- 
pennis Cast. 154 
impressus 
Montr. 202 
an licinoides 
Hope 202 
HA melanarius 
Boh. 150 


punctilabris 
Macl. 150, 151, 193 


59 philippensis 
Chevr. 207 
a subaeneus 


Macl. 158, 154 


Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


PAGE 
Gnathaphanus subcostatus Dej. 
150 
A subolivaceus 
Macl. 158, 154 
2 vulneripennis 
Macl. 149 
HARPALUS gen. "|. | S194 
ue alternans Cast. 202 
_ cyanescens Hope. . 177 


‘5 dentipes Wied. . 158 
a difficilis Hope St 7/7 
; dispellens Walk. 


j 150, 193 
— japonicus Moraw.. 176 
5 punctilabris Macl. 

150, 193 
5 punctulatus Macl.. 151 
35 relucens Bates . 177 


PA rugicollis Motch. . 176 
= sinicus Hope... . 176 
stolidus Walk. - 189 
$5 subcostatus Dej. . 150 
oe thunbergi Quens. . 150 

trechoides Hope . 178 


HxELivo gen. ar =| se LOD 
ms distactus Wied. - »« L169 
55 quadrimaculatus 


Guér. 176 

5 tripustulatus Dej. . 124 
Helluodes taprobanae Westd. . 180 
HETEROGLOSSA gen. . . . 169 


PP bimaculata 
Nietn. 169 
Hexagonia bowringt Schaum . 133 
terminalis 
G. and H. 132 
% terminata Kirby . 182 
Dej. . 132 


Hispalis fuscescens Motch, 149, 198 
HOMALOLACHNUS gen. . . 203 
Holoscelis laevigatus F. «plc 
HyYPHAEREON gen. : 
reflecus Macl. 
H ypharpac dentipes Wied. . 158 
. lateralis Macl. 152, 158 
BS tricolor Macl. 152, 158 
ImaiB1us gen. . Se eH | 
% boysi Tatum « psi 

i caschmirensis 
Koll. and Redt. 181 

Ee lithariophorus 
Tatum 181 
Iridessus orientalis Hope  . 177 
> relucens Bates . . 177 
Isotarsus mandarinus Schaum 127 
Lagarus impunctatus Bates . 148 
Lamprias ruficeps Macl. . . 164 
LAMPROPHONUS gen. . 1938, 194 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 


PAGE 
Lamprophonus lucens Bates 194 
* marginalis 
: Walk. 198 
Lebia bipars Walk. . 185 
»  marginalis Wied. S165 
>,  splendidula Macl. . 164 
»  Uunifasciata De}. ay lyfe 
Lnisrus'gens\. . | . - 188 
Pe linearis Walk. . 188 
LEPITHRIX gen. liad 
Lesticus buqueti Cast. . . 148 
i viridicollis Macl. . 148 
_ LISSAUCHENIUS gen. - 136 
- rufifemoratus 
Macl. 186, 137 
Lopha ovata Motch. . 198 
LoXANDRUS gen. . . 149 
LoxocorEPIs gen. « 164 
Loxoncos gen. Beez) 
55 elevatus 
Schm.-Gcoeb. 177 
Luperca laevigata ¥. mente ae 


Macrocuiuus gen. . . . 124 
astericus White 180 
3 bensoni Hope 

124, 129, 176, 202 
chaudoiri Andr. 130 
crucifer Redt. . 180 


a quadrimacula- 

tus Guér. 176 

> trimaculatus 
Oliv. 129, 176 
Chaud. 130 

53 tripustulatus 
Dej. 124 
Maraga planigera Walk. . . 189 
MASOREUS gen... + elds 
35 australis Sloane . 159 
MEGRAMMUsS gen.. . . . 177 

Aa circumcinctus 
Motch. 177 
MICROCEPHALUS gen. . . 149 


Miscelus ceylonicus Chaud. . 183 


»  javanus Klug 183 
>»  rufiventris Walk. 183 
5,  Uunicolor Putz. 183 
MocuTHERUS gen. 163 


33 angulatus 


Schm.-Goeb. 164 


a retractus Walk. . 189 
es tetraspilotus 
Macl. 163, 164, 189 


Morio cordicollis Chaud. . . 188 . 
>, cucujoides Walk. . 188 
3 5 Chaud.. . 188 


»» trogositoides Walk.. . 188 
Mouhotia convera Lewis . , 197 


215 ¢ 


: PAGE 
Nestra atriceps Fairm.. . . 181 


OMASEUS gen. . . 148 
»  aératus Hope . 173 
» indicus Hope . 173 
5 viridicollis Macl. . 148 


Omophron brettinghamae Pasc. 195 

5 levigatus Gestro. . 195 
ONYCHOLABIS gen. - . 145 
Ophonus senilis Nietn. . . 152 
Opisthius indicus Chaud. 195, 196 


ORTHOGONIUS gen. - 165 
95 acrogonus 
Wied. 165 
“ alternans 
Wied. 165, 167 
#3 9 Macl. 
(not Wied.) 165 
oe brunnilabris 
Macl. 165 
a femoratus Dej.. 165 
* hopei Gray. . 204. 
y macleayt Andr. 166 
As malabariensis 
Gory. 204. 
‘. parvus Chaud. 189 
ie picilabris Macl. 165 
- planigerus 
Walk. 189 
OXYLOBUS gen. . 180 


PS designans Walk. 
180, 186, 187 


Et lateralis Dej. 186, 187 

55 sculptilis Westd. 
180, 186 
PACHAUCHENIUS gen, . 150 


3 laeviceps 
Macl., jun. 207 
Pachymorpha orientalis Hope 
121, 200 


Pachytrachelus oblongus Dej. . 125 
PANAGAEUS gen. 126, 127, 136 
ue cereus Macl.. . 185 

AA chalcocephalus 
Wied. 136 
3 fabricti Hope . 127 
ss nobilis Dej. . . 126 
95 regalis Gory . . 126 

‘ retractus Walk. 
164, 189 

a5 tomentosus Vigors 

125, 126, 127 
PARDILEUS gen. 21876 
ss japonicus Moraw. 176 
rE rugicollis Motch. . 176 
on sinicus Hope. . 176 


Paussotropus parallelus 
C. O. Waterh. 197 
Percus nepalensis Hope , . 110 


216 
PAGE 
Pericallus celebensis Thoms. . 182 
5 cicindeloides Macl. 148 
5 cupripennis Thoms. 182 
a5 guttatus Chevr. . 206 
a longicollis Chaud. . 144 
3 presidens Thoms. . 182 
Aa quadrimaculatus 
Macl. 141, 142 
55 quadrisignatus Cast. 142 
tetrastigma Chaud.. 143 
Perigona atriceps Fairm. > St 
,,  australica Sloane . 182 
3 (beccara Putz. <: . 182 
»  awcake Chaud. . . 182 
>»  fimicola Woll. 7 USE 
>  jansoniana Woll. . 181 
> japonica Bates . . 182 
>  nigriceps Dej. - LS 
>» pusilla Péring - 182 
»  suffusa Bates . 182 
umbripennis Lec. . 181 
PurRorsopnus gen. 124, 125, 169 
5 amoenus 
Chaud. 125 
Ke bimaculatus L. 120 
3 var. posticalis 
Arrow 198 
“ curtus Arrow. 198 
“2 fuscicollis De}. 
168, 169 
Ags heathi Arrow. 198 
sf javanus Dej. . 168 
a nigricollis 
Arrow 198 
35 occipitalis 
Macl. 168 
e tripustulatus 
F. 124, 130 
Physocrotaphus ceylonicus 
Parry 180 
Pimelia bifasciata F. . - 126 


»  fasciata F. 


125, 126, 127, 


128 


Pirantillus feae Bates . . 146 
PLANETES gen. 169 
me himaculains Macl.. 169 
3 ee Nietn. 169 
aS crucifer Redt.. . 180 
aa puncticeps Andr. . 169 
5 ruficeps Schaum . 169 
PLATYSMA gen. af fe AAS 
9% gagates Hope Oe OEE 
5 retinens Walk. . 192 


PLATYMETOPUS gen. 


150, 154, 155, 


op amoenus Dej. 


155, 


156 
156 


Mr. H. E. Andrewes on the 


PAGE 
Platymetopus melanarius Boh. 150 
»  punctulatus 
Macl. 151 
senilis Nietn. 152 
Plochionus alternans Wied. . 165 
Poeciloistus laevicollis Motch 139 
PRISTOMACHAERUS gen. . . 136 
be chalcoceph- 
alus Wied. 136 
Pristonychus brunneus Hope . 175 
PROMECOPTERA gen. : 165 
a marginalis 

Wied. 165 
Pselaphanaz setosus Walk. . 194 
Pterostichus aératus Hope. . 178 
35 cristatus Duf, . 174 
ab gagates Hope . 174 
ue indicus Hope .1738 

Ae parumpunctatus 
Germ. 174 
RHEMBUS gen. . 144 
Be distinguend us Laf. . 193 
Ae politus F. . 144 
5 rectificatus Bates . 193 
Sagraemerus javanus Redt. . 158 
SCAPHINOTUS gen. oo lis 
a5 elevatus F. . . 178 
Scarites attenuatus Herbst . 206 
»  designans Walk. . 186 
»  geryon Hope . 2 ao 
»  imdus Oliv. 162 


29 33 


»,  laevigatus F. 

> lateralis Dej.~ . 
;, obliterans Walk. . 
>  punctum Wied. 


Macl. (not 01 Oliv. ) ee 


"186 


. 186 
- 162 


‘sculptilis Westd. 180, 186 


»  semicircularis Macl. . 162 
»  subproductus Chaud.. 162 
>»  subsignans Walk.. . 186 

sulcatus Oliv. - 170 


Selenophorus colombensis 


Nietn. 155, 188 


i infixus Walk. 
188, 190 
Selina setosa Walk. 194 
s, westermanni Motch. 194 
Simous borneensis Bates . . 197 
Siopelus compositus Walk. 189 
5 ferreus Bates. 189 
Somoplatus elevatus F. 178 
SOMOTRICHUS gen. 178 
3 bicinctus Hope 178 
a elevatus F. ais 

an unifasciatus 
Dej. 178 
SPHODRUS gen. 143, 146 
“a brunneus Hope , 175 


Types of Oriental Carabidae. 


STELEODERA gen. . 195 
Stenolophus chalceus Bates 1 77, 178 


39 


cyanellus Bates . 178 
difficilis Hope 177, 178 
iridicolor Redt. . 178 
quinquepustulatus 
Wied. 178, 189 
smaragdulus F. 
178, 189 
stolidus Walk. . 189 
trechoides Hope 


178, 189 
STEROPUS gen. es . 175 
STOMONAXUS gen. 160 
a borneensis T chit. 160 
a japonicus Tchit. 160 

7 sculptipennis 
Motch. 160 
8 striaticollis Dei . 160 
Srricia gen. . . 169 


S ymphyus unicolor ‘Nietn. . 145 
Tachys albicornis Schaum . 199 


bioculatus Putz. . . 199 
ebeninus Nietn. . . 199 
finitimus Walk. . .191 
flaviculus Motch. . . 198 
infans Bates . . . 198 
ovatus Motch... . . 198 
peryphinus Bates. . 191 
politusMotch.. . . 199 
rufulus Walk. St iaeeoe 
sulcatus Motch. . . 199 


217 
PAGE 
Tachys suturalis Motch. - 198 
>,  Uumbrosus Motch. . . 190 
Tachyta brunnipennis 

Macl., jun. 190 
Sy extrema Walk. . . 190 
a nana Gylh. . 190 
Be nietnert Schaum. . 190 
a3 umbrosa Motch. . . 190 

Taeniolobus puncticollis 
Chaud. 162 
TARUS gen. sieht lee ayer OO 
TETRAGONICA gen. al Gallbe 

FS repandens 
Walk. 191 
Thyreopterus tetrasemus Dej. 164. 
Trechicus fimicola Woll. . 181 
» japonicus Bates . 182 
nG umbripennis Lec. . 181 
TRECHUS gen. : - 149 
be convexus Macl. . 149 
48 jansonianus Woll. . 181 
TRIGONODACTYLA gen. - 132 

on terminalis 
G. and H. 132 
:; terminata 

Kirby 132 
Dej. 132 
Trigonotoma indica Brullé . 148 
a viridicollis Dej. . 148 
#. Brulle 148 
TROPIDOCARABUS gen. + LoL 


( 9218\\) 


VII. The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. By 
R. C. L. Perkins, M.A., D.Sc. 


[Read May 7th, 1919.] 
Piates XI—XV 


THE species of the genus Andrena and its parasites of the 
genus Nomada have perhaps been more sought after and 
collected than any other of our Aculeate Hymenoptera. 
This is probably due to the fact that in our limited fauna 
they present a good appearance in a collection, few being 
of small size and many of considerable beauty, while at the 
same time hardly any places are so poor as not to possess 
some local and interesting species. Andrena is a genus of 
enormous extent, our sixty-one species being a small fraction 
of those that exist, or, indeed, of those that have been 
already collected. Unfortunately, no one has yet been 
found to classify the species as a whole, and no satisfactory 
grouping even of the European forms has yet been achieved. 
The various arrangements that have been proposed for 
our British species all leave something to be desired. Those 
adopted by F. Smith and Shuckard are quite impossible 
and unnatural, being based on superficial appearances. 
The classification used in the works of Edward Saunders 
was a vast improvement on these, especially that in his last 
book. Schmiedeknecht’s arrangement in the “ Apidae 
EKuropaeae ”’ is often unsatisfactory. But before consider- 
ing in detail the arrangement in groups of our British 
species, some notes on the habits of the species and their 
parasites may be given. Smith, Saunders and Shuckard 
have all described these to some extent. All these collectors 
had constant access to some of the finest collecting grounds 
that are to be found in the South of England, and conse- 
quently there is a tendency, I think, in their writings to 
consider species that are really quite local to be of more 
general distribution than they actually are. As a beginner | 
it was my lot to collect in a district where a sandy soil—so 
attractive to most Aculeata—was wanting, and in conse- 
quence it was years before I met with living specimens of 


TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PARTS I, I. (JULY) 


Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on Andrena and Nomada. 219 


many species, which in a more favourable district would be 
considered very commonplace. 

The habit of forming “ colonies,” that is for great numbers 
of individuals of a species to form their burrows side by 
side, often so close together as almost to touch one another, 
is very marked in some species of Andrena, while others 
rarely or never do so. Thus one may sometimes see hun- 
dreds of burrows of such species as A. humilis * or A. sericea 
(albicrus) in a square yard or two of surface, while species 
like A. trimmerana, nitida, albicans and others rarely or 
never form these compact colonies. Some species, e.g., A. 
cineraria, sometimes form dense colonies, but at other times 
their burrows are scattered singly or two or three together 
over a large acreage of land. In such cases it is probable 
that in the one instance the soil and other conditions are 
pretty much the same over the whole area occupied, and in 
the other that a limited spot affords conditions pre-emin- 
ently favourable, as compared with the surrounding country. 
I suspect the colonising is due sometimes to a natural 
sociability of the species or a reluctance to depart from their 
immediate birthplace, for we have seen a colony with few 
individuals—probably it had originally been started by a 
single female—increase in size and become permanently a 
large one, subject only to increase or decrease as the seasons 
were favourable or otherwise. Some of these colonies 
persist for many years. V. R. Perkins, in his list of the bees 
of Wotton-under-Edge, Gloucestershire, records the dis- 
covery of a colony of A. humilis in 1876, from which he 
collected the species again in 1882, 1887 and 1891. I myself 
collected from this colony in 1886, 1887 and 1890, and 
observed it to be still present in 1907 and 1914. As no other 
colony of this bee has ever been observed in the district, 
we may assume that this one has maintained its hold for 
nearly forty years at least, and might conceivably have 
existed for centuries. Some colonies are of such vast extent 
as to produce almost incredible numbers of individuals. 
Thus those of such species as A. humilis and A. sericea 
sometimes extend in favourable situations, with breaks 
perhaps at intervals, for hundreds of yards. Smith remarks 
of the first named that in a pathway at Hawley Green, 


* The changes in nomenclature adopted in this paper will be 
found on p. 269, the names used in recent British works and cata- 
logues being added in brackets. 


220 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


Hants, there was a colony “so numerous that their flight 
as they skim over the surface of the ground, produces a 
loud humming noise.” I have noticed similar colonies 
of this species myself, and have recorded the same of A. 
wilkella. Other species that do not form those huge dense 
colonies are sometimes equally successful in the production 
of individuals, and I suppose every one must have noted 
the incalculable numbers of A. albicans that may be seen 
flying along a single hedgerow, or of mixed common species 
flying round some attractive flowering tree or bush. At 
times local or even rare species may be observed in numbers 
not at all inferior to those of the commonest. Indeed, 
many of the most local species, where they do occur, are 
amongst the most plentiful. In Devonshire we have seen 
at times the males of A. synadelpha (ambigua), fucata, 
fulvago, bimaculata and others so numerous on the wing 
that a number could be taken at a single stroke of the net. 
One most noticeable feature about the species of Andrena 
is the frequent apparent disparity of the sexes in the number 
of individuals observed, when both ¢ and Q are fully out. 
Thus in the case of A. synadelpha above mentioned, if one, 
stands for an hour or two by a hedgerow that I have in mind, 
up and down which the males are coursing in great numbers, 
it is most probable that not more than one or two females 
will be seen. These burrow in a scattered fashion over the 
adjoining heath, and do not flock, like the males, to the 
hedge that borders it, so that, unless one happens to be 
found sunning itself on a leaf or entering a burrow, it is 
quite possible that not even a single example of this sex 
will be met with. Nor have I ever found them on flowers 
in the immediate vicinity, and they must go elsewhere to 
find these. Mr. Morice once lent me a long series of beauti- 
fully fresh females of this species which he found all together 
(and many males in their company) on the flowers of 
Erysimum alliaria, but this plant does not grow in the 
locality where I find the males so plentifully. If, when a 
species first appears, the weather continues fine and hot, 
the males generally last for a very short time. This is 
especially the case with many of the less common species, 
and it is very annoying to find a plentiful supply of females 
of a desirable species, either on flowers or at their burrows, 
and not to be able to secure a single specimen, or only a few 
old and worn specimens, of the other sex. The males in- 
variably appear before the females, either by a day or two or 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 221 


still more in advance, and, as has been said, last for a much 
shorter period. Isolated cases of a female captured before a 
male has been seen are not to be considered as anything but 
abnormal exceptions, the aggregate of the latter sex always 
preceding the other. Sandy, gravelly or light soils are 
absolute requirements of some species, and they need not 
be looked for where these do not occur. Rich meadowland 
is greatly inferior as a collecting ground to sandy heaths, 
waste places and coast land. Certain species, however, 
such as A. albicans, nigroaenea and wilkella seem to flourish 
equally in almost all situations in the South of England. 
The welfare of our wild bees and wasps is probably more 
dependent on weather conditions than is that of any other 
group of insects. Most of their species never venture from 
their burrows unless the sun is bright, though some will do 
so on sultry days, even though the sky is overcast. In 
early spring some species of Andrena are active enough, 
even though the temperature is low, provided that the sun 
is bright. A thoroughly wet and cold season is very disas- 
trous. Of those that I have spent in England since | began 
to collect our Aculeates, the year 1888 was the most remark- 
able. The preceding season was a favourable one in North 
Wiltshire, and during the autumn the species of such genera 
as Halictus and Sphecodes had in all probability reached 
their maximum abundance. The hibernated females of 
these, of course, appeared in the following spring, but the 
new generation was almost wanting. Only a few males of 
the most abundant species began to appear in August, 
about a month late—and four of the commonest Sphecodes 
could not be found at all. Andrena nigroaenea was still 
endeavouring to collect pollen at the end of August, and A. 
wilkella far into September. The first males of Halictus 
mitidiusculus and H. xanthopus appeared on Sept. 20th, 
while on Oct. 5th nearly every garden flower was cut down 
by the severe frosts. A colony of the last named, thousands 
strong, was entirely destroyed and never reappeared. 
Sudden storms, especially hail-storms, that occur when the 
season is well advanced are very disastrous. Being aware 
of a spot where A. prowima occurred, I started one day at 
the beginning of June in bright sunshine to the locality. 
On reaching the place males were at once noticed flying 
about the bushes, and females gathering pollen from the 
flowers of a white Umbellifer. Just then it clouded over 
and hail began to fall. A few of the bees were picked up in 


222 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


a torpid condition from the herbage, but the bad weather 
continued, and further visits on the fine days following 
failed to yield a single specimen. In the early spring bees 
seem to be aware of these coming changes of weather, and 
vanish as if by magic when the sun disappears. That rarer 
species manage to survive such disastrous climatic changes 
is very probably due to the fact that in some species, and 
perhaps in all, a percentage of individuals do not emerge 
in the normal period, but remain over as larvae, to become 
developed in the following season. This occurs not only in 
cold climates, but also in the tropics, and must be of great 
advantage for the continuance of a species. It has already 
been mentioned that some species of Andrena are not 
constant in their habits of forming compact colonies, nor 
are they so with regard to their choice of a situation for 
these colonies. For instance, I have found the fine A. 
hattorfiana forming a compact colony in a hard-trodden 
pathway, while hard by others were burrowing singly in 
places where the ground was well covered with vegetation. 
Again, when we consider the plants from which they collect 
the pollen and honey for their nests and procure the latter 
for their food, we find a great diversity of plants chosen by 
the individuals of some species. Also a flower that is much 
visited in one locality appears to be nearly or quite neg- 
lected in another. In Suffolk the summer brood of A. 
bimaculata was found on one occasion in great numbers on 
the flowers of Senecio on the breck-sands, whereas in Devon- 
shire I have been through acres covered with these flowers 
where, although bimaculata was numerous, not one was 
observed to visit them. Smith says that Nomada * rober- 
jeotiana is to be sought for on the flowers of Senecio, but in 
Devonshire this bee visits almost exclusively the Potentilla, 
even though ragwort abounds in the same locality, and Mr. 
Morice informs me that he has only taken it on this flower. 
Very few of our Andrenas are constant to a single or one or 
two species of plants, but there are many that have a 
marked predilection for one or two. A. florea is, as is well 
known, peculiarly attached to the bryony, cingulata to the 
speedwell (Veronica), humilis and fulvago to Hieracium, cet 
and hattorfiana to the scabious. Some flowers are extremely 
attractive to a considerable number of species, chief amongst 
which are the catkins of Salix, together with the flowers 


* — tormentillae, Alfk. 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 223 


of dandelions and other yellow composites, blackthorn, 
the white-flowered Umbelliferae and the bramble. Other 
flowers will be mentioned in connection with the different 
species. 

The pairing of the sexes of Andrena is often noticed, and 
the vast numbers of males that one sees coursing up and 
down hedgerows and round sunny bushes are in reality 
searching for the females. When one of these alights, a 
collection of males is generally quickly attracted to the 
particular spot. In many cases these males will fly around, 
often within a few inches of the female apparently without 
seeing her, and it would seem as if sight played but a small 
part in the matter. Sometimes, however, she is perceived 
and pounced upon almost immediately. With species that 
form compact colonies there are often large numbers of 
males hovering about the burrows ready to seize the female 
as she leaves or returns to the nest. The females of some 
species seem to put themselves in the brightest sunshine on 
some broad leaf and in the most conspicuous position with 
the object of pairing, but others I have observed to settle 
on a branch or dead leaf, where had they not been seen to 
alight, they would not have been noticed at all. Probably 
pairing sometimes takes place in the burrows, for one even- 
ing in March I dug out a number of males and females of 
A. apicata, and although it was almost dark, it was possible 
to see that in several cases pairing was effected at once, 
when the sexes were placed together in glass-topped boxes. 
Pairing of individuals of distinct but closely allied species 
must be very rare, as I have never seen a case, though I 
have spent much time in watching the pairings of A. wilkella, 
afzeliella and similis, where these all occurred in company, 
and similarly with the equally closely allied species of the 
treommerana group and the small bees of the minutula group. 
Nor have I ever seen a specimen that I should consider likely 
to be a hybrid. Saunders has suggested that A. praetexta 
of Smith might be a cross between carbonaria and bymaculata, 
but it seems to me to be merely a variety of the former, 
comparable with the var. consimilis of A. nitida. 

Variation in the colour of the pubescence of Andrena is 
considerable in some species, especially in the substitution 
of brown or yellow hairs for black or vice versa, while in 
a few cases white and black become interchanged. Of 
course, changes due to fading from exposure to weather are 
not to be reckoned as variation. Few of these variations 


224 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


have received names, excepting where the change of colour 
is due to seasonal dimorphism, and in these cases the names 
were given under the supposition that the two forms were 
distinct species. Such cases are A. bomaculata and decorata, 
parvula and munutula and others. The supposed species 
A. mixta Schenck is, I have satisfied myself, a variety of 
A. varians 2, in which white hairs replace the black ones 
on the abdomen, face, and on other parts. More or less 
intermediate conditions are sometimes found, and a similar 
kind of variation, but less extreme, is found in the female of 
the allied species A. synadelpha. In neither case are there 
two forms of male known. All the few species of Andrena 
which have the integument ornamented with red are varia- 
able in a high degree, excepting only A. cingulata. All have 
melanic forms. Smith was of the opinion, that in the case of 
A. hattorfiana* the red forms were produced in hot sum- 
mers, but I do not think that this will prove to be a complete 
explanation. In my observations of this species in Devon- 
shire only once have I seen a red-bodied example, though I 
have observed the bee in at least two summers of extra- 
ordinary heat and dryness, but this specimen of the red 
variety did not occur in either of the dry years. It is 
remarkable that in South Devonshire no red-marked varieties 
of either brood of A. bimaculata, nor any conspicuously 
red-bodied ones of A. marginata have ever occurred to me, 
though in the more eastern counties such are common, and 
those of the latter species are plentiful even in the 
neighbouring county of Dorset. 

The dimorphic forms of first and second broods of the 
double-brooded species are in some cases of very great inter- 
est, and those which are in any way remarkable, and some 
even of those which are not so, have varietal names. In 
most cases the difference in structure or appearance between 
the spring and summer broods is far more marked in the 3 
sex. Saunders suggested that this dimorphism was pro- 
duced by the different food (pollen of quite distinct species 
of plants) supplied to the larvae of each brood; but there is 
little reason to suppose that this is the cause of the dimorph- 
ism, for we see no such variation in the individuals of a 
single-brooded species, which must often be produced from 


* Mr. Morice informs me that in Mediterranean localities both 
sexes are almost invariably of the red variety. I have a long series 
from Germany with the males of the dark, the females of the red 
form. 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 225 


larvae fed on food quite as different, as that supplied to 
each generation of the double-brooded species. Andrena 
spinigera is the most interesting of all these forms, since its 
second brood undergoes such marked changes in structure 
as to become very similar to the single-brooded A. trimmer- 
ana (Auct. nec K.), whereas the ¢ of its first brood (ve. 
typical spinigera) is quite distinct structurally. 

It is most interesting to notice the difference between 
closely allied species with regard to the production of a 
single or of two broods a year. Thus A. tibialis, one of the 
earliest spring bees, is always single-brooded, while its very 
close congener, bimaculata, 1s double-brooded. In this case 
the spring brood of the latter is contemporaneous with the 
one brood of the former. Of the very closely allied species 
A. wilkella and ovatula the former is single, the latter double 
brooded; but the first brood of the ovatula is, as a rule, 
decidedly earlier in appearance than the one brood of the 
other. Many of our earliest spring bees, which frequently 
appear in March, if the weather be at all warm, e.g., A. 
praecoz, apicata, clarkella and albicans, never produce a 
second brood, while others like gwynana, bimaculata, 
spinigera, dorsata and parvula do so regularly in the south, 
and when they are parasitised by Nomada, the parasite 
also is either regularly or occasionally double-brooded. In 
Northern Europe species which with us, even in the extreme 
south of England, are invariably single-brooded produce a 
second brood in summer, the first brood often appearing 
earlier than our one brood of the same species. Most 
notable of these are A. sericea and argentata, which appear 
in April, the former even in March, with a second brood in 
June, while it is also said to have even a third brood! A 
few of our species, e.g., the small bees A. sawndersella (nana 
K. 8.) and subopaca, under exceptional conditions produce a 
partial second brood in August. 

Some species of Andrena, e.g., carbonaria, which have 
always an abundant second brood in the south, are generally 
single-brooded as one goes further north. Generally the 
specimens of first and second broods are easily distinguished 
in the majority of specimens, as is the case with A. eximia, 
spungera, gwynana, parvula and others, but nearly always, 
in the © sex at least, there will be found examples of either 
brood which cannot be distinguished at all or only with the 
oreatest difficulty or uncertainty. We have at present no 
accurate information as to the actual life-history of any of 

TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PARTS I, II. (JULY) Q 


226 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


these bees, and it is quite possible that not all the individuals 
that one sees in the summer of a double-brooded species are 
really the offspring of a spring parent; for it may be that 
some of the offspring of the summer brood do not emerge 
till the followmg summer, and likewise that some of the 
spring brood have also taken a complete year before they 
have emerged. The somewhat perplexing aberrations one 
finds in these dimorphic species may possibly be due to 
such variations in the time occupied in development. In 
any case these double-brooded species are of the greatest 
interest, and so far they have been at the best very super- 
ficially studied. Some thirty years ago Edward Saunders 
intended to study them specially and publish his observa- 
tions, but unfortunately he did not (so far as | am aware) 
carry out his intention. One other point which must be 
considered in connection with the sprmg Andrenas, which 
produce only a single brood, is the fact that m many cases, 
though there is no second emergence, the fully developed 
bee has left the pupa the same year that the egg was laid 
by the parent, and possibly even before the end of the sum- 
mer. Consequently, the difference in the actual period of 
development between some of the single-brooded species we 
capture in the spring and the examples of other species, which 
are the offspring of a second brood of the preceding year, 
is not nearly so great as may have been imagined, but the 
conditions of temperature, etc., may be different and of im- 
portance. We know from Smith’s observations that im the 
case of some bees, such as Anthophora, some individuals 
pass the winter as larvae, and pupate and produce mature 
bees in the following year, while others are already fully 
mature on the approach of winter, and, in fact, are occasion- 
ally dug up in that condition during the winter months. In 
the case of Anthophora this does not appear to lead to any 
noticeable variation. When we find examples of either 
brood of such a species as A. dorsata exactly resembling 
one another, while others have quite differently coloured 
legs, at present we do not know whether these different 
varieties have really taken very different periods of time 
for their development, a few months in one case and many 
months in the other, or whether those which are alike 
may or may not have taken the same period to become 
mature. 

Of other variations one may mention that in which either 
the scopae or the anal fimbria or one of these, instead of 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 227 


being dark or fuscous, becomes yellow or golden. Such are 
the var. consimilis Sm. of A. nitida and the var. praetexta of 
A. carbonaria, while among species that have a yellow scopa 
but normally a more or less fuscous fimbria there is a form of 
A. tarsata, in which the latter is a bright pale golden colour, 
and similar forms of A. ovatula also occur. In some species, 
e.g., A. fucata, the scopa may become quite pale without the 
fimbria being affected. The entire replacement of black 
hairs by white in varians var. mixta has already been men- 
tioned, and the change from white hairs on the face to fus- 
cous or blackish ones occurs in A. nitida var. baliica, common 
in Devonshire, and also in some specimens of angustior and 
others. Hermaphrodites of A. flavipes (fulvicrus), bimacu- 
lata, dorsata and albicans have been described by myself, and 
one of A. nitida by Smith. 

Extraordinary variation in size is a remarkable feature 
of the males of many Andrenas, but in the females this 
is much less marked and of a different nature. In the 
latter sex there is usually a fairly average size in the largest 
specimens, while quite abnormally small, or starved ones, 
are found occasionally. In the males, on the contrary, 
whereas there is great general variability in the size, in 
many species gigantic examples are occasionally met with. 
.This phenomenon is not at all uncommon, and there is 
nothing like it in the 9 sex. Where the species are naturally 
large-headed, these giant specimens have a most striking 
and even formidable appearance. A, bucephala, spinigera, 
trummerana, fulva, synadelpha, fucata, denticulata and 
others are conspicuous examples, but even in small species 
such as chrysosceles and minute ones like minutula one 
meets with individuals grossly oversized and sufficiently 
conspicuous amongst the normal. 

Most, if not all, species of Andrena emit, when handled, 
a very distinct odour, and this is sometimes the case with 
both sexes. Kirby in his wonderful old book refers to 
this under several species. Thus of Melitta pilipes, he 
says: “Allium spirat recens insectum.” A. gwynana 
and fulvicrus are also said to smell of garlic. But parvula 
“moscham spirat”’ and afzeliella “ suavem spargit odorem.” 
To myself the majority of species are mildly unpleasant, 
e.g., A. albicans, but some, if not actually pleasant, are 
certainly less unpleasant than others. A. denticulata 
emits an odour unlike that of such other Andrenas as I 
have examined in this respect. Mr. A. H. Hamm suggested 


228. Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


that the odour resembled that of burnt sugar, and this is 
perhaps as near a comparison as can be made. 

Some of the bees of this genus feign death when alarmed, 
and may be seen lying on their backs on the ground or 
at the bottom of the net after capture with their limbs 
closely appressed to the body. This condition is assumed 
much more readily by some species than others. Some 
of the small species of the minutula group when the net 
is placed over them will often fall at once to the ground, 
and remain motionless amongst the grass roots till one’s 
patience is exhausted in waiting for them to fly up. Some 
are much more willing to feign death when the sun dis- 
appears than when it is shining hotly, and some are able, 
like insects of other Orders, to slip along on their backs 
without the use of their legs, which remain appressed to 
the body. Species of the wilkella group, A. chrysosceles, 
A. albicans notably, and probably many others feign death, 
and will remain quiescent for a considerable time at the roots — 
of herbage, no doubt until they consider the danger is past. 

Andrena has numerous natural enemies, the bees of 
the genus Nomada and the remarkable Strepsipterous 
Stylops being of special interest. A few species are also 
attacked by members of the genus Sphecodes—most of 
which are, however, parasites of Halictus—and by the 
conspicuous and beautiful flies of the genus Bombylius.* 
Some of the Conopidae also appear to be attached to 
Andrena, and they may be noticed flying at and striking 
against the bees as they fly around hedges or bushes, and 
even pursuing them for some distance. We have seen 
one species follow a laden 2 of A. nitida right to its burrow 
and cling to it there. One may suppose that this pro- 
ceeding is for the purpose of oviposition, so that the larva 
of the fly may be carried into the bees’ burrow, but I have 
no information as to the actual deposition of an egg, 


* Chapman observed the oviposition of Bombylius major at the 
burrows of Andrena labialis, and, as mentioned hereafter, I have 
seen the same fly at pure colonies of A. flavipes, but it is not at 
all confined to these two species. On April 3, 1919, a dense colony 
of A. c’arkella was found with one or two empty pupa cases of 
Bomtylius minor in the opening of nearly every burrow, and some 
of the flies, recently emerged, were sunning themselves on the 
bare earth in which the colony was placed. No doubt the formid- 
able armature of curved spines on the head of the pupa beneath 
serves to enable it to reach the mouth of the bees’ burrow, before the 
fly emerges. 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 229 


when the insects come into contact. The burrows of 
colonies of Andrena are ravaged by Forficula, which 
frequently raise their young in them, and various Carabid 
beetles and the Myriapod Lithobius are numerous in the 
same situation. 

In the case of Nomada, the different species are all 
mentioned hereafter in connection with those of Andrena, 
which they parasitise. It is possible that some have a 
rather wider range of hosts than I have allowed. Of one 
only, N. flavopicta K. (jacobaeae Auct. plur.), the host 
appears a little doubtful. Smith records it as having 
once been seen to enter the burrow of the second brood of 
A. flavipes (fulvicrus), and this may be its host. It has, 
however, occurred in some localities, where this Andrena 
either does not occur at all or, at any rate, has been over- 
looked, and should there have been some mistake on 
Smith’s part, I suggest that it is attached to members of 
the group of A. mgriceps, one or other of which I have 
always found present in its localities. Two of our species 
are quite peculiar in their habits, N. sezfasciata breeding 
in colonies of Eucera longicornis and N. furva in those of 
Halictus nitidiusculus. The latter has been said also to 
be attached to H. morio, but I myself have never found 
this to be the case, though I have carefully investigated 
the matter in such distant localities as Oxford, Monmouth 
and Devon. H. morio is abundant in all these places, but 
the Nomada in my own experience either attacked pure 
colonies of nitidiusculus, or, 1f morio occurred in the same 
bank, was only obtained from the burrows of the former. 
In Devon it is sometimes found in mixed colonies of 
H. nitidiusculus and minutus,* and in this case, owing 
to the great similarity of these two species, I could not be 
sure whether one or both were attacked. Smith says 
that this minute species was obtained from the cells of 
Colletes daviesana, but this, of course, does not necessarily 
mean that it is parasitic on that bee. Halicti, like other 
bees, sometimes enter burrows made by other species 
and form their nests therein, just as Andrenas enter rabbit, 
rat, and mice burrows. Similarly, Smith records finding 
N. marshamella in the cell of Hucera, this no doubt having 


* Since the remarks above were written this little Nomada has 
been obtained before the time of emergence from burrows of H. 
minutus, and, of course, it may well be parasitic on H. morio, but 
positive evidence of this is required. 


230 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


been utilised previously by Andrena. The same author 
records several of our species of Nomada as parasites on 
various larger Halictus, and one, N. fabriciana, as being 
the peculiar parasite of Panurgus banksianus. Shuckard 
corroborates this, but Smith is certainly wrong in the case 
of Halictus, and in general, when assigning hosts to the 
various Nomadas, appears to have formed his opinion from 
such bees as he saw on the same flowers as the parasites 
or flying about in the same vicinity. 

Of N. fabriciana in his first edition he says that it is 
met with on Hampstead Heath “ about the end of April 
and during May, and it has also been taken in Yorkshire 
in the month of July.” April and May is the normal time 
for this Nomada, and Panurgus is not to be found then. 
In Yorkshire it was probably a late season, when Smith 
found specimens in July, and these belonged to the first 
brood, since he took fresh males of early spring bees at 
the same time (e. g., 3 trommerana and cineraria). For these 
reasons one cannot place much faith on Smith’s observa- 
tions as a whole, though, of course, in a number of cases 
he is correct. Some records of parasitism given by 
Saunders are also, I believe, incorrect, but it may be 
suspected that these were chiefly taken from Smith’s 
works and not due to his own observation. 

There are a few well-known Continental species of 
Nomada which attack species of Andrena common in this 
country, but are themselves unknown here. Such are 
N. obscura on A. ruficrus, N. cinnabarina on A. labialis, 
and alboguttata, a large race of baccata, on A. sericea. 
N. rhenana is said to be parasitic on A. afzeliella. 

It is, I think, very rare for a species of Nomada, or even 
for a group of closely allied species of this genus, to attack 
Andrenas that are widely separated in structure, and 
consequently the study of their parasitism will help in 
fixing the affinities of species and of groups in Andrena. 
Of course this rule is not without exceptions. The rufi- 
cornis group of Nomada is attached to the varians group of 
Andrena, but N. flava and N. bucephalae attack that of 
N. trimmerana, a distinct group, but still clearly allied 
to that of varians. I know no case in our British Nomadas 
where the same species of parasite attacks Andrenas 
belonging to two distinct groups, though, if we accept 
some of Smith’s conclusions, such cases would be not 
uncommon and of a most surprising character. 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 231 


The most remarkable divergence found in our British 
species is in the case of N. flavipes (solidaginis). Obviously 
this parasite belongs to a most distinct group, including 
N. tormentillae (roberjeotiana) and obtusifrons, which attack 
A. tarsata and cottana, but itself is especially attached to 
A. fuscipes, belonging to quite a different group of Andrena. 

In the present state of our knowledge I think it a mis- 
take to accept numerous and diverse species of Andrena 
as the host of a single Nomada on casual observations. It 
is quite certain that parasitic bees, either for shelter or 
in search of their proper host, do at times enter burrows 
of species on which they are not parasitic, and certainly 
non-parasitic bees that burrow in the ground do some- 
times make use of a burrow not formed by themselves, 
but by some other non-parasitic species, just as we know 
that wood-boring bees constantly make use of burrows 
formed by other Hymenoptera or by Coleoptera. 

When Saunders tells us that N. marshamella parasitises 
A. ngroaenea and atriceps and Alfken supposes or con- 
jectures that nitida is its host, one may not be able to 
prove that such is not the case; but when after very 
close attention to the habits of this Nomada in widely 
different localities one has found it peculiarly attached 
either to A. trimmerana Auct., or more rarely to its close 
ally A. spinigera, neither of which are mentioned, one 
would like to know on exactly what evidence it is assigned 
to species representing two quite different groups from 
that of its normal host. Both English and Continental 
- writings are full of these abnormal associations of host 
and parasite, and since, as I have shown, we can be certain 
that many of these were mere guesses, we shall do well 
to look with suspicion on all such, until they have been 
thoroughly investigated. 

In spite of their parasitic habits the Nomadas are freely 
attracted by flowers, but, as might be expected, in general 
the males visit these more frequently than the females. 
It is noteworthy that some species are particularly attracted 
by the same flower that is most attractive to their hosts. 
Thus, as is well known, N. armata and atrata frequent the 
flowers of scabious with A. hattorfiana and marginata, 
N. tormentillae those of Potentilla with A. tarsata, and so 
with others. This seems particularly the case, where the 
Andrena affects a very limited number of plants—a fact 
in itself of considerable interest. 


2352 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


The females of Nomada naturally spend most of their 
time either searching for the burrows of their hosts or in 
the neighbourhood of these. When a large number are 
seen hovering over the mouths of the burrows of some 
compact colony, investigating these on the wing before 
entering, they present a most striking appearance—not 
only large species like armata, lineola, or 6-fasciata, but 
even moderate-sized ones hke hillana, ruficornis or germa- 
mica hecome conspicuous and appear to exhibit their 
bright colours to the best advantage. We may presume 
that these colours have some protective value against 
such predaceous animals as might attack them, since they 
are thus by the nature of their habits very much exposed 
to any such enemies as may be at hand. Certainly the 
Andrenas are not exposed to the same extent, for when 
once the work of provisioning their cells has begun, they 
as a rule quickly enter the burrows with their load of 
pollen, whereas the parasite is often very conspicuous while 
hovering over a bare soil for a long time together and 
investigating the burrows, to find one which is in a fit 
condition for its entry. Such a view of the coloration 
of Nomada is far preferable to that which supposes the 
wasp-like or conspicuous colours to be for the purpose 
of intimidating the host! For a time after their emergence 
the parasites appear to resort to the burrows, where they 
were born, for shelter at night and in unfavourable weather, 
but when the hosts become fully occupied with their 
labours, the Nomadas habitually remain out at nights. 
Some of them sleep clinging by the mandibles alone to 
the heads of flowering grasses, the legs all drawn close to 
the body and the antennae porrect, so as to resemble a 
little stalk. The bright colours of the body being much 
toned down by the closed and superincumbent wings, 
the bees closely resemble the seeds or flowers of grasses, 
and are often difficult to detect. Some may be found 
clinging to dead twigs or leaves, with which their colours 
also harmonise very well. On grasses I have taken large 
numbers of N. hallana and germanica, and also of the very 
minute N. furva; while attached to dead hedgerow 
branches I once found a number of 2 N. bifida, and on 
heather many N. rufipes. 

Probably all the species of Nomada possess a strong 
odour, more or less disagreeable to me in the case 
of N. marshamella, but rather pleasant in the case of 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 238 


N. goodeniana. Kirby noticed it specially of the latter, 
“odore melissae flagrantissima,” while N. lineola (corni- 
gera K.) “ moscham redolet.” Some at times feign death 
when alarmed. The sting even of the larger species is 
not at all severe, and when the bee is taken between the 
finger and thumb the cuticle is rarely penetrated, though 
vigorous attempts are made to do so. If the thin skin 
beneath the nail is pierced, the sting is sometimes sufficiently 
sharp, as I have myself experienced, to cause one to in- 
voluntarily relax one’s hold of the bee, but the pain is 
short-lived. It is impossible to help noticing, that though 
the sting is feeble, the quite remarkable mobility of the 
abdomen admits of the weapon being used with a far 
greater range of movement than in most bees. 

All the species of Nomada have a hard and thick chitinous 
cuticle, forming a stronger protection from injury than 
that of their hosts. Indeed, it may be accepted as an 
almost universal law that in parasitic Aculeata the in- 
tegument is less easily pierced than that of the species 
they parasitise. Thus Coeliorys is harder than Megachile, 
Crocisa or Melecta than Anthophora, Epeolus than Colletes, 
Psithyrus than Bombus, Chrysis and Sapyga than their 
usual hosts, Nysson than Gorytes and Harpactus, and so 
on. Only perhaps in the case of a few species, which 
have lately taken to parasitism, as we judge, and not yet 
become greatly modified thereby, does this fact seem 
hardly apparent. This hardness of covering (accompanied 
as it often is by spines, prominences or projections) may 
be of use to the parasites as a protection from some pre- 
daceous enemies, or even conceivably to some extent from 
the unfavourable weather, to which their mode of life 
exposes them, but one cannot help suspecting that it is 
primarily as a protection against attacks of their hosts 
that their thicker armour is so regularly developed. 

There is considerable difference of opinion as to the 
frequency of conflict between host and parasite. Shuckard 
particularly notices the fierce fights between Anthophora 
and Melecta, and I have described an attack on Halictus 
by Sphecodes. On the Continent Marchal saw S. sub- 
quadratus kill the 2 of H. malachurus and take possession 
of its burrow. Hedychrum has been recorded in an often- 
quoted passage as being surprised and attacked by its 
host, and as protecting itself by its well-known habit of 
rolling itself up into a ball. It is probable that fights 


234 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


between host and parasite are not infrequent, but that 
they occur in the burrow itself and are rarely observed in 
consequence. The fight between Halictus and Sphecodes 
observed by me was begun there, and Shuckard says of 
Anthophora: “if they catch the intruder” (Melecta) 
‘“‘in her invasion, they will draw her forth and deliver 
battle with great fury.” The Hedychrum alluded to 
above was caught in the burrow by its host. It must 
often happen that the rightful owner of the burrow comes 
home and surprises the parasite within, but what takes 
place beneath the surface, in which the burrow is formed, 
is, except in special instances, as cited above, quite un- 
certain. The main object of the parasite must be a safe 
escape, and one may suppose that the hardness of the 
cuticle helps to ensure this. It is said that in the case of 
Nomada seafasciata and its host Eucera the latter gives 
way to the parasite, but accurate and detailed information 
on such points is much wanted. It seems improbable 
that any host would tolerate an interference with the 
performance of its labour. It is certain that the parasites 
exhibit care or caution in entering the burrows, for one 
often notices many of our Nomadas hovering over the 
openings for some time before they determine to enter, 
or pass on to investigate another burrow. It would appear 
that either they wish to ascertain the presence or absence 
of the maker, or else perhaps, by some unknown means, 
to learn the condition of the contents of the burrow, as to 
its fitness or readiness for the reception of an egg. Whether 
the odours of the Nomadae and other parasites play any 
part in the event of collision between them and their 
hosts, or whether they are otherwise protective, e.@., 
against predaceous creatures, or, again, are only of sexual 
significance we have no evidence. 

In the case of the conflict between Halictus and Sphecodes 
observed by me, it would appear that the latter was the 
ageressor, but this may only have been apparent and not 
really the case. When the female Psithyrus insinuates 
itself into the nest of Bombus, it is probable that the 
beginning of the actual combat may be due to either one 
of them according to circumstances, but the harder 
Psithyrus is assumed to be generally victorious. 

It is a notorious fact that in many cases the number 
of individuals of a parasite compared with that of the 
host varies extremely in different seasons. Thus one year 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 235 


in a given locality an Andrena and its parasite may be 
both numerous, and the next year, though the former 
may be again plentiful, the latter may be very scarce or 
even not found at all. The cause of this is, I think, 
entirely due to the difference of habits, for the host in 
the shelter of its burrow is less affected by unfavourable 
weather conditions than the exposed parasite. A day 
or two with continued cold rains no doubt decimates the 
latter. On wet days we have often found Melecta, Epeolus 
and Nomada hanging on to herbage or shrubs in the manner 
described, soaked with the rain and torpid with cold. 
On the other hand, with favourable conditions Nomada is 
capable of very rapid increase, remarkably so in the case 
of some species that attack those species of Andrena 
that form large colonies. In such cases the parasite can 
enter and oviposit in a number of different cells in the 
time that it takes to store a single one. Consequently, 
in rare instances we have known a Nomada even to out- 
number its host considerably, though such a success is 
not often likely to last more than one or two seasons. 
This phenomenon is not at all confined to Nomada, for 
under exceptional circumstances a careful examination 
of large colonies of Anthophora, pilipes and Colletes suc- 
cincta has shown an enormous preponderance of their 
parasites, Melecta armata and Epeolus cruciger (rufipes), in 
some seasons. 

From these general remarks on Nomada and other para- 
sitic bees it will be seen that a wide field is here presented 
for accurate observations, our knowledge on many points 
being of the most slender kind. The most we can say 
is that one certain host at least is now known for every 
species of Nomada that we have in this country, excepting 
only N. flavopicta, which requires further investigation. 
How many of the associations recorded, whether by British 
or Continental authors, are correct, when they do not agree 
with those which are given here under the various species 
of Andrena, is quite uncertain, but it may be said with 
certainty that some are absolutely incorrect and impossible. 
Having found myself more than once deceived in assigning 
a parasite to host, even after having, as I thought, taken 
particular pains to be correct, I feel sure that it often needs 
great care and repeated observations to arrive at correct 
conclusions. 

Not many of our British Nomada are regularly double- 


236 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


brooded even in the south, while some which are so on the 
Continent have but one brood with us. This may be the 
case, even though the host be regularly double-brooded. 

Several of our species are irregularly double-brooded, 
e.g., N. flavoguttata and fabriciana, both of which some- 
times yield an abundant second generation. So too does 
N. lineola in some seasons, and perhaps generally in the 
extreme south. N. marshamella, when parasitic on 
A. spinigera frequently, and when on A. trimmerana 
(Auct.) occasionally, yields a summer brood; in the latter 
case generally partial and represented by only a few in- 
dividuals, but in the former sometimes a copious one, 
females of which I have taken in plenty entering the 
burrows of the second brood of its host—the form named 
A. anglica by Alfken. 

In August 1886, on the south coast I met with a second 
brood of A. goodeniana in almost incredible numbers, but 
strangely enough have never since met with a single ex- 
ample of such, though Hallett has observed a copious 
summer generation. I have seen an example of a second 
brood of N. ruficornis from Ireland, but not from elsewhere. 

These examples of a second brood are in the case of 
A. fabriciana and flavoguttata much darker than the first, 
as may be seen when a series of examples is placed side 
by side; indeed, that of the latter has, I believe, been 
given a special name—var. hoeppneri—by Alfken. 

The genus Sphecodes is essentially a parasite on Halictus, 
but three species appear to be strictly attached to Andrena, 
though the evidence is not so absolutely conclusive as 
one could wish. Of these species S. rubicundus is said to 
be a parasite on A. labialis both here and on the Continent, 
and certainly has been taken in closest company with 
that Andrena in Suffolk, Hampshire, Cambridge, ete., so 
that there would appear to be no reason to doubt this 
association. 

S. reticulatus is said on the Continent to be attached to 
A. argentata, and certainly in localities where it occurs in 
‘this country, when extensive search has been made, this 
Andrena has always, I think, been met with. ‘ Halictus 
prasinus has also been suggested as a host for the Sphecodes, 
and, as it happens, this Halictus frequently abounds in the 
very same localities as the Andrena. On the other hand, 
H. prasinus occurs over a wide area of distribution in 
Britain, from which the Sphecodes has never been obtained, 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 237 


so that the evidence that exists is clearly in favour of the 
Andrena as host, especially as on the Continent its burrows 
have actually been seen to be entered by the parasite. 

S. pellucadus (pilifrons) is a constant parasite of A. 
sericea, but is more local than the host. It is interesting 
to note that though this Andrena, like labialis, is generally 
found provisioning its cells in May and June, the Sphecodes 
parasitic on them differ in their habits from one another. 

S. rubicundus appears in both sexes in May and June 
and has no later summer emergence, the females not 
hibernating, while only females of S. pellucidus are found 
at the time when A. sericea is at work, these being hiber- 
nated individuals of that sex which have survived from the 
brood of both sexes that appeared in the later summer 
months of the preceding year. This indeed accords with 
the normal life-history of the genus, but the case of S. 
spinulosus alone as regards the time of emergence is similar 
to that of rubscundus, and is the more remarkable because 
it is a parasite on Halictus, the species of which genus 
agree in the time of their emergence and in the hibernation 
of their females with normal Sphecodes. Consequently, 
S. spinulosus differs greatly from the normal habits of its 
genus in its life-cycle and also in like manner from its 
host; S. pellucidus resembles its congeners in this respect 
but differs greatly from its host; while S. rubicundus 
differs from the normal of its congeners but resembles its 
host. All other of our Sphecodes, so far as has been ascer- 
tained, are parasitic on Halictus and have the same habits 
as the latter, in so far as males and females emerge together 
after midsummer, the males dying before winter and the 
females hibernating. 

The parasitic Strepsiptera of the genus Stylops attack 
many more of our species of Andrena than do the Sphecodes. 
In the Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine 1918 (pp. 67, 
115 and 129) I have given a list of such species as have 
been found stylopised in this country and a synopsis of 
such species of Stylops as are known to me, together with 
an account of the effects of the parasite on the host. The 
Strepsiptera that attack Halictus are a different genus 
from those parasitic on Andrena, and belong not to the 
genus Halictophagus (which is parasitic on Homopterous 
bugs, and was given its generic name under a mistaken 
idea that Halictus was the host), but to Halictostylops or 
Halictoxenus of Pierce. 


238 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


The changes produced by Stylops are sometimes so 
considerable that stylopised examples will not agree with 
the characters given for the separation of the species, but 
I have never yet come across any so changed that the 
species could not be determined with certainty. 


Habits and Distribution of British Species. 


We may now consider the species in order from the point 
of view of their habits, and the parasites that affect them. 

A. albicans is perhaps the most generally common of 
the whole genus, and is said by Smith to occur also in 
N. America. It frequents many flowers, and in the earliest 
warm spring days may be seen in numbers collecting its 
store or feeding on the sallow catkins and dandelion 
blossoms. It abounds in gardens on the flowers of larger 
fruit-trees, on gooseberry, Cotoneaster; also on Crataegus, 
Viburnum, Euphorbia and many other plants. In most 
southern localities it is parasitised by ‘Nomada bifida, 
which also occurs with it in the north, and has been taken, 
entering its burrows, in all parts of the country, showing 
a distribution as wide as that of its host. 

A. carbonaria (pilipes) is a local species very partial to 
the coast, but also found far inland, as at Oxford. It 
sometimes forms large and very compact colonies in cliffs, 
and’ I have noticed them so near the foot of these as to be 
constantly damped by the sea spray at high tide. In the 
south it regularly has a full second brood, but at Oxford 
apparently only one as a rule. The first brood visits 
catkins of Salix and is very partial to blackthorn, and is 
also found more or less commonly on dandelions, cabbage 
and mustard, on hawthorn, Euphorbia, and other plants. 
The second brood is extremely partial to pink thistle 
and blackberry flowers. I have rarely, only twice or three 
times, found it stylopised, and as often have taken Nomada 
lineola entering its burrows. 

A. tibialis is a local species, its abundance in many 
localities around London having, no doubt, led to its being 
considered more generally common than is really the case. 
Over a large extent of country in Gloucestershire, Wiltshire 
and Devonshire, for instance, it is entirely absent, as is 
probably the case in many other counties even in the south, 
even though it may occur locally in them. Unless actual 
colonies be found, the females in my experience form 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 239 


an extremely small proportion of the total number of 
specimens that are seen. It is an early spring bee, and 
visits the sallow catkins and is extremely partial to the 
dandelion, but also occurs on Brassica, Tussilago, and 
various other plants. In N.W. Germany it has a second 
brood, which differs somewhat from the first, but there it 
appears to be only exceptionally double-brooded, and I 
have seen no such specimens from England. 

In some localities this species is very frequently stylop- 
ised, but not by any means wherever it occurs. It is 
parasitised by N. lineola, but only locally, and I have 
found it very abundant in some places without a trace of 
this Nomada. 

A. bimaculata, unlike the preceding, is regularly double- 
brooded in the southern counties, at least. It is very 
partial to coast localities, but is also found on the commons 
near London, and is widely distributed in such places in 
Surrey. It abounds locally in Norfolk and Suffolk and 
in Berks, and is particularly common in Devonshire, 
where it ranges inland to a height of nearly 1000 ft. above 
the sea on Dartmoor. But it is always quite local. I have 
never myself found an extensive compact colony of this 
species, but have seen the burrows scattered, at most two 
or three together, over acres of sandy soil. In the spring 
these bees visit chiefly Saliz and Prunus, and in some 
localities the flowers of Ulex and even Bellis; in the summer 
they are most partial to Rubus, but in some places have 
abounded on Senecio. 

Near London and in the eastern counties red-marked 
varieties are frequently common, but in the far west they 
must be very rare indeed, as I have never met with one. 

This species is occasionally stylopised. On the 12th 
of August, 1914, I took two females on bramble flowers 
containing the parasite, one of these, as is usual, being 
free from pollen, except such as might have accidentally 
adhered, but the other had gathered a full load, not only 
the hind tibiae, the floccus and hind femoral receptacle, 
but even the propodeal basket being filled. The first 
brood is also subject to the attack of Stylops. 

Nomada lineola is an abundant parasite of this Andrena 
in Devonshire, and like its host is double-brooded there. 

A. flavipes (fulvicrus) is a regularly double-brooded 
species in the south, and though decidedly local, where it 
is found, it generally occurs in great numbers, frequently 


240 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


forming compact colonies of enormous size. It visits 
many plants, Salix, Taraxacum and Ulex being favourites 
with the first brood, but Brassica, Sinapis, Veronica, 
Trifolium, etc., are also resorted to; while the second 
brood is found on Senecio and other yellow Composites, 
thistles, yarrow, tansy, etc. In some places I have 
noticed specimens of the first brood numerously on 
daisies, T'ussilago and blackthorn. 

I have never myself found this species stylopised, but 
it is recorded to have been taken in this condition by 
Claude Morley. 

It is parasitised by Nomada fucata, which in England 
is much more local than the host and apparently only 
infests its second brood. In N.W. Germany, as well as 
in Southern localities, it is found with both broods, and is 
very common; in the Bremen district, according to 
Alfken, almost more numerous than the host! According 
to Smith, N. jacobaeae is also parasitic on this Andrena, 
as he records that he took it entering a burrow (of the 
second brood); but it is curious that there should be so 
little definite knowledge as to the habits of this not un- 
common parasite. I have found it sparingly in some 
localities, where the Andrena is still scarcer, and in others 
where I have not found the latter at all. 

On the 22nd of April, 1914, I went to Sidmouth to 
examine a large compact colony of this Andrena, since it 
does not occur in my own neighbourhood. This colony I 
had found in August 1886, and I wished to see if any 
parasites were entering the burrows. So far as Hymeno- 
ptera were concerned, none occurred, but extraordinary 
numbers of the fly Bombylius major were hovering over 
the colony and every now and then touching the earth 
with the tips of their bodies, presumably in the act of 
oviposition. No change in the position nor in the extent 
of this great colony had taken place in the interval of 
twenty-seven years between my visits, and I have no 
doubt it was one of the great colonies recorded by Smith, 
as observed by him in 1871. 

A. gravida (fasciata) is in England a local species, of 
apparently very restricted range in the south, having been 
found in Kent, Sussex and Essex, but as it has been 
recorded from Perth, it should occur in more numerous 
localities than have been noted. It is an early spring 
bee, and frequents sallows and al:o visits the flowers of 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 241 


dandelions. It is, I believe, only single-brooded, but in 
Smith’s collection there is a curious stylopised 2 (which 
he wrongly considered to represent Kirby’s Mouffetella) 
taken in Hampshire in the month of July 1840. I know 
of no other summer emergence nor of any other case of 
stylopisation. 

A. nitida is a very widely distributed species, which 
generally is more abundant in meadowland and cultivated 
country than in wilder districts, but I have not myself 
collected in any part of the south of England, where it 
does not occur. It visits many different flowers, but is 
perhaps particularly attached to the dandelion. It visits 
Salix and Prunus, as do most spring Andrenas, also Bellis, 
Brassica, holly, Cotoneaster, Ranunculus, Veronica, various 
fruit-trees, e.g., cherry and raspberry, and Cruciferous 
plants. On all these I have seen it commonly, and some- 
times it may be seen on the white dead-nettle. I have 
never known of a specimen of a second brood, although the 
species often reaches maturity in its burrow before winter. 

It does not appear to be very subject to parasites, 
though I believe Nomada goodeniana (succincta) is sup- 
posed to attack it. I have not been able to satisfy myself 
as to this, and one field of large acreage, throughout which 
the burrows of nitida were dispersed, never yielded a 
parasite during several years’ search, although the above- 
named Nomada was very common in the district, infesting 
A. nigroaenea. Still niteda is a very probable host of this 
Nomada. Stylopised specimens are quite rare or at 
least excessively local. This species is very widely dis- 

tributed and occurs in the north of England and in Ireland. 
‘A. thoracica is more local than the preceding and in the 
south is regularly double-brooded. The first brood is 
found freely on Salix and Prunus, and is also partial to 
dandelions and to cabbage and mustard flowers. The 
second brood is generally found on Rubus and pink thistles. 
Unlike mitida, it frequently forms large compact colonies. 
One colony found by my children in a hard-trodden sheep- 
track on the edge of Dartmoor appeared to consist of 
only this species, and fine large specimens of Nomada 
goodenana were taken entering the burrows. Otherwise 
the pure colonies of this species that I have examined 
seemed to be free from these parasites, and it is, of course, 
possible that in the case mentioned there may have been 
burrows of the ubiquitous nigroaenea mixed with the 

TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PaRTS I, I. (JULY) R 


242, Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


others. I suspect that the copious second brood of this 
Nomada previously referred to was bred in the burrows 
of thoracica. 

The addition of A. vaga to our lists was made by myself 
on the discovery of a very ancient specimen of the ¢ in 
Walcott’s British Collection, where it was named A. polita. 
I have little doubt that this specimen was taken in Eng- 
land. It is in some N. European localities the common 
host of Nomada lathburiana. 

The beautiful bee, A. cineraria, is a local species, but 
of very wide distribution both in the north and south. 
It is mostly found in cultivated districts or meadowland, 
and is particularly attached to the dandelion, though it is 
sometimes found on heaths. At times it forms large 
compact colonies in trodden paths, but often its large 
burrows may be found singly or two or three together 
scattered over pasture-fields of large acreage, mixed with 
those of A. mitida and nigroaenea and such species as 
habitually frequent meadows, where there is an abun- 
dance of dandelion flowers in early spring. Not that it is 
in any way restricted to these flowers, for it is sometimes 
seen In numbers in gardens on Brassica, and the flowers of 
fruit-trees, and elsewhere on hedgerow plants such as the 
blackthorn, wild cherry, Salix, and even on the daisy. 

Nomada lathburiana is the special parasite of this An- 
drena, but it is much scarcer than its host, and is entirely 
absent from many localities where the latter is abundant. 
I have never seen nor heard of a stylopised example of 
cineraria. On the Continent it sometimes produces a 
second brood, but in Devonshire, where in some seasons 
it occurs commonly in March, no specimen of a second — 
generation has ever been observed. 

A. mgroaenea is a most abundant bee, ubiquitous in 
the south and common in the northern counties. Like 
its allies it is very partial to dandelions, but affects the 
most varied plants. Sallow, blackthorn, flowering fruit- 
trees and holly often attract it in swarms, not to mention 
Brassica, Sisymbrium and a host of other lesser plants. 
It appears very early in the spring and continues on the 
wing for a long time, especially in cold summers, when it 
may be seen even well into August, but it is never double- 
brooded so far as we*know. Nomada goodeniana is its 
constant and often extremely abundant parasite, and 
very large examples of N. fabriciana have been taken at 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 243 


its burrows, but it is doubtful whether it has other enemies 
in that genus, and unconfirmed records of others are 
probably erroneous. Stylopised individuals are numerous, 
and of wide distribution, but are somewhat local in their 
distribution. 

The small species, A. gwynana, is an interesting bee 
(though common and generally distributed) on account of 
its variation and in other respects. It is constantly double- 
brooded in the south. In the first brood both sexes normally 
have the face and the greater part at least of the sides of 
the thorax clothed with black hairs, with sometimes a 
few pale hairs about the scape of the antennae, while 
some of the second-brood examples quite resemble these. 
But in extreme forms of this brood nearly the whole face 
of the 3 is clothed with pale brown or ochreous hairs, and 
in the 2 sometimes a large part of it, while the whole 
sides of the thorax may bear similar hairs. In the g 
especially, such variations are not easily recognised as 
belonging to the species at all, without critical examina- 
tion, while those of the 9 greatly resemble A. angustior. 

The bees of the first brood obtain honey and pollen 
from the most varied plants, the dandelion being a great 
favourite, as also are the sallow catkins. But black- 
thorn, fruit-trees, daisies, speedwell, celandine, cabbage, 
starwort, etc., are freely visited. 

The second brood shows some peculiarity in its habits. 
In some localities one rarely sees the ° collect its pollen 
from any plants other than Campanula and Malva, the 
two plants which at the same period are resorted to by 
Cilissa haemorrhoidalis, so that the two species are often 
in company. But in other localities the bees of this 
second brood are found abundantly on yellow Compositae 
and on the flowers of Rubus. Nor does this always appear 
to be due to the absence of the plants first named, for in 
one case a large bed of mallow in full flower, which was 
visited freely by A. coitana, was unnoticed by gwynana, 
although it was common on the yellow Composites and 
blackberry that grew around. 

The extremely distinct species of Nomada, N. fabriciana, 
is an abundant parasite of gwynana, and in some localities 
and seasons produces a partial,* more rarely a full second 


* By a “partial” second brood I mean that only a small part 
of the progeny of the spring bees emerge in the summer, the rest 
hibernating in the burrows. 


244 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


brood like its host. In N. Wiltshire one or two individuals 
of a second brood were found only in certain seasons. 
This Nomada probably parasitises also both A. nigroaenea 
and angustior, so that, where all the hosts occur, one may 
find an abundance of the parasite in the freshest condition 
in April, and then in May and the first part of June there 
appears another abundant supply of fresh specimens of 
both sexes, mixed with old ones, mostly 99, of the early 
issue. In July the true second brood appears, this genera- 
tion appearing conspicuously darker in colour than the 
spring form, when a series of each is placed side by side. 

In some localities stylopised gwynana are not very 
infrequent, and those that I have noticed have mostly 
been examples of the second brood. Westwood, however, 
found the spring brood stylopised commonly at Oxford. 

A. ruficrus is a northern species and was first made 
known as British from some males captured in Perthshire 
in 1899. Just at the time it was brought forward, I 
discovered two or three females amongst some old Hymeno- 
ptera and miscellaneous insects collected in Yorkshire 
and mixed with A. fucata and other common northern 
species. In the north-west of Europe it occurs in early 
spring on Salix, dandelions and coltsfoot. In most places 
where it is found the small parasite Nomada obscura Zett. 
is taken with it, but as a rule only in small numbers. It 
should certainly be looked for in the northern localities 
where the Andrena occurs with us. 

A. angustior, though a rather local and inconspicuous 
species, is very widely distributed in the southern counties, 
and in many places is abundant. It is found in the north 
of England also. It visits dandelions and other yellow 
Compositae, and in some localities collects much pollen 
from Veronica. At Oxford I found it numerously on 
Ranunculus, and wherever it occurs the ¢¢ will be seen 
flying round the blue hyacinth flowers, if these are present, 
though rarely settling on them. Alliwm, Bellis, Euphorbia 
and Crataegus are all attractive in one locality or another, 
and it is occasionally taken on white Umbelliferae. Nor- 
mally it appears in May and continues in good condition 
into June, but in some years it appears in April, and fresh 
examples of A. gwynana may be taken on the same day. 
On the other hand, in some seasons it, or at least the 9, 
may be taken in good condition in company with the 
second brood of gwynana ! 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 245 


Nomada fabriciana, I believe, parasitises this species ; 
at any rate, it has been taken entering its burrows. These 
appear usually to be scattered, but I have seen a compact 
colony established in the face of a vertical cutting in a 
roadside bank. It is partial to woodlands and to hedge- 
rows in cultivated districts or meadowland, and seems to 
prefer these to open heaths, though not absent from the 
latter. Normally the 9 has the face beneath the antennae 
clothed with pale or whitish hairs, but varieties occur in 
which the pubescence is sooty or dark fuscous. These 
may easily be mistaken for the second brood of gwynana. 

Andrena trimmerana * Auct. is certainly one of the com- 
monest and most widely distributed of the genus, being 
plentiful in England, Scotland and Ireland. It visits the 
most various plants, holly, sallows, blackthorn, whitethorn, 
and fruit-trees, as well as the dandelion and daisy, besides 
many garden shrubs of foreign origin. It seems to be 
nearly always single-brooded. Generally its burrows are 
scattered over fields or grassy slopes and along hedgebanks, 
and it has a hking for forming these in some existing 
cavity, and may sometimes be seen exploring a rabbit or rat 
hole for this purpose. Everywhere Nomada marshamella 
appears to be its special parasite, except that it also some- 
times attacks the closely allied A. spinigera and possibly 
A. bucephala. It has a second parasite, N. flava (considered 
by some to be a variety of ruficornis), which so far as I have 
been able to discover, seems to be peculiar to it, but is a 
good deal more local than marshamella, and is absent from 
many localities where the host abounds. In some localities 
this Andrena is very commonly found stylopised, in others 
it is very rarely thus affected. 

A. spingera, closely allied to the preceding, 1s much 
more local and has not been recorded from very many 
localities, nor have I seen any northern examples. It is 
always double-brooded, and occurs in the London district, in 
Surrey, Kent, Suffolk, Essex, Sussex, Hants, Somerset, 
Dorset, Devon and Cornwall, and no doubt other localities. 
Owing to confusion with the next species the records of 
these are not always trustworthy. The bees of the first 
brood are mostly found on sallow and blackthorn, but they 
are fond of fruit-trees in gardens and of various foreign 
shrubs. The second brood (anglica) seems to be chiefly 


* The type of trimmerana in Kirby’s collection is not the species 
commonly so-called, but a 2 of the second brood of spinigera, 


246 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


found on Rubus, but it has been taken on white Umbelliferae. 
Occasionally Nomada alternata parasitises this species, and 
like it produces a second brood. Stylopised examples 
occur, but much less often than in trimmerana. 

A. rosae (eximia = first brood) has been much confused 
with the preceding, the two not infrequently being found in 
company on the same flowers. But in some localities the one 
is found quite apart from the other, as appears to be the case 
in Monmouthshire and parts of 8. Wales, where only rosae 
has occurred. True rosae is also found in Surrey, Kent, 
Sussex, Hants and Devon, and no doubt in a number of 
other counties, but is local and often rare. The first brood 
visits sallow and Prunus, and where these have been 
growing in fine flower side by side, it seems to prefer the 
latter; the second brood seems to be particularly attached 
to white Umbelliferae, though like most summer forms 
it is also found on Rubus. In this respect, therefore, its 
habits would seem rather different from those of spinigera. 
As I have elsewhere stated, when it was possible to study 
the three allied species where they occurred in company in 
the spring, no evidence of cross-pairing between them was 
obtained; nor has any individual been found which would 
suggest that such pairing ever occurs, all the specimens 
being clearly either one or other of the species, without 
intermediates. I have no knowledge whether this bee is 
attacked by N. marshamella like its allies, nor have I found 
any stylopised examples, but as they are thus affected in 
N.W. Europe, it is possible that such specimens have 
been taken by others. On the Continent A. rosae appears 
to be a more northern species than spinigera, and one would 
expect it to range into Scotland. The entirely black 
variety of the ¢ of the first brood is rare in Devonshire, 
where the species is generally highly coloured, and this 
variety has a remarkable appearance, quite unlike any other 
of its genus. 

A. ferox is a species of wide distribution in the south, 
but very local, and seems never to have been obtained 
plentifully since the old Bristol collectors used to find it in 
considerable numbers in that district. Yet, since it occurs 
in Kent, Berkshire, Hampshire and Sussex, and no doubt 
will be rediscovered (although its former Bristol locality 
has been built over) somewhere near its old western haunt, 
and has been also found in Cornwall, it will probably turn 
up commonly enough in some of these counties, or be 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 247 


discovered in others. The few recent examples that I have 
seen have all been taken casually, so to speak, by those 
interested in Orders other than Hymenoptera, and all were 
single specimens. These were from Hants (on two occa- 
sions), Berks and Cornwall. It occurs in May and June, 
and may be expected to visit yellow Composites, as one 
examined by me contained this pollen on its legs. It is 
not known whether any Nomada is attached to this species, 
but it has been found stylopised. 

A. bucephala is another extremely local species, also of 
wide distribution in the southern counties, and found by 
Hallett in Glamorganshire in Wales. It was once very 
abundant at Hampstead, and was found also at Bristol 
and in Hampshire. It has been taken in several localities 
in Surrey, in Kent, at Birmingham, and occurs also in 
Devonshire and Cornwall. This bee is partial to the flowers 
of blackthorn, and has also been taken on holly and 
Viburnum. 

From the form of its pollinigerous apparatus one would 
expect it to visit such flowers as are favourites with the 
common A. trimmerana. Nomada bucephalae is its peculiar 
parasite, and has been erroneously considered a mere 
variety of ruficornis by some authors; while Smith and 
Shuckard considered it to be Panzer’s lateralis, which is 
also anerror. This parasite probably occurs in all localities 
where its host is properly established, for it formerly 
abounded on Hampstead Heath, and is found with it in 
Surrey, Devon and Glamorgan. Stylopised bucephala occur, 
as I have a § and & so affected. 

All the colonies of this Andrena that I have seen have 
had only a single entrance. Into this one may see dozens 
of heavily laden females enter, when they are storing their 
pollen, and it is to be presumed that separate tubes will be 
found to be excavated from the common hole, by which all 
enter. Under special circumstances some other species 
show some approximation to the habits of bucephala. 
Twice Nomada alternata has been seen to enter or issue 
from the burrow of bucephala, and once a female trimmerana 
entered the same, so that it is not certain that this Nomada 
is parasitic on the former as it is on the latter. 

We now come to the group of Andrena varians. 

A. clarkella is a local bee, but of extremely wide distribu- 
tion, and appears as early in the year as any of our bees. 
It is often common in Scotch localities and in the north of 


248 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


England, as well as in the extreme south. The females 
gather their pollen nearly always from the catkins of sallows, 
but I have taken specimens on dandelion, and have some 
that were captured on Tussilago and Ulex. Though the males 
also visit sallow catkins, they are by no means always found 
on these even when the species is freshly out, and if they are 
present they usually appear to be mostly in search of the 
females, rather than visiting the flowers. 

In March and sometimes even in February before any 
new leaves have appeared this sex may be seen flying wildly 
round Ulez or settling on the bare limbs and trunks of trees 
or on dead leaves on the ground, for the purpose of sunning 
themselves. In many and I think in most places where it 
occurs freely, this bee will be found accompanied by its 
parasite Nomada leucophthalma (borealis), which also visits 
the sallow catkins. This Nomada is not confined to clark- 
ella, but is also attached to A. apicata, and probably this 
latter is its original host. According to Saunders clarkella 
is found stylopised, but only rarely. 

A. fulvais in the female sex the most beautiful of all our 
Andrenas. It is a local bee entirely absent from many dis- 
tricts, but generally abundant, where it occurs at all. Owing 
to its partiality for the flowering fruit-trees it is a constant 
inhabitant of gardens in places where it is found, and is not 
easily overlooked for that reason, and because its burrows 
are often conspicuous on lawns. It may be taken on the cat- 
kins of Salix, and is very abundant away from gardens on the 
flowers of blackthorn, and occurs, too, on Cotoneaster, Ulex 
and various other plants. Its colonies are often large and 
compact, occupying trodden pathways on sandy commons 
for many yards together. A large form of Nomada rufi- 
cornis 8.s. infests its burrows, and it also has as a special 
parasite N. szgnata, which some hymenopterists consider 
to be also a variety of ruficornis. In some localities, e.g., 
at Oxford, only ruficornis appears to be found with it; in 
others, e.g., at Raglan in Monmouthshire, only signata; 
but on some of the commons in the neighbourhood of 
London both these species are found at its burrows. 

Stylopised specimens of A. fulva are rare, or, at least, 
very local, but are to be found on the commons near London. 
Males thus affected often have an extraordinary appearance, 
being very greatly changed by the parasite. 

A. varvans has much the habits of the preceding; indeed, 
the two species are often found in the same localities, and both 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 249 


may be entirely absent from large stretches of country that 
seem well adapted for them. Both visit the same flowers, 
and varians is also parasitised by N. ruficorns; by some 
writers its parasite is considered to be the typical form of 
this variable Nomada. Stylopisation occurs but rarely. 
The variation exhibited by the 2 of varians is of a re- 
markable character. One most extreme form was named 
mixta by Schenck, and considered to be a distinct species, 
and indeed its appearance is so very different from the 
typical form that, were no intermediates known, one would 
scarcely think it possible that he was in error. It is partly 
owing to this variation that such confusion has existed 
between the closely allied species of the varians group, for 
Smith referred the mixta form to helvola, and Saunders 
considered it to be synadelpha.. 
The following varieties of the 2 may be distinguished :— 
(i) Typical varians has black hair on the face, and the 
underparts of the thorax are clothed with blackish or 
sooty-grey pubescence, even the floccus being, at least in 
part, sordid in colour. The two basal abdominal segments 
bear bright fulvous hairs, all the others black ones. 
(u) The fulvous hairs of the abdomen spread over the 
3rd segment, the hairs of the underparts often become 
paler and the floccus whiter. (1) Fulvous hairs, generally 
with more or less tendency to become white, cover the 
4th as well as the 3rd segment, the facial hairs are 
greyish or whitish fuscous, the hairs beneath the thorax 
and the floccus either slightly discoloured, or else pure white. 
(iv) The hairs on the 1st and disc of the 2nd segments are 
fulvous, those on the rest of the 2nd and the two following 
white or hardly perceptibly yellowish, those on the face and 
whole underparts of the body mostly snow-white, or at most 
a little yellowish tinted in part. This is the true var. 
nuxta, and in its finest condition it is a very beautiful insect. 
A. helvola under normal conditions appears a little later 
than A. varians, and superficially is extremely like the var. 
mixta of that species. It is partial to dandelions, from 
which it often collects its pollen, but it visits many other 
plants for this purpose, e.g., Crataegus, Rosa, Fragraria in 
gardens, Euphorbia, etc. It is a decidedly local insect, and 
not always at all common even where it does occur, but will 
probably be found somewhere in most of the southern 
counties of England, and it also occurs in the north (Cumber- 
land). It occurs also at Oxford, but, unless well authenti- 


250 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


cated, published records are of little value, owing to frequent 
misidentification. Smith’s supposed Scotch specimens are 
a mixture of A. praecox and synadelpha. 

It is, I think, certainly parasitised by Nomada ruficornis, 
but I have not seen a stylopised example, though these 
probably occur. 

A. synadelpha is a very widely distributed species, but 
local. It occurs in many of the southern counties, and also 
in Scotland. The 9 frequents the dandelion, hawthorn, wild 
rose and other flowers, and was taken in numbers together 
by Morice on Szsymbrium alliaria. 

It is very much parasitised by Nomada ruficornis s.s., but 
is rarely stylopised. The variation in the 9 is somewhat 
similar to that of varians, but less extreme. 

A. fucata is one of the most widely distributed of all our 
bees, being common in the north of England and in Scotland, 
and also in many parts of the west of England and in Ireland. 
It also occurs, sometimes not rarely, in the more eastern 
counties, in Suffolk, Hampshire and Surrey, also in Oxford- 
shire and Warwickshire, and on a very unfavourable and 
stormy day I observed it in some numbers in Bricket Wood, 
Herts. Probably it is to be found in nearly every county, 
but in many localities it is only seen in small numbers. 
Where it frequents gardens, the females are sure to be found 
gathering their pollen from the raspberry flowers; on wild 
heaths or moorland it frequents the Potentilla in preference 
to any other plant, excepting perhaps Vaccinium in some 
localities. Sometimes it may be taken freely on Crataegus 
and the wild rose, and late examples on Rubus. It is nor- 
mally on the wing in May in Devonshire, but in some counties 
not usually until June, or even July in the north. I have 
never come across a large colony of this species, but I once 
found a small one of about a dozen burrows placed close 
together. 

I believe that this bee is parasitised by Nomada ruficornis 
s.s., since I have taken the latter in places where I could find 
no other member of the varians group. Occasionally, but 
quite rarely, stylopised individuals are met with. 

A. lapponica is an extremely local species in the south, and 
can only be expected where there is a good growth of 
Vaccinium, since, so far as my limited experience goes, the 
2 collects its pollen only from this. The male is said to 
visit other plants, and in moorland localities is fond of flying 
round or settling on rocks. The burrows that I have seen 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 251 


have generally been single or at most a few near together, 
and entering these or flying round the heath in the vicinity, 
examples of a dark form of ruficornis s.s. seemed as 
numerous as the host, which was by no means abundant. 
No doubt on moors in the north of England, in Wales, and 
in Scotland this Andrena is often very abundant, and speci- 
mens of the Nomada taken with it in the Grampians and 
sent to me for examination were of exactly the same colour 
variety as those found with it in Devonshire. Amongst the 
whole number of specimens that have been examined none 
were stylopised. 

Andrena apicata is one of the very earliest of spring bees, 
and it gathers its pollen almost entirely from sallow catkins, 
though occasionally it visits Prunus for this purpose. It 
is of extraordinarily wide distribution, but very local, at 
least in the south. I have myself seen specimens from 
Surrey, Sussex, Gloucestershire, Devon and Oxford as well 
as from Scotland. In the west of England the males pay 
little attention to flowers. They may be seen flying round 
the sallows in search of the females, but should there be 
old fences or gates in the vicinity of their breeding-place, 
they will generally be found sunning themselves on these, 
or will even settle on rocks. Occasionally a fresh female 
alights in a similar situation, evidently with the intention 
of pairing, and quickly attracts a number of the males, 
which are coursing along the fence. 

Nomada leucophthalma, which has already been mentioned 
as a parasite of A.clarkella (q.v.), attacks this bee, and it 
would be interesting to compare together long series taken 
from each host, each series having been collected in a place 
where only one of these hosts occurs. At Hastings Theo- 
bald found this Andrena to be much infested by Stylops, as 
is the case in Germany, but in the west of England I have 
never come across a stylopised individual. 

Alfken describes the ¢ of the German form of apicata as 
having a small triangular tooth at the base of the mandibles, 
and a specimen I have from the Continent agrees with this 
description; but in all British examples that I have 
examined the tooth cannot possibly be called small, and it 
would appear that the Continental form is racially distinct 
from ours. The tooth varies in shape in our examples, 
and it is quite possible by looking through long series of 
praecox and apicata to find individuals that do not differ 
much in the form of this. 


252 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


A. praecox is closely allied to the preceding, and has the 
same habits, for both, at times, at any rate, form compact 
colonies of considerable extent, and both are pre-eminently 
attached to Salix. This species is local, but ranges from 
Scotland to the extreme south of England, and is, I think, 
commoner than apicata. It is found on the commons close 
to London, and is locally abundant in Surrey, Kent, Hants, 
Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridge, Oxford and Monmouth- 
shire. In Devon it is extremely local, and in places where 
I have myself observed it, it has steadily increased in 
numbers from 1914 to 1918, when it appeared in the first 
half of March. In Scotland it occurs, no doubt, commonly. 
Much scarcer than its host is its special parasite Nomada 
xanthosticta, which, however, is found just outside London, 
and in Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridge. I have not been 
able to find any trace of this parasite in the west of England, 
even where the host abounds. From a large colony at 
Oxford I once took two stylopised examples of the latter, 
but have not seen any so affected elsewhere. 

Passing now to the nigriceps group, that most distinct 
species A. denticulata is very widely distributed, but at the 
same time very local. It occurs in many of the southern 
counties, in the north of England and in Scotland, but only 
rarely is it really abundant. In some seasons and places 
it is found at the end of June, but more often in July, and 
the 2 may even remain on the wing into September. It 
is found on yellow Composites, Senecio, Crepis, etc., abun- 
dantly sometimes on Jnula, and is extremely partial in 
some localities to pink-flowered thistles; while Smith says 
it is attached to bryony. That plant has never been in 
flower or has been wanting in the localities where I myself 
have met with denticulata. It seems not to be attacked 
by Stylops, nor has it a special Nomada, but N. rufipes 
(solidaginis) is parasitic on it as well as on the more abun- 
dant A. fuscipes. Except as to the development of male 
characters in large examples, this species varies very little, 
but the characteristic black hairs are sometimes wanting on 
the thorax in the . 

A. tridentata is one of the most restricted in range of all 
our bees. I have seen authentic specimens from Norfolk 
(Cromer), Suffolk and Hants, but the gg supposed to be 
this species, collected by Bridgman at Norwich, so far 
as the material sent by him to F. Smith is concerned, are 
all nigriceps. This species visits Senecio and Crepis. 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 253 


A. fuscipes is widely distributed and often very abundant 
on the flowers of Calluna, to which it is chiefly attached, 
but we have once taken females loaded with pollen from 
yellow Composites, when the ling blossom was mostly over. 
It will probably be found on most extensive heaths, and is 
common in Norfolk and Suffolk in the east, as also in 
Surrey and Hants; in Devonshire and in Wales in the west ; 
it is found in Cumberland, and Smith had specimens 
(wrongly named as sivmillima) from Loch Rannoch, Scot- 
land. Unless a colony is found, and these are sometimes 
large and compact, the males usually appear to be much 
more numerous than the females, flymg wildly over the 
ling or heather, or round sunny bushes that happen to be 
growing near by. 

Probably in all places where this Andrena is found its 
parasite Nomada rufipes (solidaginis) also occurs, and in 
some Devonshire localities it seems even to surpass its 
host in numbers. In some seasons it appears before any 
of the latter are abroad, though the Andyena in this case 
appears not many days later. I have some suspicion, 
however, that the earlier examples of the Nomada were 
parasites of denticulata. 

A. simillima is a local and in general a rare species, and 
seems to be found chiefly on the coast of Kent, Hampshire 
and the Isle of Wight, but it also occurs on the coasts of 
Devon and Cornwall in the west. I have only met with 
it on the flowers of thistles and on Rubus. Smith’s speci- 
mens from Scotland were wrongly determined by him, 
being merely fuscopes, as mentioned above. 

Closely allied to the preceding, the local and generally 
uncommon species, A. nigriceps, seems to have somewhat 
different habits. It visits various plants, and I have taken 
it on ragwort and other yellow Composites, thistles, 
Knautia, Potentilla, etc. On the Continent it is said to 
be most partial to Jasione, but that flower does not seem 
to be very attractive to species in the west of England. 
In Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex and Hants this bee seems to be 
fairly common locally, and it is found in N. and 8. Wales; 
while I have two much-worn females which were, I believe, 
taken in Yorkshire. It is found both near Oxford and 
Cambridge, and in Cheshire and Lancashire, so that its 
distribution is very wide. 

A. sericea (albicrus) is common throughout the south of 
England, where conditions of soil are suitable, and also in 


254 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


Scotland and Ireland. It is entirely absent from large 
areas, where the soil is of a heavy nature or of clay, and 
is very much at home on some coast sand-hilis. It forms 
enormous compact colonies, often choosing hard, trodden 
footpaths or bare places on sandy commons to burrow in. 
It freely visits daisies and buttercups, but its favourite 
flowers are the yellow Compositae. Less often it collects 
pollen from bushes or trees of taller growth, such as the 
hawthorn. The males also freely visit flowers, but spend 
much time flying over the sand, in which the colonies are 
placed. This and the following species are probably 
representative of a fauna found in sandy wastes, the pale 
silvery hairing of the males being characteristic of many 
desert-loving bees, and adapted to their habits of flying 
over the sand.* Ishould think that a good many species 
allied to our two are likely to be found in such places in 
continental lands, ours being, as it were, highly successful 
forms, which have been able to occupy regions beyond 
the ordinary limits of their natural environment. Also in 
such places one may expect that many species of other 
groups will superficially resemble them. 

With us A. sericea has no Nomada parasitic upon it, but 
on the Continent of common occurrence is N. alboguttata, 
this being either a race of the smaller N. baccata, which 
infests A. argentata both here and abroad, or else a very 
closely allied species. 

On the other hand, Sphecodes pilifrons is the constant 
parasite of this Andrena, and I believe attacks no other 
species. I have seen examples named as pilifrons from 
localities where sericea is certainly wanting, the nature of 
the soil indeed rendering the possibility of its occurrence 
extremely small, but these were always wrongly deter- 
mined, being giant examples of S. similis. 

As to A. argentata, this bee is in this country of very 
restricted range, being abundant locally, however, on the 
commons in Surrey, Berkshire and Hampshire, and no 
doubt is to be found in one or two of the other southern 
counties. It visits the flowers of Erica and Calluna and 
probably some of the yellow Compositae, and apparently 
has no spring brood in this country. JN. baccata, its para- 
site, seems to occur in all localities, where the host is 
common, and I think in most, if not all of these Sphecodes 


* Mr. Morice has informed me that his captures in hot desert 
countries more resemble A. fulvicrus, etc. 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 255 


reticulatus is to be found. There seems to be no doubt 
that the Sphecodes is peculiarly attached to this small 
Andrena. On the Continent it has been taken from the 
burrow of the latter. 

A. fulvago is of very wide distribution; in some locali- 
ties rare and dispersed, in others forming dense compact 
colonies, but so local that until one of these is chanced on 
its presence may remain undetected in the district. It 
likes a sandy soil, and is particularly attached to Hreraciwm. 
One would expect it to occur in most counties where con- 
ditions of soil are favourable, since it is found in Suffolk, 
Surrey, Sussex, the Isle of Wight and Hants; in Devon, 
Monmouth and South Wales in the west; in Warwick- 
shire; in Yorkshire in the north, and in Scotland. It 
may appear in May, and is common in June, and continues 
into July or even August. Though I have closely examined 
colonies of this bee I have found no parasite at its burrows. 

A. polita is now, perhaps, the rarest of all our Andrenas, 
and has very rarely been found since it was discovered by 
F. Smith. Being a large and conspicuous species it must 
be excessively local, since it could hardly be overlooked, 
and its range is probably very limited indeed. One would 
expect it to be found on yellow Composites, and it should 
be looked for in June and July in the south-eastern counties. 

With A. proxima we pass to a group of very small and 
comparatively difficult bees, only the one just named being 
of medium size for the genus. It is a local species and 
often very scarce even where it does occur. In Norfolk, 
Suffolk, Kent, Dorset and Devon it is, I believe, to be 
obtained not uncommonly in its special localities; but it 
varies in numbers a good deal in different seasons. It is 
also recorded from Surrey, Hampshire, Gloucestershire 
and Cornwall, so that it is widely distributed in the south. 
It is peculiarly attached to the flowers of white Umbelli- 
ferae, on several species of which it may be found, both 
sexes alike visiting these plants. It is also partial to 
Euphorbia. 

Probably in most localities, where it occurs at all freely, 
its special parasite Nomada conjungens will be found. 
Though so lately added to our lists, it is interesting to 
note that this species was taken one hundred years ago, 
there being a very good specimen in the Kirby Collection. 
It was first brought forward as British by Morice, who 
captured a single specimen in Dorset, and soon afterwards 


256 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


a number of examples were found in the Chitty Collection 
at Oxford, after I had already found it amongst some 
unmounted and unexamined Devonshire bees. Although 
on the Continent this Andrena is very subject to the attacks 
of Stylops (those thus affected appearmg earlier than 
healthy individuals, and being found often on dandelion 
flowers), | have seen no stylopised English specimens. 

A.nana K. (schenckella Pérez) is known as British only 
by Kirby’s type, but will probably be rediscovered in the 
south-eastern counties, when more attention is paid to this 
group of small bees. It occurs in Germany, Switzerland 
and France. 

A. moricella and alfkenella are probably first and second 
broods of a single species. The first 1 have taken on Bras- 
sica, Veronica, Bellis and Potentilla, etc., the latter on white 
Umbelliferae. The first brood appears a little later than A. 
parvula, and I have seen stylopised examples of each brood. 

A. falsifica is a local species, and its first appearance is 
rather later than that of A. moricella. It visits many lowly 
plants—daisy, wild-strawberry, Veronica, etc.—while the 
females gather much pollen from Potentilla. It is not 
rarely stylopised, and has as a parasite Nomada flavogut- 
tata. It is single-brooded. 

A. saundersella (nana Auct. plur.) is a widely distributed 
species, probably occurring in all our counties, and abun- 
dant in some parts of the north of England. Its favourite 
flowers are Veronica and white Umbelliferae, from both 
which it gathers pollen, but it also visits daisies, Myosotvs, 
Potentilla, Fragraria, etc., and late specimens may be found 
on Rubus. Very rarely a stray example of a second genera- 
tion is met with. It is very subject to the attacks of 
Stylops, and also is parasitised by Nomada flavoguttata. 

A. nanula is known to me as British only by a single 9 
sent to Smith by Bridgman of Norwich, and the continental 
examples that I have seen were taken in July. 

A. subopaca is a very widely distributed species, found, 
I expect, in nearly all counties and common in the north. 
Such Scotch specimens as I have examined, passing under 
the names of parvula and minutula, really belonged to 
this species. It is mostly found on Veronica, Bellis, 
Fragraria, etc., and is normally single-brooded, appearing 
later than parvula. Once on the south coast I took a single 
¢ of a second brood. It was the confusing of this species 
with minutula and parvula that caused Smith to err in 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 257 


describing the ¢ of the latter under the name of nigrifrons 
in the first edition of his Catalogue. 

This species is very subject to the attack of Stylops, and 
also of Nomada flavoguttata. 

A. spreta is much more local than the preceding, and is 
chiefly found on the coast and on or about sandy heaths, 
but rather curiously it occurs also in the fen country in 
Cambridgeshire. It is single-brooded and flies with 
saundersella. So far as I have been able to ascertain from 
a careful investigation of its breeding-grounds, it is not 
attacked by Nomada flavoguttata, but it is very freely 
stylopised. These little bees are very partial to different 
species of Brassica, and freely visit daisies and sometimes 
Veronica. There is no second brood. 

A. parvula and minutula are certainly first and second 
broods of a single species. The first frequents the sallow 
catkins in the earliest days of spring, and gathers abundant 
pollen from blackthorn also, and later from Crataegus and 
Veronica, It is also often found on daisies, dandelion, 
cabbage, mustard, strawberry, flowers of fruit-trees and 
many other plants. The second brood is extremely partial 
to Rubus and various white-flowered Umbelliferae. Though 
sometimes stylopised, this bee is much less subject to attack 
than some of its allies. I have after careful observations 
been able to satisfy myself that it is also less freely para- 
sitised by Nomada flavoguttata in this country. The species 
seems to be ubiquitous, occurring somewhere, even in the 
poorest localities. 

A. parvuloides and minutuloides may also prove to be 
first and second generations of a single species. They are 
much more local than the preceding, and generally found 
either on the coast, or on or near sandy commons, hardly 
occurring in meadowlands and well-cultivated districts, 
when these are remote from their normal haunts. 

If they really are one species, I find the second brood 
far more commonly than the first. This latter is found on 
various flowers, Veronica, Brassica, Bellis, etc., but the 
second brood almost entirely restricts its visits to white 
Umbelliferae, and I cannot remember taking it on Rubus, 
which is so attractive to minutula, so that the habits of 
these two very closely allied forms are somewhat different. 

I have seen no stylopised example. The males are often 
much more difficult to find than the females, and appear on 
this account to be much less numerous, and the species is 

TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PARTS I, Il. (JULY) § 


258 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


rather later in appearance in the spring than A. parvula. 
The variability to which—apart from that due to seasonal 
dimorphism—both species are subject, sometimes makes 
them difficult to separate, but minutuloides occurs in Surrey, 
Kent, Suffolk and Devonshire, and, doubtless, in many 
other counties, but I have seen none from the north. 

A. dorsata in the wilkella group is a local bee, which one 
would expect to occur in Scotland, unless it were there 
replaced by the very similar A. propinqua of N.W. Europe, 
a species (or ? race) with similar habits; but I have seen 
no Scotch examples. It is regularly double-brooded, the 
first generation frequenting Salix and blackthorn, but also 
many other plants. I have taken it im abundance on 
daisies and Brassica, gathering pollen from these; also on 
Veronica, Rubus idaeus, fruit-trees and dandelions, and 
late examples on white Umbelliferae. The second brood 
occurs on Rubus, yellow Composites, daisies and Melilotus, 
and sometimes on ragwort and Potentilla. Saunders 
mentions bryony as a flower visited by this brood, and 
Mr. Morice informs me that it is frequent on this flower 
in his garden. The species is found on the commons near 
London, and is abundant locally in Norfolk and Suffolk, 
and very common in numerous Devonshire localities, both 
on the coast and inland, to an altitude of nearly 1000 ft. 
above the sea. It is also found in Hampshire and Essex, 
and must occur in several other counties in the south. I 
have never seen any large compact colony of this bee, but 
only scattered ones. No Nomada appears to attack it, nor 
is it infested by Stylops.* 

A. similis Sm. is also local, but occurs on a number of 
commons close to London ; was found commonly at Oxford 
in 1886, and is widely distributed, and in some places 
abundant, in Devonshire. It is recorded from Denbigh- 
shire and Essex, and is found in Hampshire. Some 
examples from Colchester sent by W. H. Harwood for my 
inspection many years ago had the face beneath the 
antennae clothed with pale fulvous hairs, instead of the 
usual white ones, this being the usual form in some N. 
European localities. Walcott first discovered it, at Bristol, 
and supplied Smith with specimens. Sometimes it forms 
compact and fairly large colonies, and the males will be 
seen flying over the soil and settling, for the purpose of 


* Recently my brother has sent me a stylopised female from 
East Devon, captured on March 26th, 1919. 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 259 


feeding, on ground-ivy or bugle, if these happen to be grow- 
ing there, as well as on daisies and Veronica. The females 
also visit these plants, and also trefoil and clovers, and 
they collect great loads of yellow pollen from the flowers 
of Ulex. Various papilionaceous plants attract them. No 
Nomada appears to breed in their burrows, nor have I been 
able to secure a single stylopised * example, although, 
according to Alfken, this is one of the species of Andrena 
most subject to attack in Germany. 

A. ovatula, better known as afzeliella, is by no means of 
universal distribution, but is widely distributed in the 
neighbourhood of London, and abundant in many counties, 
where there is heath land with a gravelly or sandy soil. 
It is not partial to meadowland and highly cultivated 
districts with heavy soils. It differs both from the preced- 
ing and the following species in being frequently and in 
some counties, é.g., Devonshire and Hampshire, regularly 
double-brooded, but it is not certain whether it has not 
a special single-brooded race, which appears between the 
two others. It visits the same flowers as A. similis, but 
- appearing earlier is also taken on Salix and on blackthorn. 
The second brood is extremely fond of Calluna, gathering 
pollen from this often in company with A. fuscipes, and 
is sometimes numerous on Ononis. This Andrena is not 
subject to the attacks of Nomada in this country, but it is 
sometimes stylopised, much less frequently, however, in 
my experience than A. wilkella. Most of the supposed 
stylopised afzeliella I have seen belong to the other species, 
but I have bred the $ Stylops from the present one as well. 

The variation in this species is of an unusual kind in 
that the hind tibiae of the female may be either clear yellow, 
like those of its close allies, which never vary, or entirely 
black. This last form was named fuscata by Kirby (before 
he described his afzeliella), and it is found in both broods. 
Both names, however, are preceded by ovatula K., which 
is the ¢ of afzeliella. 

Saunders merely tells us that afzelvella is widely distri- 
buted, but I do not possess any northern examples myself, 
though one would expect it to occur in both Scotland and 
Treland. The following species, however, occurs in the 
north and the two are not always accurately separated 
by collectors. 


* Since this was written a stylopised ¢ has been taken. 


260 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


A. wilkella is of very different distribution from that of 
the preceding, since it often occurs in extraordinary num- 
bers on heavy clay soils and in highly cultivated meadow- 
lands. It is true that it is found not infrequently in the 
same localities, frequenting exactly the same flowers as 
ovatula and similis, but where these two species are most 
abundant wilkella is often inferior to them in numbers. 
N. hillana (ochrostoma) is its special parasite, and does not 
appear to affect the others. Sometimes the Andrena forms 
colonies of huge extent and very compact, at others its 
burrows are scattered over a large extent of land. We 
have seen tennis lawns covered with little hillocks of soil 
thrown up by these bees in the same way as A. fulva is 
well known to do in similar places, where the soil is 
lighter. 

Stylopised specimens are very common, and females 
affected by the parasite are often found in dandelions, even 
when few healthy ones are to be seen on those flowers. 
It is always single-brooded, and though both fly together, 
it appears rather later than ovatula under normal conditions 
of weather. 

There remain to be considered those species, which have 
the clypeus in the g white, and along with these one 
without that peculiarity, but evidently closely ‘related to 
one of the others. 

This black-faced little bee, A. nitidiuscula (lucens), 1s 
amongst the most local of all our species, being restricted 
to a few southern counties, but almost certain to occurin at 
least one or two others from which it is not yet recorded. 
It is found on heaths or commons in Surrey, Sussex and 
Dorset flying over the heather, the 2 visiting the black- 
berry blossoms. On the Continent it is said to be partial 
to Umbelliferae, as its ally A. chrysosceles is with us. This 
latter is a more or less local species, but occurs at times in 
the utmost profusion. It is on the whole more partial 
to meadowland than to more barren localities. It is found 
near London and probably in all or nearly all the southern 
counties, either locally or generally distributed, m Cam- 
bridge, Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk in the east, in Gloucester- 
shire, Devon and Monmouthshire in the west, in Dorset 
Berks and Hants, Oxford and Warwick, and in 
Glamorgan, and no doubt other Welsh counties. Though 
not one of the earliest bees, in forward seasons it may appear 
in April, and is commonly found from May into June, and 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 261 


may remain even into August in wet and cold summers. 
At first it visits daisies and dandelions and not infrequently 
buttercups and Veronica. Later it is particularly attached 
to white Umbelliferae, and it is much attracted by Huphorhia 
in some places. No Nomada parasitises it, and only very 
locally or one may say rarely is it stylopised, though it is 
found thus affected in localities so distant as Oxford, 
Devon and Essex. From the latter county Mr. L. Wal- 
ford kindly sent me several such examples, including a ¢ 
with black face and © with this part white-marked. 

A. tarsata (analis) is a local bee, and probably absent 
from those counties in the south which have no extensive 
heaths on a peat or sandy soil. It is still found just out- 
side London, as well as on the more distant of the Surrey 
commons, and commonly in Hants and Devon. In the 
northern counties it is often abundant, and it occurs (no 
doubt abundantly) in Scotland and Ireland. It is ex- 
tremely fond of Potentilla, gathering most of its pollen from 
this, but is also found on heather and Rubus. It is parasi- 
tised by Nomada tormentillae, which I have taken entering 
and leaving the burrows of compact and pure colonies of 
this little Andrena. Probably it is parasitised also by 
N. obtusifrons, at least it certainly is so, if one trusts old 
records. Smith, entirely misinterpreting Kirby’s descrip- 
tion, applied the name zanthosticta K. to that species, and 
under this name we read of obtusifrons as being parasitic 
in colonies of tarsata in the north. On one occasion this 
Nomada was taken sparingly, in company with a few of the 
Andrena in N. Devon, but not at the burrows of the latter, 
and it is, of course, possible that the following species 
may have been present, but overlooked. 

A. coitana is not infrequently found in company with the 
preceding, but is, I think, more widely distributed in the 
south, though quite local. It is common in some places 
in the north of England, and occurs in Scotland. In the 
south it frequently occurs on the coast, and it is probably 
to be found somewhere in most of the counties. It occurs 
in the Cambridgeshire fens, and at Oxford, and in Devon- 
shire on Dartmoor and Exmoor, as well as at lower eleva- 
tions. It is common also on some of the Surrey commons 
and in the New Forest, and is found in Norfolk, Essex and 
Kent in the east. It is partial to the flowers of bramble, 
and in some localities (like A. gwynana bicolor and Cilissa 
haemorrhoidalis) visits the flowers of Campanula and 


262 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


Malva, also white Umbelliferae and others. It is parasi- 
tised by N. obtusifrons, but not, I think, by tormentillae. 
At any rate, where we have found A. coitana and tarsata 
together, the last-named Nomada was certainly attached to 
the latter, and was not seen at the burrows of the former. 

A. hattorfiana is widely distributed in the more southern 
counties, but local, and by no means always common, where 
it does occur. In the east it has been found numerously in 
Kent, and has occurred at Colchester and near Norwich; 
in the Isle of Wight, Dorsetshire, Devonshire (where it is 
widely distributed but local and in some localities and 
places few in numbers) and various localities in Cornwall, 
in 8. Wales and near Oxford. Its favourite flower seems 
to be Knautia, but it also visits Scabiosa, and will hardly 
ever be seen on any other plant than these, or on the first 
one only. The red-marked varieties are said to be abundant 
on the east coast in some seasons, but in Devonshire are 
extremely rare; near Oxford less so. 

Nomada armata is parasitic on this species and also 
frequents the same flowers. Judging from the fact that 
Smith, who found this Andrena so abundantly on the 
east coast, hardly obtained any of the parasite there, and 
Saunders none at all, it would appear to be unexpectedly 
rare there, but otherwise it seems generally to occur more 
or less freely in nearly all the districts recorded for its host. 
Yet it will not be found with every colony, even though 
these are of long standing. Once I saw it really numerous 
in S. Devon in a large pasture field sprinkled over with 
scattered plants of scabious, where it was flying strongly 
in a brisk wind from plant to plant, but not settling on the 
swaying flowers. Being occupied in salmon fishing and with- 
out a net I was unable to secure even a single specimen, and 
though I knocked down and so obtained some of the Andrena, 
the harder Nomada was not to be thus stunned. When, in 
another year, I was able to revisit the spot, the field had been 
ploughed up and planted with corn. 

A. marginata in its habits is very similar to the preceding, 
being most partial to and often found only on the common 
scabious, but I have taken it on Centawrea and frequently 
on the devils-bit scabious, and Hallett took the ¢g on 
Lapsana. Not infrequently it is found in company with 
hattorfiana, being similarly local. I have seen specimens 
only from the more southern counties, where it occurs in 


Cambridge, Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Kent, Surrey, Berks, 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 263 


Hants, Dorset, Devon and Glamorgan, and no doubt in 
other counties, but it is always local. Sometimes it is 
very abundant, as on one occasion eighteen years ago, 
on the border of Suffolk and Cambridge, when I found a 
bank grown over with scabious with nearly every flower 
occupied and often two or three bees on a single blossom. 
All our colour varieties were present, but no trace of 
any parasites was found. In Devon I have not found 
highly coloured specimens, but they occur freely in Dorset. 
Nomada argentata, a very local and generally rare species, 
is the special parasite of marginata, but it has only been 
recorded from a few localities, in Surrey, Sussex, Berkshire 
and Kent. 

A. cingulata is a widely distributed bee, probably to be 
found in nearly all the more southern counties at least, 
and it also occurs in the north of England, but is by no 
means always common. It not only frequents sandy 
commons, but is also partial to well-cultivated districts 
and is found high up in hilly districts, e. g., the Cotswolds 
and Dorsetshire hills. It used to be extremely abundant 
in suburban localities, and this probably led to its being 
considered a much commoner species than is really the 
case. Thus Shuckard makes the obviously very erroneous 
statement, that it is perhaps the commonest species of the 
whole genus! In several extensive districts, where I 
have collected, it occurs very sparingly and even rarely. 
In some it forms large colonies, but these are generally 
local. All observers note its attachment to the flowers of 
Veronica, but the female sometimes collects pollen from 
the dandelion and the common buttercup, and the males 
also visit these. 

Kirby records that he took the females on Ranunculus 
bulbosus in May, but his statement that the males occur 
in the autumn must be an error, and (although, of course, 
he knew this sex well) may perhaps be due’ to some 
momentary confusion between this and the males of 
Sphecodes. Hallett found this bee abundantly on Aubretia 
in a garden. Of very wide distribution, but apparently 
nearly always rare, is its special parasite Nomada guttu- 
lata; but as this occurs in suburban localities, in the 
eastern counties, and so far west as Devonshire, it may 
reasonably (being an obscure little species) be expected. 
to occur, if specially searched for, in many localities, where 
the host thrives. Kirby described the 9 as a variety of 


264 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


ruficornis, and Smith’s earliest description of flavoguttata 9 
was also made from guttulata. 

A. humilis is a very local species, widely distributed, 
but probably absent from a good many counties, and in 
some so extremely local that one may expect that it is 
to be found in a number of others from which it has not 
yet been recorded. Its wide distribution is shown by its 
abundance here and there in Surrey, Kent, Hants, Devon 
and Cornwall, Gloucestershire, Oxford and Lancashire. 
It is particularly attached to Hieracium, but visits also 
other plants, e.g., daisies, buttercups and dandelions. 
Often it forms enormous colonies in hard-trodden path- 
ways. Its special parasite Nomada ferruginata is often 
found at these colonies, and is also of very wide distri- 
bution, but not always present, even where the host is 
abundant. On the Continent this bee is much stylopised 
in some localities, but I eae seen no British specimens 
affected. 

A. labialis is found in many localities in the south; 
from the eastern counties to Gloucestershire and Cornwall 
in the west, and in Cheshire and Lancashire in the north. 
Its abundance in some places seems to depend on the fact 
that it forms large and compact colonies, often in some 
vertical cutting or bare exposed surface of a hedge bank, 
and where these colonies are found it is naturally very 
abundant. V. R. Perkins records several such colonies 
at Wotton-under-Edge in Gloucestershire in 1879, and 
states that the species subsequently entirely disappeared. 
In that neighbourhood I found this bee at various times 
from 1886 to 1907, but always singly, and also its burrows, 
but these too were isolated ones on grass-covered slopes. 
It certainly has a way of appearing and disappearing 
suddenly, as I have noticed in other localities. I have 
taken the 2 on Trifolium, Lotus, Veronica and Hieracium, 
and in gardens on sage and seringa, and, no doubt, it 
visits numerous plants. Hallett takes it on Salia and 
Cornus sanguinea. Compact colonies sometimes become 
badly infested with Stylops, but no Nomada attacks it 
in this country. On the Continent a form of N. cinna- 
barina 1s said to be found with it. There seems to be 
little doubt that Sphecodes rubicundus is its special parasite, 
‘this having been found in connection with it, in such 
different localities as Suffolk, the New Forest, and the 
fens of Cambridge. 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 265 


SYSTEMATIC. 
POSITION OF ANDRENA AND NOMADA AMONGST BRITISH 
BEES. 

Andrena and Nomada are both very distinct genera, the latter 
indeed is so peculiar in appearance and structure that it has been 
entirely misplaced by some Hymenopterists. Their position 
amongst our bees may be briefly shown as follows :— 


1. (2) Hind tibiae without calcaria at the apex. . . . Apidae. 

2. (1) Hind tibiae with calcaria. 

3. (4) First cubital cell divided transversely by a vein or streak. 
Bombidae. 


re 


. (3) First cubital cell not divided. 
. (6) Labrum long, reflexed in repose, the mandibles closed 
over it, so that at most a little of the base is exposed. 
Megachilidae. 

6. (5) Labrum not thus concealed, the mandibles closing round 
its apical margin. 

7. (10) Labrum large and without a specialised duttivsiis area or 
raised tubercle on its basal portion, often nearly evenly 
punctured or pubescent over its whole surface. 

8. (9) Species nearly glabrous to the naked eye and without 
conspicuous pubescent bands (often metallic); abdomen 
without a definite pygidial area. . . . Ceratinidae. 

9. (8) The nearly glabrous species have a definite pygidial area 
in both sexes; many are well-clothed and have con- 
spicuous pubescent bands. . . . . Anthophoridae. 

10. (7) Labrum often small, or with a special glabrous area or 
raised tubercle at the base; sometimes it is concealed 
beneath a dense regular fringe of special hairs springing 
from the apical margin of the clypeus. 

11. (12) Tongue acute at the tip, . . . . . . Andrenidae 

(incl. Panurgidae of some authors). 

12. (11) Tongue blunt or emarginate at the tip (except in males 
of some exotic forms). 

13. (14) Three cubital cells in front wings; hind tibiae with a 


Ou 


BUOlar. sf . » «+ Colletidae. 

14. (13) Two submarginal Bay in te wings; hind tibiae without 

a scopa. Defeat ve Uns) ar ein reel oe Mat Be OCRIOOINES 
ANTHOPHORIDAE. 


1. (6) Face of 3 yellow or with yellow markings and the tooth 
on the tarsal claws always long and sharp; 2 with 
well-developed scopae on the hind legs. 


266 


10. 


moh = 


8. 


Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


. (5) Three cubital cells in front wings. 
. (4) Seventh dorsal segment of 3 without a longitudinal median 


earina; 2 with or without distinct abdominal bands; 
if these are present the face is black. . . Anthophora. 


. (3) Seventh segment of the g with a distinct median carina; 


2 with banded abdomen and yellow-marked face. 
Saropoda. 


. (2) Two cubital cells; g antennae very long. . . Hucera. 
. (1) Face of 3 either without yellow markings or if with these, 


the tarsal claws have a blunt, truncated * basal tooth; 
2 without a scopa. 


. (10) Marginal cell rounded at the apex, which lies below the 


margin of the wing. 


. (9) Thorax very hairy, scutellum with two prominent spines 


posteriorly, concealed amongst the hair. . . Melecta. 


. (8) Thorax nearly bare except for tomentose markings, the 


axillae forming a projecting angle on each side of the 


posterior margin of the scutellum. . »« «. Hpeolus. 

(7) Marginal cell pointed at the apex, ending in an acute angle 

on the marginal vein. . . . . . . ~. Nomada. 
ANDRENIDAE. 


. (10) Two cubital cells in the front wings. 

- (3) Marginal cell truncate at the apex. ot  Panurguss 
. (2) Marginal cell pointed at the apex. 

. (9) First cubital cell on the lower side subequal to that of the 


2nd in length. (The length is measured as if the lower 
side were straight.) 
(8) Face not yellow in the 3, hind metatarsus not extra- 
ordinarily dilated and clothed. 
(7) Abdomen without dense appressed hair-bands on the apices 
of the segments 2 with the calcaria simple. 
Dufourea. 


. (6) Abdomen with dense hair-bands; calcaria of 2 spinosely 


serrulate, apex of hind metatarsus produced over the 
second tarsal joint in the form of a strong spine. 

Rhophites. 

(5) g face largely yellow; 2 metatarsus of hind legs excessively 


* 


This character unfortunately cannot be used alone to separate 


the males of our parasitic genera from the non-parasitic, as the ¢ 
of Melecta luctuosa has the claws formed much like those of Antho- 
phora and different from those of M. armata. It will, however, 
distinguish the females of the two groups, but the absence of scopae 
is more readily observed. 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 267 


dilated and so densely clothed that its outline is seen 
with difficulty; (abdomen in both sexes short or sub- 
globose; legs of 3 very incrassate). . . Macropis. 
9. (4) First cubital cell on its lower side notably longer than the 
second (form elongate, abdomen banded; 2 with the 
scopae of hind tibiae and metatarsi yellow and extremely 
WSS) Wat bith Nes Axl neeih a Da thy Dasypoda, 
10. (1) Three cubital cells in the front wings. 
11, (14) Basal nervure very strongly curved. 
(Third antennal joint in 3 very short transverse or nearly 
square in outline when viewed from in front; @ either 
with a median “rima” on the 5th abdominal segment 
or the hind tibiae are spinose and lack a scopa.) 
12. (13) Q with well-developed scopa and with long plumose hairs 
at the base of the hind femora beneath; ¢ genital 


opening distinctly ventral. crys a iairoeye Hhaltetzra; 
13. (12) 2 without scopae, g¢ genital opening at the tip of the 
abdomen or almostso. . . . . . . Sphecodes. 


14. (11) Basal nervure oblique, but nearly straight. 

15. (16) ¢ with the 6th ventral abdominal segment widened on 
each side at the base with a hairy lobe, which is not 
covered by the deflexed margin of the dorsal segment 
above it; 2 without a special sensory groove on the 
upper part of the face along the eye margins; apex 
of hind metatarsus outwardly with a lamella of hairs 
extended over the 2nd tarsal joint... . . . Culissa. 

16. (15) ¢ with the 6th ventral segment not thus modified. @ 
with a sensory groove, bearing a dense tomentum, on 
each side of the face above; apex of hind metatarsus 
without the special lamella. . . . . . Andrena. 


With regard to Andrena and its allies, I consider that 
in the Andreno-Panurgine group are to be found the most 
primitive types of existing bees, from which have originated 
all other groups. The Prosopidae and Colletidae are de- 
rivatives of this group in one direction, the Anthophoridae 
in another; the two former are not primitive in the form 
of their tongue, but this has become modified for a special 
purpose in all females, and the males of most species have 
inherited this form from the latter. In many Prosopidae 
from the Australian region the tongue in the ¢ is pointed 
and may be excessively lengthened, and these represent 
the more primitive members of the family. Our Colletes 
is an extreme form, some exotic genera having a very 


268 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


Andreniform habitus, with the ordinary triangular pygidial 
area. 

As to Nomada it was correctly placed by the old Hymeno- 
pterists Kirby and Jurine next to Epeolus, and is Antho- 
phorid, not in the least allied to the Megachilidae as Pérez 
concluded, and also very remote from existing Andrenidae, 
where Edward Saunders finally placed it. The genital 
armature of the male is to my eyes essentially Antho- 
phorid, and is not at all like either Megachile or Andrena, 
and the form of labrum is conclusive, not to mention other 
characters. At the most one might allow that its ancestors 
left the Panurgine branch of Andrena at a time when 
these were not well differentiated, but I think this unlikely. 

Of great interest is the condition of the 2 ventral abdo- 
minal segments in the three parasitic genera. In Melecta 
the 6th segment is extremely narrow and compressed; in 
Epeolus and Nomada it is capable of entire retraction 
_ beneath the 5th and has a special armature, so that one 
may sometimes count only 5 ventral segments. In all 
our Nomadas it is armed on each side at the apex with 
some close-set strong spines, and it differs in thickness in 
different parts. In EHpeolus it is produced on each side 
into two long processes, which are serrated on the edge. 
If one imagines the apical and median thinner portion of 
the segment in Nomada removed, two armed processes 
would be formed in this genus also. 

Whilst Nomada still remains connected with the Antho- 
phoridae by the parasitism of N. sexfasciata on the An- 
thophorid Eucera, Epeolus, so far as I know, has become 
parasitic only on Colletes, which is almost as far removed 
from the Anthophoridae in one direction as can be 
imagined. 


CHARACTERS OF GROUPS AND SPECIES. 


The characters given in the tables have been taken not 
from selected single examples of each sex supposed to be 
typical, nor yet from any special series of specimens, but 
are those which in a period of study extending over thirty | 
years, during which great numbers of individuals have 
been examined, I have found most constant. Smith and 
Saunders, on the other hand, based their descriptions 
essentially on individual specimens, and placed special 
labels on those selected. In some cases this method seems 
to me to have resulted in characters being considered as of 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 269 


specific value, when in reality they are far from constant. 
Since the tables were completed, I have myself verified 
them by the examination of individuals of all the species. 
They have also been tried out to some extent by Mr. F. D. 
Morice, and more completely by Mr. H. M. Hallett, such a 
test by others being, I think, of much greater value than 
one made by the writer. 

Though neither groups nor species can be altogether 
satisfactorily placed in a linear arrangement, the following 
order is suggested. 


Group of A. TIBIALIS. 
‘A. albicans Miill., carbonaria L. (pilipes), bimaculata K., 
tubvalis, K. 
Group of A. FLAVIPES (FULVICRUS). 


A, flavipes Panz. (fulvicrus), gravida Imh. (fasciata), 
followed by florea F. 


Group of A. NIGROAENEA. 


A. thoracica ¥., mtida Geofir., cineraria L., vaga Panz. 
(ova KI1.), mgroaenea K., gwynana K., ruficrus Nyl.. 
angustior K. 


Group of A. TRIMMERANA. 


A. trimmerana Auct. (nec K.), rosae Panz. var. eximia, 
Sm., rosae Panz., trimmerana K. var. spinigera K., trim- 
merana K. (anglica Alfk.), bucephala St., feroz Sm. 


Group of A. VARIANS. 


A. fucata Smn., lapponica Zett., varians, synadelpha Perk. 
(ambigua), helvola L., fulva Schr., clarkella K., apicata Sm., 
praecox Scop. 


Group of A. NIGRICEPS. 
A. fuscipes K., simillima Sm., nigriceps K., tridentata K.., 
denticulata K. 
Group of A. ARGENTATA. 
A. sericea Chr. (albicrus), argentata Sm. 


Group of A. FULVAGO. 
i fulvago Chr., polita Sm. 


270 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


Group of species with white clypeus in 
the g, with NITIDIUSCULA. 


A. labialis K., humilis Imh., coitana K., tarsata Nyl. 
(analis), hattorfiana F., marginata F. (cetw), chrysosceles K., 
nitidiuscula Sch. (lucens), cingulata F. 


Group of A. NANA. 


A. nana K. (nec Sm. Saund.), alfkenella Perk. var. 
moricella Perk., alfkenella Perk. , spreta Pérez, saundersella 
Perk. (nana), ‘falsifica Perk., nanula Nyl., minutulordes 
Perk. var. parvuloides Perk., minutuloides Perk., minutula 
K. var. parvula K., minutula K., subopaca Nyl., proxima K. 


Group of A. WILKELLA. 


A. ovatula K. (afzeliella), wilkella K., somlis Sm., 
dorsata K. 

The group of species with a white or yellow clypeus in 
the g is composite, but need not on that account be re- 
jected in dealing with our small fauna. Otherwise the 
groups are natural, though they would, of course, require 
modifications in their definition if a world, or even European 
fauna were under consideration, and also subdivision 
would be necessary. Even as they are here defined, 
many foreign species and some even from such distant 
localities as California or the Far East can be readily 
placed. 

The species of Nomada might be arranged as follows :— 

N. germanica Panz. (ferruginata), argentata H.-Sch. 
(atrata), armata H.-Sch., guttulata Sch., obtusifrons Nyl., 
tormentillae Alfk. (roberjeotiana), rufipes F. (solidagims), 
— flavopicta K. (jacobaeae), ), seafasciata Panz., fucata Panz., 
goodeniana K. (succincta), lathburiana K., marshamella K. 
(alternata), lineola Panz., bifida Thoms., baccata Sm. (albo- 
guttata), hillana K., xanthosticta K. (lateralis), leucophthalma 
K. (borealis), bucephalae Perk., signata Panz., flava Panz. 
(ruficornis part.), Dee ee L., fabriciana ii conjungens 
H.-Sch. , flavoguttata K ., furva Panz. 


Group of A. TIBIALIS. 


A distinct and well-marked group characterised by the 
strong rugosities of the anterior area of the propodeum, 
this area ‘posteriorly, where it becomes declivous, always 
bounded or closed by a raised line or transverse rugosity. 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 271 


In the males the abundance of hairs often interferes with 
a view of the area, and the following characters are very 
useful. 

The clypeus is never white or yellow, the mandibles 
when closed always lie the one on the other, the tips not 
forming a cross, the third antennal joint (so far as British 
Species are concerned) is always short, just equal to or 
sometimes a little shorter, but never at all longer than the 
4th. In the $ genital armature the inner angles of the 
lobes of the stipites are always greatly and acutely pro- 
duced, forming strong divergent spines. Comparatively 
few of our Andrenas have antennal characters as above, 
the 3rd joint being usually at least-slightly longer than 
the 4th. Rie 

The females have the floccus of the hind trochanters 
perfect, and the abdomen never bears a special adornment 
of dense, short, white hairs on the apices of the inter- 
mediate segments forming conspicuous bands or lateral 
streaks. Except in A. albicans, the inner calcar of the 
hind tibiae is unusually long and curved and distinctive 
in appearance accordingly. 


Group of A. FLAVIPES (FULVICRUS). 


The two species flavipes and gravida (fasciata) might 
perhaps be included in the group of nigroaenea, but the 
appearance of the females is very distinct. Short decum- 
bent white (or almost white) hairs form 3 dense and 
complete pale abdominal bands, covering the apical 
impressions on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th segments. When 
these bands are abraded the impressions exhibit a very 
dense and fine distinct puncturation, and this combined 
with the clear and copious or dense puncturation of the 
basal segment, renders old and worn examples not less 
easily determinable than fresh ones. The surface of the 
abdomen is practically glabrous apart from these bands. 
The scopae are red or yellow and the appressed hairs of 
the 5th abdominal segment black or dark fuscous. The, 
floccus is imperfect, the hairs of the basal part of the 
trochanter conspicuously different from the apical ones. 
The pygidial area is flat, without a raised median tri- 
angular portion. 

The males are often less distinct in appearance, but are 
easily known by the definite minute sculpture on a large 


272 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


part at least of the surface of the lobes of the genital 
armature. The armature itself in its general form is 
commonplace, the inner angles of the lobes of the stipites 
either subrectangular or slightly produced. The head is 
without special characters, and the 3rd antennal joint is 
about equal to the next two together. The abdomen 
beneath has a general clothing of long hairs, and no special 
dense ciliation at the apices of the segments. 


Andrena florea. 


The position of this species is uncertain, the male genital 
armature being very remarkable. The sparsely clothed, 
shining and clearly punctured abdomen, which is usually 
more or less marked with red is characteristic of both 
sexes. The pygidial area is of the simple or flat form. 
Even if it cannot be included in either, it is clear that this 
species comes close to the group of flavipes and to that of 
nigroaenea. It is more remote from the group of trum- 
merana. The ventral segments of the ¢ have a specialised 
apical ciliation, and the floccus of the 9 is not perfect. 


Group of A. NIGROAENEA. 

This group is typically represented by nigroaenea, nitida, 
thoracica. cineraria, vaga; less typically by gwynana and 
probably ruficrus, and with these may be included the 
more aberrant angustior. 

The species are chiefly distinguished by negative char- 
acters. In the males the head is never of striking form, 
and the Jabrum is ordinary, not upturned, the mandibles 
never armed with a tooth at the base, nor are the lower 
occipital angles acutely produced backwards. The second 
abdominal segment in fresh examples has some distinct 
pubescence extending to the middle either in front or 
posteriorly or on the disc, or else the first segment has 
long hairs not confined merely to the sides. These hairs, 
however, are so thin and sparse in several species that 
they are easily abraded. There is no conspicuous adorn- 
ment formed by minute dense hairs forming apical pale 
bands or lateral streaks on the dorsal abdominal segments.* 
In the females the floccus is never perfect, though in 
cineraria and ovina it is nearly so, and the appressed hairs 


* Apparently a slight appearance of this is found in ruficrus and 
in some specimens of the second brood of gwynana. 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 273 


of the 5th segment are dark or obscure, never clear yellow 
or golden, while the hind tibiae and their scopae are normal. 
As in the ¢ g the abdomen lacks the pattern exhibited by 
the wilkella and sericea groups. The male genital arma- 
ture is not remarkable, but vaga and angustior differ from 
the others in having the lobes of the stipites more or less 
broadly rounded at the apex. 

It is convenient to consider our species as forming two 
subgroups, the first consisting of the (normally) large 
species, the males of which always have the 8th ventral 
segment showing a conspicuous hump or projection beneath 
before the apex when viewed laterally (vaga, cineraria, 
nigroaenea, thoracica, nitida): the other of (normally) 
medium-sized species, in which the outline of the 8th 
ventral segment beneath is at most a little sinuate (gwynana, 
ruficrus and angustior). 

It must be remembered that the aberrant species angustior* 
has close allies on the Continent with similar head-char- 
acters (lower occipital angles much produced backwards, 
mandibles long and strongly crossed at the tips, etc.), 
and of course the removal of such species to a group of 
their own would simplify the definition of the nigroaenea 


group. 
Group of A. TRIMMERANA. 


A very distinct group, the males distinguished at once 
by the fact that either the mandibles are simple at the 
apex, lacking the anteapical tooth seen in all our other 
species, or, 1f the mandibles are toothed, then the 3rd 
antennal joint is very short while the 4th is long and 
slender, appearing almost twice as long as the preceding 
on its ‘shortest side, and the flagellar joints are shining 
beneath. The cheeks at the apex beneath always form 
a distinct slight angle, or else are there produced into a 
spine. In the females the 4th antennal joint is never 
transverse, generally appearing subelongate or at least a 
little longer than its width at the base, while the 5th is 
always distinctly elongate. In all the forms but one, the 
floceus is notably small and imperfect, but in ferox it is 
well-developed and perfect or almost so. The pygidial 
area is without a sharply raised median triangular area. 
Abdomen always with dense minute surface sculpture all 
over, never polished, the puncturation feebly impressed or 
subgranulate, sometimes practically effaced. 

TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PARTS I, 0. (JULY) 1 


274 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


A. bucephala is remarkable for its highly aberrant genital 
armature in the male, while its 9 is quite normal; ferox 
for the highly developed floccus and scopa in the female, 
while its male is comparatively closely allied to spinigera. 


Group of A. VARIANS. 


This group is rather well represented with us, and the 
chief character of the males is to be found in the head 
and mandibles. The latter are always long and falcate, 
the tips forming a very distinct cross, never resting one 
along the other. In most of the species the mandibles 
are also armed with a distinct angulation or tooth on their 
lower edge at the base, and the lower occipital angles of 
the head are strongly produced backwards in a pointed 
form, the latter character being conspicuous also in those 
‘which Jack the basal mandibular tooth. 

But in A. clarkella the form of the head is less remark- 
able, though after removal of the pubescence it can easily 
be seen that the structure approaches that of the other 
members of its group, the lower occipital angles being 
hardly at all rounded off. Alfken wrongly separates this 
species from the varzans group and places it next to ngro- 
aenea, Saunders places it next to fulva, but then separates 
these from their proper allies by interposing nigroaenea 
gwynana and angustior, an unnatural arrangement. The 
species is best placed next to apicata, in my opinion. 
Some of the males of this group have the tubercle of the 
labrum upturned, as in the next following, but the different 
shape of the head and other characters readily separate 
them. The females are also quite distinct as a group 
by the entirely rugulose surface sculpture of the abdomen, 
nowhere polished, its feeble puncturation, long pubescence 
on the Ist and middle part of the 2nd segment at the 
least, together with the characters afforded by the perfect 
floccus, and the sharply raised triangular middle part of 
the pygidial area. The genital armature of the male has 
the lobes of the stipites well produced at the inner apical 
angle, but not acutely, and the sagittae are always widened 
by a rounding of their sides at the base. The 5th antennal 
joint is never very short and often slightly elongate. 

The males of this group show some aflinity to that of 
irommerana, but it is probably more closely allied to the 
following. 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 275 


Group of A. NIGRICEPS. 


The males are easily characterised by the upturned 
tubercle of the labrum, combined with the fact that the 
head lacks the occipital characters of the preceding group: 
and the mandibles are never armed with a basal tooth. 
Further the abdomen is distinctly banded with pubescence. 
The females also differ from those of the varians group 
in the distinctly banded abdomen, the less perfect floccus, 
some of the hairs at the base of the trochanter being 
comparatively thick and not much curved. In fusczpes 
alone the floccus is nearly perfect. All the species have 
the hind tibiae unusually wide apically, and the scopa 
on the outer surface of these is formed of hairs that are 
finer than usual, while those springing from the lower 
side are much less conspicuously curved up round the 
outer side of the joint. 


Group of A. SERICEA (ALBICRUS). 


We have but two species of this group. They are re- 
markable for the pale clothing of the males, which frequent 
sandy places, where the females form their colonies. Though 
not very long and falcate, the mandibles cross at the tips; 
the head and tubercle of the labrum are of ordinary form. 
The apical margins of the intermediate abdominal dorsal 
segments bear short white or pale hairs forming bands or 
lateral streaks. The inner apical angles of the lobes of 
the stipites are considerably, but not acutely, produced, 
and well separated from one another, the sagittae wide 
at the base from the rounding of the sides. In both sexes 
the basal abdominal segment is shining. The females 
have a perfectly formed floccus, and the abdomen has 
white apical bands on the intermediate segments; the 
scopa outwardly consists of silvery white hairs or of dark 
fuscous and silvery ones together, and the pygidial area is 
definitely and triangularly raised in the middle. There 
is a dense and distinct apical ciliation of the g ventral 
- Segments. 


Group of A. FULVAGO. 


The alhance between the two species fulvago and polita 
is doubtful and certainly not very close, the differences 
between the male genital armatures being considerable 
and perhaps important. The flagellum in the 3 of both 


276 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


species is shining beneath, in fulvago remarkably so. The 
3rd joint of the antennae is subequal to or else much 
longer than the 4th. The abdomen has a very distinct 
puncturation, and the basal segment is shining or polished. 
The females have very large yellow scopae of plumose 
hairs, and the appressed hairs of the 5th segment of the 
abdomen are entirely yellow or golden. The floccus is 
perfect in form. As in the 3, the abdomen is shining, the 
2nd segment practically glabrous, except at the sides, and 
densely and distinctly punctured. 


Group of A. WILKELLA. 


Excluding the aberrant species A. dorsata, the members 
of this group are easily recognised and closely allied to 
one another. The males are commonplace in structure 
with short mandibles resting one on the other, and not 
forming a cross at the tips. The head has no peculiarities 
of form, and the tubercle of the labrum is ordinary. The 
3rd antennal joint is at most rather longer or rather shorter 
than the 4th, never approaching the length of 4 and 5 
united in any of our species. The 4th is more or less 
elongate, an important character to distinguish the males 
from some others in which this joint is either transverse 
or just as long as wide. The abdomen is rugulose all 
over, with very feebly impressed punctures, the basal 
segment never smooth and polished between these, 2nd 
segment with only very short hairs on the middle parts, 
the ventral segments with long apical cilia. The propo- 
deum is well clothed with long hairs except on the anterior 
area, itself. Male genital armature commonplace, the 
inner angles of the lobes of the stipites are not notably 
produced, and the sagittae basally are not dilated from a 
rounding of their sides. 

The appearance of the females is more distinctive in 
this small group, the general surface of the abdomen 
almost glabrous, and bearing dense narrow bands (some- 
times widely interrupted in the middle) of short white or 
almost white hairs on the apical margins of the inter- 
mediate segments. The sculpture is as described for the 
males, and the band of the 2nd segment is never entire. 
Floccus perfectly developed over the whole trochanter. 

A. dorsata is in a wide sense a member of this group, 
but were we considering foreign species it might well be 
separated therefrom as a subgroup. Closely allied species 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 277 


resembling it in all important characters occur in Europe 
and N. America, and probably elsewhere. At first sight 
the male is a commonplace and obscure insect, not in- 
frequently confused with other species in collections. It 
has most of the characters:of the typical males of the 
wilkella group, but the 1st segment is sometimes quite 
shining, varying in different individuals, as does the 
puncturation, and the colour of the facial hairs and legs. 
It is remarkable for the long slender hind tarsi and rather 
thick hind tibiae, the whole length of the tarsi (excluding 
the pulvillus and claws) being not less than 1} times the 
leneth of the tibiae, whereas in the ¢ 3 of other members 
of the group the tibiae are normal and the tarsi are not 
14 times their length. The female is quite peculiar in its 
pollinigerous organs, though otherwise exhibiting the 
normal wilkella characters. The hairs of the propodeum 
are very long, plumose and strongly curved so that they 
form a pollen-basket almost completely closed in, the hind 
tibiae are strongly clavate, being very wide at the apex 
and with a very short fringe formed by the scopa on their 
upper edge; on the outer side the scopal hairs are fine, 
so that the dense puncturation of the tibia is easily seen 
beneath them; the hairs of the lower margin are com- - 
paratively little curved upwards over this surface. The 
floccus is decidedly imperfect, the hairs on the basal portion 
of the trochanter being much less curved and thicker and 
less plumose than those on the apical. 


Group of A. NANA. 


With one exception all of this group are minute in size, 
only one or two of our other species approaching them so 
closely in this respect that they could be mistaken. 
Clearly the group itself is closely allied to the preceding 
one. 

The males have short mandibles closing one on the 
other, and no peculiarities of the head or labrum. The 3rd 
jomt of the antennae is never greatly elongated, though 
distinctly longer than its apical width, longer too than the 
4th which is generally wider than long, rarely about square 
in outline. The propodeum is unusually bare above 
though hairy at the sides, so that not only the anterior 
area is glabrous but the parts adjoining this are only 
shghtly less exposed to view. The basal abdominal seg- 


278 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


ment is minutely rugulose under a strong lens (except 
in one species), and the second, except at the sides, is bare 
except for the presence of very short hairs. In some of 
the species the anterior area of the propodeum is distinctly 
and densely rugose over its whole surface. The clypeus 
is never white or yellow, though often clothed with white 
hairs. 

It should be impossible to mistake the 3 ¢ of the minute 
species of this group for those of any other, because of the 
latter any the least lable to be confused either have a 
white clypeus or else the mandibles form a shght cross 
at the apex. As to the one larger species (proxima), its 
well-exposed propodeum with the anterior area densely 
and distinctly rugose right up to the posterior declivity, 
combined with the subglabrous abdomen, which has 
white apical lateral streaks on the intermediate segments, 
gives it a most distinct appearance. 

The females resemble miniatures of the wilkella group, 
but are at once separable by the thin and imperfect floccus. 

From small species in other groups the rugulose abdomen, 
not polished on the basal segment, separates most of these 
females, or if this is polished, the area of the propodeum 
is distinctly rugose to the declivity. The hind tibiae are 
black (sometimes pallid from immaturity), the scopae 
never conspicuously yellow. 


Group of species with white clypeus in the males 
together with A. NITIDIUSCULA. 


This is not a natural group as compared with the others, 
but, as said already, in our small fauna it is convenient 
to keep the species together. In my opinion the Andrenas 
with a white clypeus are primitive forms, some of which 
have given rise to groups of species with the ordinary 
black clypeus. We have not even a pair of species in this 
group which can be said to be very closely allied, the white- 
faced chrysosceles and black-faced nitidiuscula alone being 
comparatively nearly related to one another. A. analis 
bears to A. coitana somewhat the same relationship as 
dorsata does to the rest of the wilkella group. Apart from 
these, each other species appears to me to be isolated, and 
Morice has shown how A. humilis represents a considerable 
number of species on the Continent. In addition to the 
fact that the clypeus is white or yellow in all but one 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 279 


of our species, all the gg have a strongly elongated 3rd 
antennal joint (as compared with the 4th), this rarely being 
less than twice as long as the latter, and sometimes as 
much as three times the length. 

A. chrysosceles and nitidiuscula are representatives of a 
well-marked group. The head of the jis deeply emarginate 
behind, so that the lower occipital angles (seen from above) 
are quite strongly produced, the mandibles are rather long 
and form a distinct cross at the tips. The clypeus is re- 
markable in having a much more widely upturned apical 
margin than is normal in the genus. This is best seen 
when it is viewed from the base. The tubercle of the 
labrum is ordinary. Propodeum above sparsely clothed, 
so that not only on the anterior area but on a large space 
on each side the sculpture is easily seen. Scutellum with 
sparse or at least remote punctures, not very convex, 
rugulose all over; abdomen with the general clothing con- 
sisting of only very short hairs, shining and to the naked 
eye appearing nearly bare, the basal segment polished. 
Intermediate ventral segments with extremely dense 
specialised cilation on ‘their apical margins. Genital 
armature with the lobes of the stipites much rounded off 
at the angles, short or subglobose; sagittae expanded by 
rounding of the sides. Female in general characters lke 
the ¢, the apical white fringes of the dorsal segments form- 
ing a more conspicuous pattern of bands or lateral streaks. 
Pygidial area without a sharply raised median triangular 
area. Floccus imperfect, the hairs of the basal portion of 
the trochanter comparatively short and little curved. 

A. coitana and tarsata. In general facies, and in the 
greatly and somewhat sharply produced inner apical angles 
of the lobes of the stipites, as well as in the long hairs that 
clothe the ventral abdominal segments, a very dense and 
highly specialised apical ciliation being absent, these 
species resemble each other and are more closely allied to 
one another, than is either to any other species. 

* The following great differences are notable in the males. 
In tarsata the clypeus is somewhat widely margined, as 
in chrysosceles, the tubercle of the labrum is upturned, 
but does not rise above the curved apical margin of the 
clypeus, the mandibles are rather short and wide and 
repose one on the other, while the hind tibiae are more 
than usually wide or thick. In coitana the clypeus is very 
narrowly margined, the tubercle of the labrum ordinary, 


280 Mr. R.-C. L. Perkins on 


the mandibles longer and forming a distinct cross at the 
tips in some aspects, while the hind tibiae are long and 
slender. 

In tarsata 9 the hind tibiae are comparatively strongly 
clavate, very wide at the apex, the scopal fringe dense 
above them, and its longest hairs appear only about half 
the width of the tibiae at their apex. The floccus is 
imperfect, the hairs on the basal part of the trochanter 
much stiffer and straighter than the apical ones. 

In coitana 9 the hind tibiae are slender, with a very 
long and less dense scopal fringe above, the longest hairs 
appearing about equal in length to the width of the apex 
of the tibiae. The pollinigerous basket at the sides of the 
propodeum is quite rudimentary (in tarsata it is very fairly 
developed), but the floccus is perfect in form. 

A. marginata (cetir) is not at all closely allied to hattor- 
fiana, next to which it is placed, and with which it agrees 
in its habits and variability of coloration. 

Head of § deeply emarginate and the lower occipital 
angles rather strongly produced backwards, but not at 
all sharp. Apical margin of clypeus with the lateral angles 
forming strong prominent teeth, the tubercle of the labrum 
very wide, upturned above the clypeal margin between 
the teeth of which it forms a well-curved outline. Mandibles 
long and slender crossing at tips. Propodeum at sides of 
the area with long hairs. Abdomen with dense special 
ciliation on the ventral segments. Genital armature small, 
inner apical angles of lobes of stipites not the least. pro- 
duced, but obtuse, sagittae very narrow at the base. 

Female well clothed with long hairs on the parts adjoin- 
ing the anterior area of the propodeum; floccus rather 
thin but perfect, all the hairs very slender and plumose; 
hind tibiae slender, with very long scopal fringe above, 
this being also somewhat lax. 

A. .hattorfiana. Head ordinary, clypeus not produced 
into strong prominent teeth on each side, the tubercle of 
the labrum not upturned, emarginate apically. Ventral 
abdominal segments with a specialised and dense apical 
ciation. Inner angle of lobes of stipites strongly pro- 
duced, the production obliquely truncate or feebly rounded 
at the apex. Hind tibiae somewhat strongly clavate. 

Female with the surface of the propodeum adjoining the 
anterior area sparsely clothed, the lateral pollen-basket 
yery rudimentary, much as in coitana, Scopal fringe 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 281 


above the tibiae shorter and denser than in marginata, 
the floccus perfect. 

Abdomen in both. sexes polished, finely and remotely 
punctured, scopae and appressed hairs of 5th segment in 
the 2 clear golden. 

A. cingulata is entirely distinct in facies from any other 
of the genus, the pattern of colour and dense even punc- 
turation of the abdominal segments being distinctive. In 
the ¢ the head, together with the labrum and mandibles, 
is not at all modified; the latter when closed rest one 
on the other. 

The genital armature is very large and remarkable, the 
lobes of the stipites only touching for a small space, the 
inner apical angles rounded off and receding, the processes 
in dorsal view divergent at their apices with an obliquely 
truncate or very faintly rounded margin, forming an 
apical acute angle. 

In the 2 the floccus is perfect, the surface of the pro- 
podeum above well exposed, the abdomen almost glabrous, 
though dull. 

A. humilis. Head and tubercle of labrum ordinary in 
the g, the mandibles resting one on the other to the apex. 
Propodeum above (adjoining the anterior area) with long 
pubescence. Abdomen conspicuously pubescent to the 
naked eye, without special pattern, the basal segment 
with notably granular puncturation. Genital armature 
with the inner apical angle very strongly produced, forming 
long subdivergent processes. 

Female with the basal abdominal segment at least 
towards the sides with granular punctures, no distinct 
abdominal pattern formed by the pubescence, 5th and 
6th segments with golden hairs. Hind tibiae with long 
scopal fringe of evidently plumose hairs above, the scopae 
large and golden, the floccus perfect, of plumose hairs 
throughout. 

A. labialis.. Not related to any other of the species 
with white clypeus and should probably be placed closer 
to the group of mgroaenea with the larger species of which 
and to that of flavipes it shows affinity. Head of ¢, and 
tubercle of labrum ordinary, the mandibles resting one on 
the other, not forming a cross at the apex. Genital arma- 
ture with the inner angle of the lobes of stipites not pro- 
duced, nearly rectangular, the lobes polished, not rugulose 
as in the flavipes group. Eighth ventral segment with its 


282 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


process much lke that of vaga. The intermediate ventral 
segments with special ciliation, excessively dense on the 5th. 

Both sexes with the abdominal surface shining between 
the distinct punctures, the apical impressions of the 2nd 
and 3rd densely and distinctly punctured, a distinct 
pattern of narrow and interrupted bands formed by dense 
short white or whitish hairs on the apices of segments 2-4. 

Scopa of the 2 normal, floccus almost perfect, much as 

in vaga or cineraria. 
_ In the following tables the natural sequence of the 
species is not kept in the case of the Andrenas, while the 
species of Nomada, on the other hand, follow in almost 
natural order, excepting N. fabriciana, which might probably 
be best placed next to flavoguttata. 

The antennal characters are most easily observed in 
specimens which have these organs more or less at right 
angles to the long axis of the head, and the measurements 
are always to be taken from the front or lower side of the 
joints, the insect being held with its head towards the 
observer. 

The floccus is best seen when the specimen is held as 
above, but with the back downwards. Bees that carry a 
load of pollen should be boxed alive and allowed to free 
themselves from this. 

A “ perfect ’’ floccus is one in which the hairs that spring 
from the basal part of the trochanter are soft, plumose 
and much curved, and differ very little from those on the 
more apical part. If the basal hairs are stiffer or straighter 
and do not adapt themselves to the curve of the others, 
the floccus is imperfect. These differences will be at once 
appreciated if such a species as the common A. trammerana 
is compared with any member of the group of A. varians. 
In other countries there are species in which there is no 
true floccus at all, but we have no such forms in Britain. 


TABLE OF ¢ ANDRENA. 


1. (16) Clypeus yellow or white. 

2. (3) Second and 3rd abdominal segments red, forming a broad 
band between the black basal and apical segments; a 
large white spot on either side of the white clypeus. 

cingulata. 

3. (2) Second and 3rd segments not all red. : 

4. (5) Clypeus with the anterior angles forming strong prominent 


on 


15. 


16. 
Wis 


18. 


19. 


20. 
21. 
22. 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 283 


teeth, the labral tubercle upturned and forming a curved 

outline between the teeth of the clypeus (easily seen if 

the head be viewed from beneath). . . . marginata. 
(4) Clypeus and labrum otherwise. 


. (7) A very large species with strongly infuscated wings, shining 


abdomen and thorax and the clypeus only yellow (no 
lateral spots outside this). . . . . . hatiorfiana. 


. (6) If large, the species have a dull thorax and abdomen, or 


else a large lateral yellow spot on either side of the 
clypeus. 


. (11) Mesonotum and scutellum conspicuously shining or polished 


between the punctures; small species. 


. (10) Clypeus and a spot on either side of it yellow, hind tarsi 


dark, the hind tibiae slender. . . . . . covtana. 


. (9) Clypeus only pale, hind tarsi clear testaceous, hind tibiae 


Chicks anne SS -tarsata: 


. (8) Mesonotum and schivelbnine ith suelo sculpture between 


the punctures, not polished. 


2. (13) Basal abdominal segments with many of its. punctures set 


in conspicuous granulations. : ~ « . humilis. 


. (12) Basal abdominal segment not teianlanely punctate. 
. (15) Basal abdominal segment strongly punctured, well clothed 


with longish hairs all over; lateral facial spots large. 
labialis. 

(14) Basal abdominal segment very finely punctured, to a large 
extent nearly glabrous; lateral facial spots small or 
absent. BEARS ces ted tery ey Sly ehrysosecles TR. 

(1) Clypeus black. 

(24) Anterior area of the propodeum more or less coarsely rugose 
and always bounded behind at the middle (on or near 
the edge of the posterior surface) by a raised line or 
transverse rugosity. (The mandibles are always short 
and lie one on the other, the tips not crossed; the 3rd 
antennal joint is never at all longer than the 4th.) 

(19) Second abdominal segment clothed only with very short 
hairs, the hind tarsi and the hind tibiae (to a large 
extent at least) clear testaceous or yellow. . albicans. 

(18) If the hind tarsi and tibiae are largely clear testaceous the 
abdomen has abundant long hairs. (In all the following 
species of the section the 2nd segment has long or longish 
hairs on the middle, except in abraded examples.) 

(21) Hind tibiae with black hairs. .  . carbonaria (pi ipes.) 

(20) Hind tibiae with pale hairs. 

(23) Hind tarsi and tibiae dark, black or pitchy. . bimaculata, 


284 


Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


23. (22) Hind tarsi and usually the apices of the tibiae (except in 


24. 


25. 


26. 


27. 


28. 


29. 


30. 


31. 


some stylopised examples) conspicuously red or yellow. 
tibialis. 

(17) Anterior area of propodeum not bounded posteriorly by | 
a raised line or rugosity, or if conspicuously rugose all 
over, the 3rd antennal joint is at least slightly longer 
than the 4th. 

(36) Third joint of antennae extraordinarily short, seen from 
in front only from 4 to 3 the length of the strongly elon- 
gated 4th, and not or hardly longer than its own apical 
margin; flagellum shining beneath. 

(35) Mandibles ordinary, having a more or less distinct tooth 
before the apex. 

(34) Cheeks usually forming merely a small prominent angle 
at the base of the mandibles, rarely with a distinct 
elongate spine; if the latter is present the face beneath 
the antennae is largely clothed with pale hairs. 

(31) Abdomen without evident red or yellowish markings above 
or beneath, at most the apices of the segments sub- 
testaceous. 

(30) Face beneath the antennae with the hairs brown and black 
or often nearly all brown (fading to pale ochreous). 

trimmerana Auct. 

(29) Face beneath the antennae with black hairs. 

trimmerana var. scotica. 

(28) Abdomen either above or beneath or on both surfaces with 
evident red or yellowish markings, at least on some of 
the basal segments. 


. (33) Apices of hind tibiae more or less pale. 


spinigera var. anglica (= trimmerana K.) 


. (32) Apices of hind tibiae not pale, but concolorous. . rosae. 
. (27) Cheeks with an elongate spine at the mandibular articula- 


tion and the face densely black-haired, sometimes with 
a few greyish ones intermixed. . . rosae var. eximia. 


. (26) Mandibles simple, without a distinct tooth before the 


apex. : . . spinigera K. 


. (25) Third joint of sateumas sith aitieerist short as in the 


above section. 


. (40) Mandibles simple, no tooth on the upper margin towards 


the apex. 


. (39) Third antennal joint shorter than the 4th, hind tibiae yellow. 


Serox. 


. (38) Third antennal joint not shorter than the 4th, hind tibiae 


at least for the most part dark. . . « bucephala. 


40. 
41. 


42. 


43. 


44. 


45. 


46. 


47. 


48. 


49. 


50. 


51. 


52. 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 285 


(37) Mandibles always with a tooth before the apex. 

(52) Mandibles at the base always armed with a distinct angular 
tooth on the lower margin, the mandibles themselves 
always very long, falcate, strongly crossing at the tips. 

(43) Third joint of the antennae very elongate, about twice 
as long as the short 4th joint, this latter nearly 
square in outline (thorax and abdomen in fresh examples 
with fulvous hairs). : gills Sulwa. 

(42) Third joint sometimes bdtinidecably ‘ona than, iti! not 
nearly twice as long as, the 4th, and the latter is itself 
quite elongate. . 

(49) Propodeum clothed with pale fulvous hairs, fading to pale 
ochreous or whitish; very few or no black hairs; thorax 
above in fresh specimens with fulvous clothing. 

(48) Hind tarsi often entirely or at least with the apical joints 
clear testaceous; or else the mandibular basal tooth is 
short and wide, forming a simple angulation. 

(47) Ventral abdominal segments with excessively dense fringes 
of white or almost white decumbent hairs, so that the 
abdomen beneath has very conspicuous and beautiful 
dense bands; tubercle of labrum, viewed from above 
when the clypeus is in the horizontal plane, narrower 
in comparison to the width between the angles of 
the front margin of the clypeus, and not distinctly 
emarginate. eA. TsO; helvala, 

(46) Ventral abdominal eisitivenit with the fringes less dense 
and distinct, the tubercle of the labrum wide and dis- 
tinctly emarginate. ae ; Sucata. 

(45) Hind tarsi blackish or dark Bite! A peamalie basal 
tooth comparatively long and narrow, strongly promi- 
nent, except as an unusual aberration. . lapponica. 

(44) Propodeum clothed with pale hairs and on some part at 
least with many black hairs, the whole thorax above 
in fresh examples much less bright, more grey than in 
the preceding. 

(51) Process of 8th ventral segment of the abdomen distinctly 
emarginate at apex; mandibular tooth usually broader 
and blunter and the 3rd antennal joint rather less elon- 


gate than in apicata. . . . -  « praecox. 
(50) Process of 8th ventral segment tedhaed or truncate at 
apex, not distinctly emarginate. . . . . apicata. 


(41) Mandibles at the base not armed with a distinct tooth on 
the lower margin, but at most with the margin somewhat 
rounded at that point. 


286 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


53. (56) Lower occipital angles of the head very strongly acutely 
produced backwards, the abdomen clothed with long 
pale hairs on the basal segment and on the middle of 
the second, forming more or less of a tuft there, the 
rest inconspicuously hairy from the shortness of the 
hairs, and never with pale bands or fasciae. 

54. (55) Third antennal joint very much longer than the 4th, 
which is short, nearly square in outline, as seen from 
inj front.) 6) \« . » varians. 

55. (54) Third antennal aie sanatiias ieueee than the 4th, 
which in the same aspect as above appears very dis- 
tinctly elongate. . . . . . . synadelpha. 

56. (53) Lower occipital angles very abd strongly and sub- 
acutely produced, and if so formed, then the abdomen 
is quite different in clothing from that of the above 
section. 

57. (66) Tubercle of the labrum upturned, so that in an apical 
view of the head it interrupts the apical margin of the 
clypeus. 

58. (63) Head seen from above with the hind angles simply rounded 
off, normal. 

59. (60) Clypeus well clothed, but if viewed somewhat from the 
side the surface and sculpture beneath the hairs is 
easily seen; apical hair-bands of abdominal segments 
3 and 4 almost perfectly decumbent concealing the 
surface beneath (3rd antennal joint hardly longer than 
the fourth). . . . : ob.) ) fusemes: 

60. (59) Clypeus * very densely clothed. so flit viewed somewhat 
from the side, the surface is not, or hardly at all, visible; 

' apical hair-bands of 3rd and 4th segments less appressed 
and the surface beneath, which is smooth and often 
shining, is easily seen. 

(In normal examples the 8rd antennal joint is con- 
spicuously longer than the 4th, the latter often nearly 
square in outline or very little elongate.) 

(62) | Abdomen very pubescent, so that to the naked eye its 


* I know no other character that can be of much use in a table, 
and it is necessary to have well-preserved specimens. The antennal 
joints, the reflexed margin of the 6th ventral segment and apex 
of the 8th all vary in this group. Normally fuscipes has the abdomen 
less distinctly punctured than the two following species. 

+ These two species are generally easy to distinguish, but very 
difficult to tabulate, as most of the characters vary. In normal 
examples simillima is the smaller species, with more elongate and 
slender 3rd antennal joint, and with the dense white fasciae formed 


62. 


63. 


64. 


65. 


66. 
67. 


68. 


69. 


70. 


7H 


72. 
73. 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 287 


black colour is not very noticeable; hairs of clypeus, 
those beneath the cheeks and on the thorax beneath 
and basal parts of the legs, or on some of these parts 
distinctly fulvescent. . . . . nigriceps. 

(61) Abdomen much less pubescent ne we abi eye and the 
abdomen much blacker; hairs of clypeus, those beneath 
the cheeks, and on the underparts of the thorax, coxae 
and trochanters usually white (unless stained by pollen). 

simillima. 

(58) Head seen from in front of abnormal shape, the hind angles 
a little prominent or turned outwards. 

(65) Third and 4th abdominal segments, viewed laterally, clothed 
with very short erect pale hairs in front of the apical 
bands; cheeksordinary. . . . . . 3-dentata. 

(64) Third and 4th segments with very shots erect black hairs; 
cheeks forming a small prominent angle at the mandi- 
bular articulation 4 beh wd paid sl! hg dentioulata. 

(57) Tubercle of labrum not upturned. 

(90) Extremely small species, the mandibles always short, the 
one resting on the other and not forming a cross at the 
tips; general surface of 2nd abdominal segment nearly 
glabrous, with only very minute hairs. 

(Fourth antennal joint short, generally transverse, rarely 
as long as broad, never elongate.) 

(71) First two abdominal segments shining or polished between 
the punctures, the 2nd densely and distinctly punctured, 
sometimes so closely that hardly any surface remains 
between the punctures. 

(70) Abdomen beneath dull or hardly at all shining; claw joint 
of timd, tarsi, dark. ty >)) «9 ~  . nana K. 

(69) Abdomen beneath shining, claw- aaants alee yellow, stigma 
of front wings very conspicuously pale. . . alfkenella. 

(68) First two segments of the abdomen not distinctly shining, 
but one or both are largely dull from the minute sculpture 
of the surface. 

(75) Whole face clothed with blackish or sooty grey hairs. 

(74) Stigma very pale even when viewed on the undersurface, 
claw-joints of tarsi clear yellowish; 2nd abdominal 
segment with numerous distinct but shallow punctures. 

moricella. 


by the apical ciliation of the ventral segments rather more clearly 
defined than in nigriceps. The latter often has numerous black hairs 
on the basal part of the 5th and sometimes of the 4th abdominal 
segments. 


288 


74. 


75. 


76. 


aNe 


78. 


79. 
80. 


81. 


82. 


83. 


84. 


Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


(73) Stigma much more obscurely pale in the middle, often 
darkish brown, especially when viewed from beneath, 
claw-joints of tarsi usually dark and the 2nd abdominal 
segment often impunctate or ear so, or with extremely 
feeble punctures. . .. - . parvula. 

(72) Whole face not clothed with ‘hace or Bdbty grey hairs, 
the clypeus at least with pale brown, yellowish, or white 
hairs. 

(79) Face at the sides beneath the insertion of the antennae, 
generally the median space between the antennae and 
base of clypeus, and some other parts of the head quite 
evidently bearing black hairs, easily seen in lateral 
aspect of the head. 

(78) White streaks of short hairs on the apices of the 2nd and 
3rd abdominal segments much less conspicuous or 

_ hardly noticeable in dorsal aspect; mesonotum more 
remotely punctured ($ not found after the beginning 
eh ane). 4 4-H eg . . . parvuloides. 

(77) White streaks conspicuous in daira aspect; mesonotum 
generally closely and evenly punctured (3 not before the 
middle of June). . . . . . . minutula var. 

(76) Face with few or no black hairs benoit the antennae. 

(81) The impressions on the apices of the 2nd and following 
segments are deep, dull'and very densely sculptured, 
with the appearance of excessively close, minute punc- 
turation; the basal segment is similarly sculptured 
along its apical margin; stigma pale, clypeus with 
Witte hairy 0 . . spreta. 

(80) Sculpture of apices of the first iis abaurnigild segments © 
not dense enough to make them dull as in the preceding, 
often the apices of some or all of them are shining in 
some aspects. 

(83) Second and 38rd abdominal segments with strong apical 
impressions (especially the 3rd) which in most aspects 
are brightly shining or highly polished, the surface 
sculpture feeble or hardly visible; stigma pale; long 
snow-white hairs on the clypeus. . . saundersella. 

(82) Second and 3rd segments with the impressions shallower 
and the surface sculpture much more evident, so that 
in most aspects the surface is much less polished than 
in the preceding. 

(85) Fifth antennal joint short, transverse, not much longer 
than the 4th, the 3rd as long, or all but as long, as 
4 and 5 together. Bh em eC APR nN oe ae 


85. 


86. 


87. 


88. 


89. 


91. 


92. 


93. 


94. 


95 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 289 


(84) Fifth antennal joint more nearly square, not appearing 
transverse, in outline, differing notably from the 4th. 

(87) Mesonotum very dull, the punctures remote and very fine, 
sometimes wanting, or hardly visible amid the surface 
sculpture; scutellum never polished, at most rather less 
dull than the mesonotum. . . . . . . subopaca. 

(86) Mesonotum generally either very conspicuously or more or 
less closely punctured, sometimes more or less shining, 
the scutellum often, in part at least, with polished surface. 

(89) Mesonotum normally closely and evenly punctured, the 
face beneath the antennae in fresh examples with 
yellowish or yellowish-brown hairs. . . . minutula. 

(90) Mesonotum normally more irregularly punctured, often 
more or less highly polished, the scutellum usually with 
some part at least polished; hairs of the face white. 

minutuloides. 

. (67) Species generally at least medium-sized, those comparable 
in size and appearance with the minutula group have 
the mandibles forming a distinct cross at the tips in 
apical view. 

(Many but not all species have the 4th antennal joint 
longer than wide.) 

(92) Hind tibiae and metatarsi translucent yellow, the former 
at most partly subinfuscate; basal abdominal segment 
polished and clearly punctured. . . . . fulvago. 

(Flagellar joints of antennae shining beneath and in some 
aspects with narrow basal pubescent bands; mandibles 
short, not crossing at the tips; ventral abdominal 
segments with long specialised ciliations.) 

(91) Hind tibiae usually dark or pale only at the apex; if as 
above the basal abdominal segment is not polished. 

(94) Normally a large species, with white-haired clypeus, the 
abdomen polished and clearly and copiously punctured 
all over, the apical impressions conspicuously pale and 
without dense white hair-bands. . . . . .  polita. 

(Antennae with the flagellum more or less shining beneath, 
the 3rd joint strongly elongated, about twice as long 
as its apical width; mandibles not forming a cross at 
the tips; ventral segments with long specialised ciliation.) 

(93) Those of the following species that are large and have a 
white-haired clypeus, have not all the abdominal 
characters of polita, as given above. 

. (96) Sides of head behind the eyes with the hind margin 

conspicuously raised or thickened. . . nitidiuscula. 

TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PARTS I, 1. (JULY) U 


290 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


(A small species with the lower occipital angles strongly 
produced backwards, the clypeus abnormal, its apical 
margin strongly reflexed or upturned, and behind this 
flattened (or impressed) smooth and shining.) 

96. (95) Sides of head behind the eyes normal. 

97. (112) Third joint of antennae as long as the two following 
together and about twice as long as its apical width, 
or still longer in some species. 

98. (99) A small or rather small species, the apices of the apical 
impressions of the abdominal segments 2-4 with dense 
white fasciae, their general surface practically glabrous, 
except for very minute hairs. . . . . . argentata. 

99. (98) Abdomen with long hairs on some of these segments or 
without dense white fasciae. 

100. (101) Abdomen under a strong lens dull, minutely rugulose 
all over, the puncturation effaced, clothed all over 
with long hairs. . . . . » « « Clarkella, 

(Mandibles long, crossing at tips; dower posterior angle 
of the head behind the eyes in lateral view subrect- 
angular, at most a little rounded off.) 

101. (100) Abdomen either more or less shining or considerably 
punctured or both. 

102. (109) Clypeus with white hairs, at most very slightly tinged 
with yellow; abdomen without red markings. 

103. (104) A large species, the thorax clothed with white or whitish 
hairs, the abdomen shining nearly glabrous and 
impunctate above, and without special apical ciliation 
of its segments beneath. . . . . . « « aga. 

104. (103) Abdomen clothed with a good deal of pubescence or 
punctured or both. 

105. (106) Head seen from above deeply emarginate, its lower 
angles strongly and subacutely produced, but the 
angles themselves are rounded off. . . angustior. 

5) Head ordinarily emarginate. 

8) Basal abdominal segment polished, generally with some 
shallow, often ill-defined, longitudinal fluting on its 
apical portion; ventral segments with apical bands 
of dense white cilia. . . . » «. sericea. 

108. (107) Basal segment punctured; ventral scasntentie with long 
fine hairs and no conspicuous apical ciliation. 

Jasciata. 

109. (102) Clypeus with distinctly yellow, brown or black hairs or 
with these mixed. 

110. (111) Abdomen black, the apical impressions of the 2nd and 


106. (1 


0 
107. (10 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 291 


following segments bearing short dense pale hairs, 
forming bands. 5am .  . flavipes. 
(Ventral segments without highly sieciabsed ciliations. ) 
111. (110) Abdomen red-marked, nearly glabrous to the naked eye. 
florea. 
(Ventral segments with highly specialised apical cilia- 
tions. ) 

112. (97) Third antennal joint evidently shorter than 4th and 5th 
together, often very much shorter. 

113. (118a) Legs and face both with black hairs. . . thoracica. 

113a. (113) Legs and face not both with black hairs. 

114. (117) Clypeus with white hairs, Ist and disc at least of 2nd 
segment with long or longish pubescence, apices of 
3rd and 4th segments without short hairs forming 
pale lateral streaks. 

(Species large in normal specimens.) 

115. (116) Thorax with fulvous hairs in fresh examples; hind tibiae 
fringed with pale hairs above. . . . . .  nitida. 

116. (115) Thorax with white or whitish hairs, generally mixed 
with black; hind tibiae with black hairs.  cineraria. 

117. (114) If the clypeus is white-haired the 2nd abdominal segment 
is glabrous (or bears only very short or few hairs) on 

. the disc;. abdomen in some species with distinct pale 
fasciae or lateral streaks of short hairs on the 2nd 
and following segments. 

118. (121) Clypeus never white-haired, often clothed largely or 
wholly with black; if covered with brown or fulvous 
hairs the 2nd abdominal segment has conspicuous long 
hairs on the middle. 

119. (120) Mandibles in apical view of the face with the tips crossing 
when closed, 3rd antennal joint seen from in front 
under a oe lens, without distinct projecting hairs 
beneath. pei a - + » MNigroaenea. 

120. (119) Mandibles in apical view ape foneing a cross at the 

tips, when closed; 3rd antennal joint under a strong 
lens with distinct short black hairs projecting in the 
arch beneath... . . . . ee) 6gwynana. 

121. (118) Clypeus in some species eis: eee never black- 
haired; when clothed. with brown or fulvous ones the 
2nd segment bears only short hairs in the middle or 
may appear nearly glabrous there. 

122. (123) Clypeus with white hairs, those on the sides of the face 
bordering it, as is easily seen in lateral view, are 
Pilate a aR el a a ang SURORULR, 


292 


123. 


124. 


125. 


126. 


127. 


128. 


129. 


130. 


431. 


Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


(Size of gwynana, abdomen with the puncturation nearly 

- effaced, the surface dull, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th segments 
beneath with dense conspicuous ciliation of white 
hairs on their apical margins.) 

(122) Clypeus often with fulvescent or brown hairs if it is 
white-haired, it is not bordered with black ones along 
its sides. 

(125) Fourth joint of antennae short, nearly square in outline 
or even transverse in some examples; area of the 
propodeum conspicuously and evenly rugose all over, 
the wrinkles waved or vermiculate. - + = proxima. 

~(Clypeus with white or almost white hairs, sometimes 
slightly brown-tinged basally.) 

(124) The 4th antennal joint appears distinctly elongate, 
sometimes as long as the 3rd; propodeum never 
sculptured like that of proxima. 

(127) Hind tarsi long and slender, in dorsal aspect the 3rd 
joint is twice as long as its apical width. . dorsata. 

(126) Hind tarsi with the 3rd joint in dorsal aspect not 
twice as long as its apical width. 

(129) Fourth abdominal segment without an entire or almost 
unbroken narrow apical band, this and the 3rd 
having at most remnants of bands towards the sides. 

similis. 
(Hairs of clypeus white in fresh examples, 3rd antennal 
joint a little longer than the 4th.) 

(128) If not abraded the 3rd and 4th segments of the abdomen 
have pale fasciae, that on the 3rd either entire or 
interrupted on the middle 3rd of the segment, that 
on the 4th entire or at least almost uninterrupted in 
the middle. 

(131)* In good specimens the 3rd segment has a distinctly 
entire or hardly perceptibly broken band, and the 
antennae are always shorter than in the following, 
but vary im details. -. . . « . . ovatula. 

(130) The band on the 3rd segment is seamed or very 
indistinct for a space about equal to one-fourth or 
one-third the width of this segment; the antennae 
are more elongate. . . . . . . «. wilkella. 


* IT cannot satisfactorily tabulate these species from worn 
examples, as they can be distinguished only by slight characters 
(differing only in degree) if abraded. 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 293 


TABLE OF 9 ANDRENA. 


A. (B) Very small (at most about 7 mm. long) black-bodied species, 
with dark hind tibiae; abdomen with the general surface 
above glabrous, the basal segment in nearly all dull 
from the surface rugulosity, as seen under a strong 
lens; if it is polished as in nana K. the propodeum has 
dense and (for the size of the insect) strong rugosities 
over the whole of its anterior area. 

(Scopa pale, floccus imperfect, area of propodeum well 
exposed, the hairs around it being sparse.) 

1. (2) Basal abdominal segment polished and with a copious 
distinct puncturation, the 2nd clearly and finely punc- 
tured, the punctures as dense as possible except on the 
apical impression, which has only sparse and shallow 
puncturation. Ate: - . nana. 

2. (1) Basal segment rugulose, aisle. stint the ‘ond with very 
feeble punctures amidst the rugulosities of the surface 
or without punctures. 

3. (4) Nearly the whole flagellum beneath and the apical joint at 
least above red; basal abdominal segment distinctly 
shining on the disc, the minute surface sculpture hardly 
visible under a strong lens, except on the apical margin. 

nanula. 

4. (3) If the antennae are coloured as above, there is a dense 
surface sculpture on the basal abdominal segment, 
making it quite dull on the disc. 

5. (6) A dense snow-white band occupies the whole apical impres- 
sion of the 4th abdominal segment, concealing the sur- 
face, except that there may be a slight interruption in 
the middle. , . . a ew By eae 

(Apical impressions of ond and 3rd aciniente with very 
dense sculpture or minute puncturation, the 3rd segment 
with the impression deep; stigma pale yellow.) 

6. (5) Apical impression of 4th segment not so concealed, the 
hairs being so spaced that the surface is visible between 
them, and in some species there is only a scanty fringe. 

7. (8) Apical impression of 3rd segment deep, this and often that 
of the 2nd brightly shining or polished in some aspects, 
the surface sculpture being faint or hardly visible. 

saundersella. 

(Stigma pale in the middle; the anterior area of the 
propodeum nearly always with the rugosities failing 
posteriorly, where the surface appears merely granulate. ) 


294. Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


8. (7) Minute sculpture of apices of 2nd and 3rd segments distinct, 
the apical impression of the 3rd never polished as in 
saundersella, and generally only shallow. 

9. (12) Second abdominal segment always with more or less 
numerous punctures, often excessively faintly impressed, 
and difficult to see definitely amongst the surface 
sculpture, nevertheless always to be distinguished in 
one position or another. 

10. (11) Basal abdominal segment along the apical margin with 
excessively dense sculpture (almost as in spreta) and 
quite dull, the surface there of normal form, only 
ordinarily convex. 

(Stigma pale with dark lower border.) 
alfkenella and moricella. 

11. (10) Apical portion of basal segment with the minute sculpture 
very fine or feeble, so that in some aspects this part 
appears more or less shining; the surface is unusually 
convex and gives to the apical margin an appearance 
of being thickened (anal appressed hairs darkish fuscous). 

Jalsifica. 

12. (9) Second abdominal segment impunctate or nearly, never with 
an extensive system of obsolescent puncturation as in 
the preceding, often a few very feeble punctures at the 
sides. 

13. (14) Mesonotum and scutellum rugulose all over, dull, with 
excessively fine punctures usually hardly visible as 
minute points amidst the sculpture on the former, the 
appressed hairs of 5th segment always dark, sometimes 
with more or less golden tint.. . . . . subopaca. 

14. (13) Mesonotum and scutellum with closer or larger punctures, 
the scutellum (and sometimes the mesonotum) more or 
less shining in some forms, appressed hairs of 5th segment 
in some golden. 

15. (16) Abdomen in dorsal view with distinct dense apical fringes 
of short hairs on the sides of the 2nd and 3rd segments 
in freshexamples. . . . . parvula and minutula. 

16. (15) Abdomen in dorsal view with the lateral streaks not or 
hardly noticeable, and ‘appearing extraordinarily free 
from any special marking in consequence. 

parvuloides and minutuloides. 

B. (A) Species rarely only 7 mm. long; one or two agree in most 
of the characters, and these small ones have the basal 
abdominal segment polished as shown in nana K. alone 
of the preceding group, but have not the dense even 


ou eR 


balks 


12. 


13. 


14. 


15. 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada.' 295 


rugosity over the whole anterior area of the propodeum 
as in that species. 


. (12) Anterior area of the propodeum strongly rugose and always 


bounded posteriorly just on the brow of the declivity 
by a raised edge or transverse rugosity; the species that 
have the 2nd abdominal segment glabrous on the disc 
lack a pattern formed by dense short pale hairs on the 
apical margins of the 3rd and 4th segments. 

(Very distinct and copious abdominal punctures always 
present.) 


. (5) Appressed hairs of 5th abdominal segment golden or golden 


red. 
. (4) Thorax densely clothed with bright brown or fulvous hairs. 
albicans. 
. (3) Thorax not thus clothed. . . carbonaria var. praetexta. 


. (2) Appressed hairs of 5th segment black or dark fuscous. 
. (7) Thorax beneath and propodeum at the sides with black or 


sooty hairs, scopae beneath silvery white. . carbonaria. 


. (6) Thorax beneath propodeum at sides not black-haired, scopae 


not silvery white beneath. 


. (9) Hind tibiae clear yellow or reddish beneath the scopa. 


tibialis. 


. (8) Hind tibiae dark. 


. (11) Abdomen more or less red-marked above or beneath. 


bimaculata and var. decorata. 
(10) Abdomen not red-marked. 
bimaculata var. conjuncta and var. vitrea. 
(1) Anterior area of the propodeum rarely strongly rugose (the 
rugosities often fading out posteriorly) and not bounded 
on the brow of the declivity by a raised edge or trans- 
verse rugosity. When this area is strongly rugose all 
over, the abdomen has an almost glabrous 2nd segment, 
and the two following have dense pale pubescent streaks 
_ on their apical margins. 
(14) Hind tibiae translucent yellow, the mesonotum and 
scutellum to a large extent at least with black hairs. 
tarsata. 
(Hind tibiae unusually wide at the apex and with short 
scopal fringe above, abdomen nearly glabrous above with 
more or less distinct bands or streaks of short pale hairs.) 
(13) When the tibiae are clear yellow, the thorax is not largely 
clothed with black hairs. 
(16) General surface of the abdomen glabrous, the 2nd, 3rd, 
and. 4th segments with dense pale streaks or narrow 


296 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


16. 


Ibe 


18. 


19. 
20. 


21. 


22. 
23. 
24. 
25. 


26. 


fasciae of short hairs on the apical margins, the hind 
tibiae abnormally wide at the apex and with dense 
short scopal fringe above. . . . . . . dorsata. 

(The scutellar-post-scutellar region very densely hairy, the 
hairs on each side of the propodeum forming a pollen 
basket almost completely closed in and more perfect 
than in any other species.) 

(15) When the abdomen is as above, the tibiae are normal in 
shape and the scopal fringe long. 

(26) General surface of the abdomen glabrous, basal segment 
never polished between the punctures, but rugulose 
under a strong lens, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th segments 
with a pattern formed by dense, narrow apical bands 
or lateral streaks of pale hairs, and covered with fine, 
shallow punctures; these bands are formed only on the 
hind margin of the apical impressions of the segments. 
Scopae yellow or golden. 

(Floccus of hind trochanters perfect.) 
(19) Hind tibiae wholly or for the most part dark. 
ovatula var. fuscata. 

(18) Hind tibiae clear yellowish. 

(21)* Scutellum posteriorly and post-scutellum very densely 
clothed with bright brown hairs (in fresh examples) 
hardly less densely than at the sides of the former. 

. similis. 

(Apical band of 3rd abdominal segment always widely 
broken, appressed hairs of 5th segment always golden, 
wings fulvescent.) 

(20) Clothing of hind margin of scutellum and that of the 
post-scutellum not unusually dense, less dense than that 
at the sides of the former. 

(23) Appressed hairs of 5th segment fuscous or sordid. ovatula. 

(22) Appressed hairs of 5th segment golden. 

(25) Wings clear or almost clear hyaline; band of 3rd abdominal 
segment entire in fresh examples. . . . ovatula var. 

(24) Wings subfulvescent; band of 3rd segment broken in the 
middle. ot. & tbe phd ice > >.) kee 

(17) Species with a glabrous abdomen and a distinct pattern 
of narrow bands or streaks, as described in 17, have 
the surface of the basal segment shining between the 
punctures or lack the dense puncturation. 


* Although this and the following species are distinguishable in 
worn examples by slight differences in sculpture, etc., I am unable 
to satisfactorily tabulate them on these characters. 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 297 


27. (30)* Second and 3rd abdominal segments as densely punctured 
as possible, with the general surface glabrous, and_ 
complete pale fasciae of dense minute hairs filling (or 
almost filling) the whole of their apical impressions; 
scopae yellow or golden, the appressed hairs of the 5th 
segment black. 

(Floccus of hind trochanters imperfect, the hairs on the 
basal portion’ too straight and stiff to form a part of it.) 

28. (29) Pubescence of thorax beneath and the basal parts of the 
legs with pale brown or ochreous hairs; face beneath 
the antennae not white-haired.. . . . . flavipes. 

29. (28) Pubescence of thorax beneath and basal parts of the legs 
as well as the face beneath the antennae with white 
hangs: ay, iw - . « gravida. 

30. (27) If appressed yaiie: Dunas, fil the apical impressions of the 
2nd and 3rd segments, either the 2nd segment is 
pubescent or the puncturation is not as dense as 
possible. 

31. (32) Abdomen more or less marked or banded with red or 
yellow; basal abdominal segment polished, remotely but 
distinctly punctured on the disc; scopal fringe above 
the tibiae and appressed hairs of 5th abdominal segment 
Gans cap weael & (ei ts wives vast florem. 

32. (31) If the abdomen is taaked mith, ied or yellow either the 
basal abdominal segment is not polished or the anal 
fringe is golden. 

33. (42) The abdomen has broad pubescent apical bands on the 
segments, and the tibiae and their scopae are evidently 
abnormal; the former wide at the apex and therefore 
more clavate than usual (Pl. XII, f. 10), the scopal fringe 
above them dense and short in proportion to the apical 
width of the joint, while on its outer side the hairs are 
less dense and finer than usual and those that curve 
upwards from beneath less curved and conspicuous. 

(Floccus in most species distinctly, but in fuscipes hardly, 
imperfect.) ; 


* It is important to notice that the bands are formed of hairs 
that spring from almost the whole surface of the apical impressions, 
as otherwise some ovatula might be confused with the species 
falling under the above head. When worn and abraded, flavipes 
and gravida remain easily distinguishable by the extremely dense 
and fine puncturation of the apical impressions considered in con- 
junction with the other characters given above. Not infrequently 
the bands are slightly interrupted in the middle in caught specimens, 
but this is not the natural condition. 


298 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


34. (41) Mesonotum clothed with fulvous or bright brown hairs 

and without black ones. 

35. (36) Face with black or sooty hairs; hind coxae and at least 
the basal part of the trochanters beneath with dark 
hairs. 70 .  . Nigriceps. 

36. (35) Face with ere falls Hinks fats on the hind coxae beneath 
and the trochanters pale. 

37. (40) Appressed hairs of 5th abdominal segment black or fuscous, 

not nearly concolorous with the apical pubescent band 
of the 4th segment. 

38. (39) Under a strong lens the 3rd abdominal segment has a 
shallow but dense and distinct (often granulate) punc- 
turation on most of its surface; floeccus notably imper- 
fect, many thick stiff white hairs on the basal part of 
the trochanter beneath, . . . . .  simillima. 

39. (38) Under a strong lens the 3rd abdominal eerie has a very 
feeble puncturation often appearing merely as minute 
granules, its apical hair-band entirely appressed (not 
formed partly of subdecumbent or suberect ones as in 
the preceding species); floccus pale ochreous, very dense 
and all but perfect. . . . . «. Suscipes. 

40. (37) Appressed hairs of 5th abddieatunl sienene quite pale and 
concolorous (or almost so) with the preceding hair-band ; 


scopae pale brownish, or yellow. . . . tridentata. 
41. (34) Mesonotum and often the scutellum clothed to a consider- 
able extent with black hairs... . . . . denticulata. 


42. (33)* Hind tibiae not abnormal as described under 33; many 
of the species are without wide and distinct hair-bands. 

43. (44) Basal abdominal segment strongly and densely punctured, 
shining between the punctures, and with a clothing of 
long thin pubescence; 2nd, 3rd, and 4th segments with 
dense pale narrow streaks on the apical margins, forming 
a conspicuous pattern. . . SL os laine 

(A large species with smoky wings, iciad tibiae dark scopal 

fringe above them yellow or sometimes nearly white; 
appressed hairs of 5th abdominal segment fuscous or 
sordid, often with underlying paler hairs.) 

44. (43) Species without the above combination of characters. 

45. (46) Appressed hairs of 5th abdominal segment quite pale, 
yellow or golden, without admixture of dark fuscous or 
sordid hairs. 


* Perhaps the nearest approach to the nigriceps group in this 
respect is to be found in A. praecoz. 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 299 


45a. (53) Scopa yellow or golden. 

46. (47) Basal abdominal segment with distinctly granulate punc- 
turation, the punctures (or many of them) set in small 
tubercles or granules; hind tibiae dark beneath the 
scopae..° . . See Se Tums: 

47. (46) Basal segment tistialky wits avdiiaty punctures; if these 
are inclined to be granulate the hind tibiae are clear 
yellow beneath their scopae. 

47a. (48) A very large species with dark wings, the basal segment 
with sparse and very remote punctures. . hattorfiana. 

(Abdomen either black or more or less red.) 

48. (47a) Small or medium-sized species, or, if rather large, the 

basal abdominal segment has a dense and almost even 


puncturation. 
49. (52) Hind tibiae and tarsi entirely or almost entirely clear 
yellow. 
50. (51) Mesonotum and scutellum finely rugose all over under a 
strong lens and dull in consequence. . . chrysosceles. 
(Intermediate abdominal segments with dense white apical 
streaks. ) 
51. (50) Mesonotum and scutellum conspicuously shining between 
the punctures. . . vite 3 fulwago 
(Scopal fringe above the tibiae Sateadbdinaale long.) 
52. (49) Hind tibiae dark beneath the scopae.. . . . polita. 


53. (45a) Scopa forming a dark or sooty-grey fringe above the 

tibiae when these are viewed on the inner surface. 

marginata. 
(Abdominal colour very variable, from nearly all bode to 
nearly all yellow through banded forms.) 

54. (45) Appressed hairs of 5th abdominal segment not all pale 
yellow or golden, often dark, sometimes fuscous with 
golden or reddish tinge in part, or the segment has 
some yellow and some dark hairs. 

55. (56) A small species with red 2nd and 3rd segments of the 
abdomen, the Ist and 2nd very distinctly and densely 
(for the most part evenly) punctured all over. cingulata. 

56. (55) Species quite unlike the preceding. 

57. (76) Scopa forming a yellow or golden fringe above the tibiae 
when these are viewed inwardly, seen with the naked 
eye the scopa appears conspicuously red, yellow or 
golden. Hind tibiae in some of the species clear trans- 
lucent red or yellow. 

58. (59) Whole abdomen very densely clothed with long pubescence 
(either all black or partly or even almost wholly pale) 


300 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


hairs of face black, the floccus sooty or sordid; hind 
tibiae pales) i! . . « Clarkella: 

59. (58) Abdomen seldom emsicas shothed; ‘ied then not as in 
clarkella; the floccus is pale. 

60. (67) Fifth antennal joint distinctly, elongate, not square in 
outline, still less transverse. 

61. (62) Hind tibiae clear translucent yellow. . . . . ferow. 

62. (61) Hind tibiae dark beneath the hairs. 

63. (64) Floccus very imperfect, small and thin; even in the finest 
examples the whole disc of the basal abdominal segment 
is hairless or nearly so, having at most a few fine and 
long hairs. . . . . .  bucephala. 

64. (63) Floccus quite penis fon. einai hairs occupying the 
whole trochanter; in fresh specimens the basal segment 
is clothed all over rather thinly with long hairs or is 
densely clothed apically and with thinner long hairs 
more basally. 

65. (66) Clypeus except for a smooth median line with rather even 
and close, distinct punctures; minute surface sculpture 
of basal abdominal segment not extraordinarily dense 
under a strong lens, so that at the sides it generally 
appears rather shining, and to the naked eye the whole 
abdomen appears somewhat shining and for a large part 
barest aide : yom ". | 2 fucata var. 

66. (65) Clypeus with a wide ‘atpeitsal space of irregular punctura- 
tion, the punctures themselves often vague in outline; 
minute surface sculpture of the very dull basal segment 
extremely dense; abdomen dull and pubescent to the 
naked eye. : L oa caurso seliola 

67. (60) Fifth antennal joint, sibarel fpeucenk (or in front) generally 
wider than long, at most so long as to appear about 
square in outline. 

68. (69) Hind tibiae clear translucent yellow and nearly concolorous 
with the scopal fringe above. 

68a. (68b) Abdomen nearly glabrous above, basal segment without 
a definite apicalimpression.. . . . . . ruficrus. 

68b. (68a) Abdomen with longish pubescence, in fresh specimens 
forming distinct apical bands on the segments; basal seg- 
ment with a distinct apical impression. angustior var. 

69. (68) Hind tibiae dark beneath the scopal fringe. 

70. (75) Rather small or medium-sized species with the basal 
segment widely rugulose along the apical margin and 
on this part (at least on the middle of the segment) 
almost impunctate. 


eh 


72. 


73. 


74. 


75. 


76. 


td 


78. 
42h 


80. 


81. 
82. 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 301 


(72) If the insect be viewed from beneath parts of the sides 
of the thorax have more or less black hairs; the hairs 
on part of the hind trochanter more or less (and often 
those on the coxae and the curled ones of the floccus) 
black or at least sordid; facial hairs often black. 

gwynana and var. bicolor. 

(71) Sides of thorax and trochanters with pale hairs only; 
floccus pale. 

(74) Clypeus with a faint longitudinal median impressed line 
on its basal part, quite noticeable in some aspects. 

angustior. 

(73) Clypeus without an impressed line, sometimes with a 
slight smooth one, not impressed. 

gwynana var. bicolor ab. 

(70) A large species, the puncturation of the basal abdominal 
segment is distinct on the apical portion, and though 
the punctures are finer and less numerous than more 
basally they come rather near to the apical margin 
itself; * sao? . . nigroaenea. 

(57) Scopa not funiialirs a danuetly yellow or golden fringe 
above the tibiae, often dark, more rarely greyish (from 
a mixture of pale and dark hairs) or nearly white and 
viewed in the natural position from above with the 
naked eye not conspicuously golden, yellow, or red. 
Hind tibiae never translucent red or yellow in any 
species. 

(86) Large species, the abdomen nearly wholly shining and 
glabrous above to the naked eye (except that in one 
species some of the segments bear in parts some white 
tomentum in fresh examples), the apices of the seg- 
ments never with apical bands or lateral streaks of 
dense short white hairs, forming a distinct pattern. 

(83) Thorax with bright brown or fulvous hairs. 

(80) Under parts of thorax and whole of the scopae with black 
hairs, basal abdominal cir ci and not very 
closely punctured. . . 16 & 6 thorapica. 

(79) Under parts of thorax and the scopae beneath with white 
or almost white hairs; basal segment very densely 
punctured, the 2nd and 3rd with some dense white 
tomentum or short hairs visible at least at the sides 
except in much-worn examples. 

(82) Face beneath the antennae with pale hairs. . .  nitida. 

(81) Face beneath the antennae with black or dark fuscous 
SAS rete haa iaina <, aie pis a a datan > TED, OGLE, 


302 
83. 


84. 
85. 
86. 


87. 


88. 


89. 


90. 


91. 


92. 


93. 


94. 


Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on ~ 
(78) Thorax clothed with whitish, or with white and black 
hairs. : : 
(85) Thorax clothed with whitish hairs all over.. . . vaga. 
(84) Thorax with a transverse band of black hairs. . cineraria. 


(77) If the abdomen is glabrous and shining, it has a distinct 
pattern formed by narrow apical bands or lateral streaks 
of dense pale hairs on the intermediate segments. 

(88) Anterior area of propodeum well exposed on its dorsal 
face (owing to the paucity of hairs surrounding it) 
rather strongly and evenly rugose all over, the rugosities 
dense and sinuous or reticulate; 2nd segment practically 
glabrous and distinctly rugulose under a strong lens 
(excepting generally the apical impression) and with 
very few and feeble punctures. . . . . proxima. 

(87) View of propodeal area often interfered with by dense 
hairs about it; in many the first two segments of the 
abdomen are conspicuously hairy, in others the 2nd 
segment is not distinctly rugulose or the sculpture of 
the propodeal area is quite different. 

(95) Basal abdominal segment polished; 5th antennal joint 
very short (viewed from in front or beneath) transverse 
or subtransverse. 

(The intermediate abdominal segments always have narrow 
apical bands or lateral streaks of white or almost white 
hairs, forming a pattern.) 

(91) First two segments of abdomen with a general (but thin) 
clothing of longish pale hairs. . . . . . sericea. 

(Second segment with the punctures nearly effaced, these 
being remote and extremely minute.) 

(90) First two segments without a general clothing of long 
hairs. 

(93) Thorax well clothed with yellowish brown or fulvescent 
hairs; the view of the anterior area of the propodeum 
interfered with by the surrounding hairs. . argentata. 

(Floccus large, perfectly developed on the whole trochanter). 

(92) Thorax sparsely hairy above, the dorsal surface of the 
propodeum well exposed, bearing only scanty pubes- 
cence; floccus either small or imperfectly formed. 

(94a) Scutellum densely punctate round the margins at least 
and generally shining on the disc; scopa with many 
fuscous hairs, white or silvery beneath. . . coitana. 


94a. (94) Scutellum flatter, rugulose over its whole surface and 


very sparsely punctured; scopa almost white through- 
MGA ee ase gale ty Fie) # pit a, <6 + mae aU 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 303 


95. (89) Basal abdominal segment not polished, but with fine 
rugulose sculpture under a strong lens, so that the 
surface is opaque or subopaque; 5th antennal joint 
generally distinctly elongate, very rarely appearing 
about square in outline and never very short. 

96. (110) Floccus large and absolutely perfect. 

96a. (97) Scopae entirely black as also the curved hairs at the 
sides of the propodeum. Abdomen very densely clothed 
with beautiful fulvous hairs which in fresh examples 
are of a paler colour than those of the thorax. . /ulva. 

97. (96a) Scopae always pale beneath. 

98. (99) Apical impressions of 3rd and 4th abdominal segments 
abnormal, only defined at the sides and widely obliter- 
ated in the middle, but their position can be distin- 
guished (best when the insect is viewed from behind 
with its head downwards) by a row of fine piliferous 
punctures, and they are then seen to be extraordinarily 
wide in this part, occupying nearly the whole segments 
if these are moderately extended, or the whole if they 
are at all strongly contracted. 

(Punctures of clypeus for the most part sparse or irregular, 
and often with ill-defined outlines; colour of abdominal 
pubescence variable, the two basal segments with fulvous 
hairs, the two following sometimes both with dark or 
both with pale (whitish or partly fulvous and partly 
white) pubescence). . . . . synadelpha. 

99. (98) Apical impressions of 3rd sad 4th pay. often feeble 
and sometimes narrowly obliterated in the middle; but 
their position is still discernible in some aspects, when 
they are seen to be not of extraordinary width. In 
some species they are quite distinct throughout, though 
shallow. 

100.' (103) Hairs on the middle and hind coxae more or less sordid 
in colour, not clear white nor pale ochreous (face 
often, but not always, with black or sooty hairs). 

- 101. (102) First and 2nd segments of the abdomen very densely 
haired in part, the surface on the basal middle part 
of the 2nd hidden by the dense covering, unless the 
specimen is abraded. The abdomen dull, from the 
close, minute sculpture and dense pubescence. 

varians. 

102. (101) First and 2nd segments with a thin clothing of long fine 
hairs, abdomen distinctly shining to the naked eye. 

lapponica. 


304 


103. 


104. 


105. 
106. 


107. 


108. 


109. 


110. 
111. 


112. 


113. 


114. 


115. 


116. 


Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


(100) Hairs of the middle and hind coxae not sordid, but 
white or pale ochreous. 

(105) First and 2nd abdominal segments thinly clothed with 
long fine hairs, the following appearing nearly bare 
to the naked eye and the abdomen shining. /ucata. 

(104) Abdomen copiously hairy. 

(107) Hairs which spring from the punctures of the 5th seg- 
ment (in front of the decumbent apical fringe). pale. 

praecox. 

(106) Hairs of the 5th segment (except sometimes at the 
sides) dark, rarely with one or two pale hairs amongst 
them. 

(109) Thorax with ochreous or brownish-ochreous hairs, a 
large species, rather resembling the common A. 
trimmerana Auct.; hairs of coxae beneath and floccus 
pale brownish yellow or ochreous, 4th and 5th seg- 
ments not densely clothed with decumbent white or 
almost white hairs. ey . . apicata. 

(108) Thorax in fresh examples wien dense pitas brown or 
fulvous hairs, hairs of coxae and floccus white; sides 
of 2nd, the 38rd and 4th abdominal segments, 
densely clothed with more or less decumbent white 
or pale hairs. . . .  . varians var. mixta. 

(96) Scopae small and very inipliiteot: 

(114) Thorax above for the most part bare or very little 
hairy, though well clothed in front and behind and 
at the sides, the abdomen also largely glabrous 


above. 
(Abdomen generally more or less marked with red or 
yellow. ) 
(113) Hairs of face about the antennae and below these mostly 
yellowish brown or ochreous. . . / . Tose. 
(112) Hairs of face darker, generally much siiieea with blackish 
or sooty brown. . . eximia (= rosae spring brood). 


(111) Thorax above well clothed with pubescence, as also is 
the abdomen. 

(118) Abdomen more or less marked with red or yellow either 
above or beneath on the Ist or 2nd segment or on 
both; scopae with yellow hairs beneath, not silvery 
white ones. 

(117) Face either entirely clothed with black hairs or more 
commonly with a few brown or yellow ones about 
the insertion of the antennae. 

spinigera=trimmerana K. (nec Auct. caet.) Ist brood. 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 305 


117. (116) Face with many pale hairs especially in the antennal 
region. . . . . trimmerana K. 2nd brood. 

118. (115) Abdomen black, at aot with the apices of some of the 
segments a little discoloured or pallid; scopae generally 
silvery white beneath. 

119. (120) Face more or less considerably clothed with pale hairs ; 
the pale hairs of the abdomen not confined to the 
first two segments. . trimmerana Auct. nec Kirby. 

120. (119) Face entirely or almost entirely clothed with black or 
blackish fuscous hairs; abdomen behind the 2nd 
segment clothed with black hair. 

trimmerana Auct. var. scotica. 


TABLE OF ¢ NomaDa. 

1. (2) Labrum black, the mandibles bidentate at apex. 

fabriciana. 

(Abdomen normally with two pairs of small lateral yellow 
spots. ) 

(1) Lf the labrum is black the mandibles are simple at the apex. 

(6) Abdomen without any yellow or white markings, labrum 

black. 

(Medium-sized or rather small species with short antennae, 
many of the flagellar joints produced into a minute 
tubercle behind; abdomen, especially towards the sides, 
with silvery pubescence, very noticeable in some 
aspects. ) 

4. (5) Hind femora beneath for the greater part dull and densely 

punctured and pubescent. . . . - + germanica. 
(Flagellum of antennae pale beneath.) 

5. (4) Hind femora beneath for the most part polished and 
glabrous, very little punctured except at the extreme 
base: «|. Ps) 2), atraia.. 

(Flagellum dake or iifdseite benottt yf 

(3) Abdomen with at least small lateral yellow spots on one 
or more of the basal segments, often conspicuously 
spotted or banded. 

(8) Species large (8°5-11 mm. long) labrum black, armed with 
a strong median triangular tooth anteriorly, 3rd antennal 
joint beneath as long as the 4th. . . . «. armata, 

(Front femora dilated, the basal half or more in front 
occupied by a great ovate impression; hind femora 
at the extreme base beneath clothed posteriorly with 

long curved hairs, much longer than those on the tro- 
chanter ; adjoining this, with an area very densely clothed 

TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PaARTSI, II. (JULY) X 


oo bo 


= 


Be 


306 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


with more decumbent hairs; flagellum of antennae 
fulvous, its second joint with a black stripe behind.) 

8. (7) If the labrum is black the species are small or medium-sized, 
7°5 mm. or less. 

9. (12) Scape black in front (as well as behind) the 3rd antennal 
joint beneath as long or longer than the 5th. 

10. (11) Labrum pale (yellow or dull red) the hind femora beneath 
very densely finely punctured and clothed with dense 
short hairs. . . . . guttulata. 

(Yellow spots of 2nd “ “3rd shdotainel segments small 
and lateral, sometimes each of them divided into two; 
front and middle femora beneath with well-developed 
moderately long fringe.) 

11. (10) Labrum wholly or partly black, the hind femora beneath 
polished, almost bare, and very sparsely punctured. 

obtusifrons. 

(A small species 7°5 mm. or less, the 3rd antennal joint 
beneath slightly but distinctly longer than the 4th 
or 5th, which are hardly longer than broad; face not 
compressed into a sharp carina between the antennae, 
but sometimes with a raised median line there; middle 
femora with a distinct hair fringe beneath; labrum 
sometimes pale on the basal half.) 

12. (9) Scape in most species more or less pale in front; if black 
the 3rd antennal joint on its lower side is shorter than 
the 5th. 

13. (14) Scutellum with a single bright yellow marking; 2nd abdo- 
minal segment with shai pil yellow spots, which 
donotformaband .. . . « rufipes. 

(Front femora with a thin fanaa fhericn th, that on the 
middle ones hardly noticeable, hind ones much as in 
obtusifrons. ) 

14. (18) Scutellum with a single bright yellow spot only in one 
species, which has an entire (or almost entire) yellow 
band on the 2nd segment of the abdomen. 

15. (16) A single (or indistinctly divided) red or orange-red spot on 
the scutellum; 3rd antennal joint beneath subequal to 
thie) Ath; yo ent tay . . « tormenitillae. 

(Scape of antennae cellos in Phone propodeum only with 
short inconspicuous hairs on each side; middle and 
hind femora without a fringe beneath; spots of 2nd 
abdominal segment separated by a distance about 
equal to the length of one of these or by a greater 
distance. ) 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 307 


16. (15) Scutellum rarely with a single red marking (often with 
2 red or yellow spots or all black) if with a single large 
red marking the 3rd antennal joint beneath is much 
shorter than the 4th. 

17. (18) A somewhat robust black and yellow (bicoloured) species, 
with the apical me of hind tibiae without distinct 
spines or fringe. . . « flavopicta. 

(Labrum and front of scape melloin or ‘eal the antennae 
practically all black above; thorax clothed only with 
very short hairs and with two large round yellow spots 
on the scutellum; front and middle femora without a 
fringe beneath; yellow spots on each side of 2nd and 
3rd segments of abdomen widely separated.) 

18. (17) Apical margin of hind tibiae above with spines or con- 
spicuous fringe or both; many species have tricoloured 
abdomen. 

19. (20) A large robust bicoloured species, the 3rd antennal joint 
viewed from beneath (or in front) as long as the 4th. 

6-fasciata. 

(Cheeks longer than in any other species, the face produced 
anteriorly; hind tarsi unusually thick, the 2nd joint 
seen on the outer side not much longer than wide, front 
and middle femora with long fringe beneath, the apical 
margin of hind tibiae with well-developed fringe; yellow 
spots of 2nd abdominal segment wedge-shaped and well 
separated; flagellar joints of the antennae shining 
beneath and in some aspects showing a narrow pale 
pubescent band at the base.) 

20. (19) Such species as are bicolorous have the 3rd antennal joint 
distinctly shorter than the 4th, when viewed from in 
front or beneath. 

21. (24) Hind femora at the extreme base beneath with a highly 
specialised area clothed with extremely dense and short 
hairs and entirely different from the rest of the surface, 
the trochanters with a dense fringe or tuft of longer 
hairs. 

22. (23) Basal abdominal segment bicoloured, the basal joints of 
the flagellum of antennae posteriorly black-marked. 

goodeniana. 

23. (22) Basal abdominal segment tricoloured, basal and apical 
joints of flagellum pale behind, some of the intermediate 

ones with black markings. . . . « « fucata. 

24. (21) Hind femora and trochanters not thus clothed. 

25. (26) The flagellar joints of the antennae seen with a strong lens 


308 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


have small but conspicuous tubercles behind, projecting 
like small thorns. . ... . . . . lathburiana. 
(A tricoloured species of good size, the middle femora 
without a distinct fringe beneath, the hind ones shining 
beneath, copiously punctate, the punctures irregular in 
size; 3rd joint of antennae seen from beneath as long 
as the 4th.) 
26. (25) Antennae not conspicuously tuberculate. 
27. (30) Abdomen black and yellow, bicoloured to the naked eye, 
the scape of the antennae pale in front or with pale area. 
28. (29) Third antennal joint viewed from in front very short on 
the lower side, its length there being shorter than the 


same side of the 5th joint. . . . . . . Tineola. 
29. (28) Third antennal joint, viewed as above, with the lower side 
about equal to that of the 5th. . . . marshamella. 


(These two species vary in important characters, but the 
shape of the apical margin of the hind tibiae seen dor- 
sally from the base is different. Most examples have 
a different facies from the fact that the yellow spots 
of the 2nd abdominal segment of marshamella are 
usually blunt or truncate on their inner extremity. 
The colour of the tegulae and prothoracic tubercles 
vary, in some examples the relative length of the 
antennal joints does not greatly differ in these species.) 

30. (27) Abdomen definitely brown or ferruginous in part or the 
scape is black in front. 

31. (32) Mandibles distinctly bifid at the apex. . . .. bifida. 

(Species of the same size and resembling in general colora- 
tion some varieties of ruficornis, flava and signata.) 

32. (31) Mandibles not bifid. 

32a. (57) Third joint of antennae viewed from in front much 
shorter than the 4th; species seldom excessively small. 

33. (56) Labrum pale at least to a considerable extent. 

34. (43) Scape of antennae black im front as well as behind (or 
above). 

35. (40) Scutellum black, not marked with red. 

36. (37) Tubercles of pronotum black with a sulphur yellow hind 
marginy! (poo. dean. t) orale ell eeantiosiveie 

37. (36) Tubercles not as above. 

38. (39) Third, 4th and 5th abdominal segments with conspicuous 
yellow bands, not or only slightly interrupted in the 
middle; species not very small. . .  leucophthalma. 

39. (38) Third, 4th and 5th segments without conspicuous bands; 
species small. woe ew ew ew ee flavogutiata ab. 


40. 
41. 


42. 


43. 


44. 
45. 


46. 


47. 


48. 
49. 


50. 


ol. 


52. 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 309 © 


(35) Scutellum with red spots or red marking. 

(42) Yellow markings of 2nd and 3rd abdominal segments 
sometimes forming complete bands and never both 
interrupted for a space equal to one-third the width of 


the segment. . . . . . ruficornis, ab. 
(Fringe beneath middle ifeate bnaes mandibles pointed 
at apex.) 


(41) Yellow markings on each side of 2nd and 8rd segments 
well separated from one another by a distance equal 
to about one-third the width of the segment viewed 
dorsally or still more widely than this. . . hillana. 

(Fringe beneath the middle femora short, not very different 
from that beneath the hind ones; mandibles in some 
aspects truncate at apex.) 

(34) Scape pale beneath (or in front) or at least with a con- 
siderable pale area. 

(55) Middle femora with a distinct fringe beneath. 

(48) Front tibiae without a black or dark fuscous marking on 
their outer (or posterior) surface. 

(47) The whole clypeus and front of the scape of the antennae 
cream-coloured, mandibles pointed at the tips.  baccata. 

(46) The whole of the clypeus and of the front of the scape not 
cream-coloured; mandibles truncate at apex in some 
aspects. »~ -» « « » « hillana var. ochrostoma. 

(45) Front tibiae with a dark marking posteriorly. 

(50) Spots of 2nd abdominal segment well separated, by a space 
generally about one-third to one-fifth the width of its base, 
spots of 3rd segment more widely separated than these, 
and blunt or truncate inwardly; fringe beneath the 
middle femora short and dense and quite unlike that 
on the front ones. sibs - « « « Obucephalae. 

(Antennae unusually long aia slender; the scutellum 
without red spots.) 

(49) Abdominal pattern or segment ] and 2 rarely resembling 
the above, if approaching it, then the middle femora have 
a long fringe beneath not differing greatly from the 
front ones in this respect. 

(52) Abdominal bands on segments 2-5 all entire; the yellow 
apical band on the face not continued back as an 
orbital line nearly as far as the insertion of the antennae. 

signata, 

(57) If the abdominal bands on segments 2-5 are all entire then 
the yellow facial marking is continued back along the 
orbits as far as the line of the insertion of the antennae. 


310 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


(N.B.—The band of the 2nd segment at least is usually 
divided in the middle by a thin streak or else indented 
above by a wedge of ground-colour, and some of these 
varieties resemble signata in lacking the long yellow 
orbital lines. The 2nd abdominal band of signata is 
not thus slightly divided or partially divided.) 

53. (54)* Wings light shining fuscous, appearing distinctly flaves- 
cent; fringe of middle femora beneath usually decidedly 


shorter..." pt g Say CS eee 
54. (53) Wings more bieglahs ‘fags ‘of “<itadte femora beneath 
generally longer. . . . . ruficornis. 


55. (44) Middle femora beneath With® the Haiea’ so extremely short 
that a fringe is hardly perceptible, the front femora are 
similar, but a few longer hairs may be observed. 

conjungens. 

(Antennae very long and slender, the 3rd joint viewed 

from in front extremely short; where shortest, not 

half the length of the very elongate 4th, which appears 
twice, or more than twice, as long as wide. 

56. (33) Labrum black. . . . . . flavoguttata. 

(Antennae like those of conjungens, but the fringe beneath 
the middle femora though short is sufficiently distinct; 
the abdominal spots are usually considerably less de- 
veloped and the average size is much less.) 

57. (32a) Third antennal joint viewed from beneath subequal to 
the 4th; an extremely small species. oS Oe 


TABLE OF & NoMmaADA. 


1. (2) Labrum black, the mandibles bidentate at the apex. 
Jabriciana. 
(Second and 3rd abdominal segments with a small yellow 
spot on each side, one or both pairs of which may be 
wanting; antennae, except in rare aberrations, dis- 
tinctive, the extreme base of flagellum black, following 
joints pale as also the apical one, the joints between 
these black.) 

2. (1) If the labrum is black the mandibles are simple. 

3. (6) Abdomen with no yellow spots or markings; the propodeum 
is copiously pubescent right up to the margins of the 
anterior area, the pubescence not forming a restricted 
patch or tuft. 


* Owing to the great variation in the colour and development 
of both species I cannot give more satisfactory characters. 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 311 


(Labrum black, the mesonotum without red lines, though 
the scutellum has red spots or marking.) 
4, (5) Hind femora ferruginous above, the flagellum of antennae 


pale beneath. eat -  . germanica. 
5. (4) Hind femora nearly entirely tonal! Waeolladn mostly dark 
beneath. « . . . . « argentata. 


(Propodeum very densely aid ein pidaticlaly clothed with 
silver hairs outside the area.) 

6. (3) Abdomen rarely without either yellow spots or bands, and 
if so, the propodeum is bare along the margins of the 
area, the pubescence forming a patch or tuft on each 
side. 

7. (8) A large species 8°5-11 mm., labrum black with a strong 
triangular tooth in the middle towards the apex. 

armata. 

(Spots of 2nd abdominal segment lateral, apical margin 

of hind tibiae with a close series of strong black spines ; 

sides of propodeum with dense silver pubescence outside 
the area.) 

8. (7) When the labrum is black the species are less than 8 mm. 
long. 

9. (10) Apical margin of hind tibiae with 2-4 excessively short, 
approximated, black spines, which often appear at 
first sight as a small black spot on the margin. 

guttulata. 

(Yellow spots of 2nd abdominal segment small and lateral, 
the 5th with a pair of triangular ones sometimes ap- 
proximated basally; scape of antennae black beneath, 
labrum pale, propodeum with conspicuous tuft of silver 
pubescence on each side; species small or rather small.) 

10. (9) Apical margin of hind tibiae never armed as in guitulata. 

11. (12) Labrum and scape* both black or pitchy black and the 
4th antennal joint seen from in front is only a little 
longer than wide . . . . . « obtusifrons. 

(A small species, the spots of the °nd abdominal segment 
widely separated, propodeum only with short incon- 
spicuous pubescence; face between the antennae not 
compressed into a sharp median carina.) 

12. (11) If the labrum and scape beneath are both black, the 4th 
antennal joint is about twice as long as wide; in most 
species the labrum is pale. 

13. (18) Mesopleura and propodeum outside the area with at 


— 


* The extreme base of the scape is sometimes red. 


14, 


15. 


16. 


17. 


18. 


19. 


20. 
21. 


Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


most a short inconspicuous pubescence, sometimes 
nearly bare; mesonotum never with red markings, 
scape of antennae pale beneath, the flagellar joints dark 
at least on one side. 

(15) Scutellum with a red or ferruginous spot. tormentillae. 

(Cream-coloured spots of 2nd abdominal segment widely 
separated; apical margin of hind tibiae with very short 
spines. ) 

(14) Seutellum with sulphur yellow spot or spots. 

(17) Scutellum with a single transverse yellow spot. rufipes. 

(Antennae short, mesopleura almost always with a con- 
spicuous yellow marking, apical margin of hind tibiae 
with short pointed spines; abdomen very variable in 
colour, bicoloured or tricoloured.) ; 

(16) Scutellum with two round yellow spots. . flavopicta. 

(Abdomen black with yellow markings, the first segment 
with a yellow band nearly always slightly interrupted 
in the middle, second with wedge-shaped spots; apical 
margin of hind tibiae without spines.) 

(13) Propodeum outside the area and the mesopleura, or one 
of those parts usually with more or less long pubescence 
or hairs; mesonotum in many species with red markings, 
scape in some black beneath, flagellum of antennae 
sometimes entirely pale. 

(20) Face strongly produced anteriorly, so as to be subrostrate. 

6-fasciata. 

(A large, robust, bicoloured species, Ist, 2nd, and 3rd 
abdominal segments with elongate spots on each side, 
the pronotum black above; apical margin of hind 
tibiae with a dense fringe of hairs, with the spines 
not easily distinguishable amongst these.) 

(19) Face normal. 

(24) Hind tibiae with the apical margin peculiarly armed, 
having the usual apical process or projection and out- 
wardly from this with two or three short stout spines 
(often so closely apposed as to appear like a single 
projection) inclined or bent towards the apical process. 


. (23) Abdomen tricoloured, the scutellum with a median yellow 


spot. pak . . fucata. 


. (22) Abdomen hipalotced, tha Beeline with. a pair of spots, 


rarely wanting. . . oe * 6 1a, goodeniana. 


. (21) Armature of hind tibiae athaewiee, 
. (56) Labrum pale, at least to a considerable extent; species not 


excessively minute and without flavous abdominal spots. 


26. 


27. 
28. 


29. 


30. 


3l. 


32. 
33. 


34. 


35. 
36. 


37. 
38. 


The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 313 


(27) Third antennal joint seen from beneath distinctly (though 
not greatly) longer than the 4th. . . . lathburiana. 
(Scutellum with two yellow spots sometimes suffused with 
orange; mesonotum with dense erect reddish hair in 

fresh examples, abdomen tricoloured.) 

(26) Third antennal joint beneath at most equal to the 4th, 
often rather shorter. 

(31) Abdomen black and yellow not definitely tricoloured, the 
mesonotum without red lines or markings. 

(30) Apical marking of face not continued up along the margins 
of the eyes to the height of the antennae; flagellum of 
antennae unicolorous, not distinctly dark or infuscated 
on any of the joints in front. - . « marshamella, 

(29) Apical markings continued along the eye-margins up to 
the line of the antennal insertions, or else the more 
apical flagellar joints at least are darkened in front. 

lineola. 

(28) Abdomen obviously brown or ferruginous in part (tri- 
coloured). 

(33) Pronotum above with yellow band or spots and its 
tubercles also bright yellow; mesonotum without red 
markings, scutellum nearly aa with a pair of yellow 


Spotsse(see we vg 2) 4) fa) Lineola var. 
(32) Pronotum often ed seenilcasd or else black, not yellow- 
marked. 
(35) Mandibles bifid at the apex. 5) ee eel. Ga fiela 


(Apex of hind tibiae with elongate very fie spines of nearly 
equal length amongst the hair fringe; dense rather long 
white hairs on either side of the anterior area of pro- 
podeum ; black ocellar area generally entirely surrounded 
by red.) 

(34) Mandibles not bifid. 

(37) Apical margin of hind tibiae armed with several (normally 
5) very long, conspicuous black spines, not differing 
much from one another. POLS DR pane . Gdecaht, 

(Abdominal markings cream-coloured; propodeum red 
with a median black stripe and densely silvery-haired 
outside the area; greater part of mesonotum red.) 

(36) Apical margin of hind tibiae otherwise armed. 

(39) Mandibles truncate * at apex. wl Heatieay he. .! , hallang, 

(Spots of 2nd abdominal segment lateral, very widely 
separated, apex of hind tibiae with the innermost of 


* This character can only be seen clearly in certain Melee 


314 


39. 
40. 
41. 


42. 
43. 


44. 


45. 
46. 


47. 


48. 


49. 


50. 


51. 


52. 


53. 


Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on 


the series of spines slender and elongate, the outer ones 
much shorter and stouter.) 

(38) Mandibles not truncate at apex. 

(45) Mesonotum black, without red lines or markings. 

(42) Prothoracic tubercles bright yellow. . .  xanthosticta. 

(Spots of 2nd abdominal segment lateral, the two together 
in dorsal aspect not usually as long as the distance 
between them; they are said to be very rarely obsolete.) 

(41) Prothoracic tubercles not bright yellow. 

(44) Mesonotum with a general clothing of longish erect 
pubescence similar to that on the front of the head. 

leucophthalma. 
(Spots. of 2nd segment rarely separated by a distance 
greater than the length of one of them and often by less.) 

(43) Mesonotum with short and scanty pubescence. 

ruficornis ab. 

(40) Mesonotum with red lines or markings. 

(55) Spots of 2nd abdominal segment not minute, together 
in dorsal aspect they are usually at least as long as 
one-third the width of the segment, or the segment 
may have a complete band. 

(48) Mesonotum clothed with longish erect pubescence like 
that on the front of the head. . .  leucophthalma var. 

(47) Mesonotum with short and scanty hair except at the 
extreme front. : 

(50) Spots of 2nd abdominal segment lateral, the distance 
between them. greater than the length of one of them 
in dorsal aspect; antennae unusually long and slender, 
the flagellar joints behind with a thin fringe of erect 
hairs, quite distinct. Latins . . . bucephalae. 

(49) Colour of 2nd segment very mabiailied often with entire or 
almost entire band; if with remote spots as in bucephalae, 
the antennae are shorter and their fringe is very sparse 
or indistinct. 

(52) Second and following segments with entire broad yellow 
bands, that on the 2nd not notably excised in the middle 
of its upper margin; area of black on the posterior 
two-thirds of mesonotum greater than that of red 
colour. . . . . signata. 

(Propodeum anally with a ee trilobed yellow spot.) 

(51) Second and following segments rarely all with wide com- 
plete bands as in signata, and if so, the posterior two- 
thirds of the mesonotum is more red than black. 

(54) Wings light shining fuscous, yellow-tinged, flagellum 


- The British Species of Andrena and Nomada. 315 


unicolorous, fulvous in front and behind; minute hairs 
on propodeum and on the hind coxae flavescent. flava. 

54. (53) Wings more grey, the flagellum usually with at least one 
or two of the more apical joints infuscated in front; 
minute hairs of propodeum and coxae silvery white. 

ruficornis. 

55. (46) Spots of 2nd segment minute, together in dorsal aspect 
not occupying one-third of the width of the segment, 
sometimes they are wanting. . . . jflavoguttata ab. 

(Labrum red, the propodeum with a tuft or patch of silvery 
hair on each side above the insertion of the abdomen.) 

56. (25) Labrum black, or the species is very minute and without 
distinct flavous abdominal markings. 

57. (60) Labrum black, 3rd antennal joint beneath shorter than 
the 4th. 

58. (59) Propodeum with a conspicuous patch or tuft of silvery 
hair on each side posteriorly; large red marking of the 
mesopleura approaching near the red spot beneath the 
insertion of the wings, or coalescing with this. 

flavoguttata. 

59. (58) Propodeum often entirely without a tuft of hair or with 
this comparatively less developed; the red mesopleural 
spot beneath the wings is widely separated from the 
longitudinal red line or band beneathit. . conjungens. 

(This species is very closely allied to flavoguttata, but is of 
larger average size and has the yellow abdominal spot* 
larger in normal examples.) 

60. (57) Labrum red, the 3rd antennal joint not shorter beneath 
rites O34) 6726. 0 s handel Qe Vaca een SRR (7 «37 

(A very minute species, the abdomen without definite 
flavous spots and with a dense and conspicuous tuft of 
silvery hair on each side of the propodeum.) 


The three species obtusifrons, tormentillae. (roberjeotiana 
Sm. Saund.) and rufipes form a quite distinct group, the 
3S genital armature and 8th ventral segment being very 
different from those of any other. I should consider 
flavopicta as somewhat allied to the latter, but the alliance 
is very remote. 

N. germanica and atrata are allied to one another, but 
not close to any other species; armata and guttulata are 
both isolated, and I do not think the latter is really at all 
closely allied to hillana. The large species N. seafasciata 
parasitic on Hucera has no close ally in this country, nor 


316 Mr. R. C. L. Perkins on Andrena and Nomada. 


has lathburiana. WN. fucata and goodeniana are members of 
a natural group; but it contains no other British species. 

Most of our species belong to the ruficorns group, 
containing besides ruficornis itself, flava, signata, leucoph- 
thalma xanthosticta bucephalae and hillana, and, at any 
rate in dealing with our small fauna, I should also include 
in it the following: lineola and marshamella, baccata, 
bifida, conjungens, flavoguttata and fabriciana. N. furva is 
an isolated form. 

A series of examples of NV. marshamella 2 belonging to 
the second generation and taken at the burrows of the 
summer brood of Andrena spinigera is interesting in having 
the propodeum much less clothed than in specimens of 
the first brood. In some localities examples of the females 
of N. lineola have the flagellar jomts of the antennae 
entirely fulvescent, none of these being darkened behind. 
I have not found this variety amongst numerous examples 
taken at the burrows of Andrena bimaculata and carbonaria, 
and suspect that it may only occur in those attached to 
A. tebialis, but it is possibly due rather to locality than 
host. 

In conclusion I must express my thanks to my friends, 
the Rev. F. D. Morice and Mr. H. M. Hallett, to whom I 
am indebted for many valuable corrections and suggestions, 
which I have adopted in this paper, and who have put 
themselves to the great trouble (as I have previously 
mentioned) of looking into the validity of many of the 
specific characters, given in the tables of Andrena. I 
regret that I have been unable to make these more simple, 
but without disregarding variation, I do not see how this 
can be done. 

So far as possible I have endeavoured to supplement 
the standard works of the late Edward Saunders by using 
characters which have previously been more or less over- 
looked or disregarded. I cannot sufficiently express how 
much I am indebted to our former leading authority on 
this group of insects not only for constant help by means 
of correspondence in the early days of my study, but also 
for the frequent loan of his whole series of difficult species, 
including the actual specimens, from which he drew up 
his descriptions. 


Explanation of Plates. 


EXPLANATION OF PLATE XI. 


Andrena, 3, 3rd, 4th and 5th antennal joints. 


1. Andrena bimaculata. 11. A.,varians. 

2. A. flavipes. 12. A. synadelpha. 
3. A. nigroaenea. 13. A. lapponica. 
4, A. gwynana. 14. A. nigriceps. 
5. A. florea. 15. A. sericea. 

6. A. trimmerana Auct. 16. A. lucens. 

1, A, ferox. 17. A. marginata. 
8. A. bucephala. 18. A. dorsata. 

9. A. clarkella. 19. A. minutula. 
10. A. fulva. 


Gor ie ce ue es Ser bea 


EXPLANATION OF PLATE XII. 


1—9, 3rd, 4th and 5th antennal joints of 2 Andrena. 


A, bimaculata. 9. A. marginata. 
A, florea. 10. Hind tibia of A. 
A, nigraxenea. IE ae E A 
A. trimmerana Auct. 12) ve A 
A. varians. eee E A 
A. clarkella. Heb ~ A 
A, nigriceps. 15S es A A 
A, hattorfiana. 


EXPLANATION OF PLaTE XIII. 


Characters of 3 Andrena. 


1. A. spinigera, mandible. 
2. A. eximia os 
3. A. ferox a 


nigriceps. 


. varians. 
. tarsata. 
. collana. 
. dorsata. 
. similis. 


317 


318 


10. 
10a. 


PHAM. 
Pb b bbb bh 


Explanation of Plates. 


. nigroaenea, mandibles crossing at the tips. 
. synadelpha i ”» > 


dorsata, mandibles not crossing. 


. praecox, apex of 8th ventral segment. 


apiwata > ”” > 


. trimmerana, Auct., cheek and base of mandible. 
. lapponica, base of mandible. 


A, var. base of mandible. 


11. A. fulva, base of mandible. 
12, 12a. A. praecox, base of mandible. 


(12a very aberrant.) 


13, 13a, 13b. A. apicata, base of mandible. 


(13a drawn from a Continental example.) 


14. A. fucata, base of mandible. 
15. A. synadelpha, base of mandible. 


EXPLANATION OF PLATE XIV. 


Antennal joints of Nomada. 


1. N. armata, 3, 3rd, 4th and 5th joints. 
2. N. sexfasciata, 3 ,, 9 
3. N. marshamella, 3 ,, [ oe 
4. N. lineola, 3 55 aS % 
5. N. lathburiana, 3 ,, ss >» 
6. 5 3 flagellar joints showing tubercles. 
Oe N. hillana, 3, 3rd, 4th and 5th joints. 
8. N. guttulata, 3 Js + » 
9. N. flavoguttata, 3 ,, eS ” 
10. NV. obtusifrons, 3 ,, ” * 
11. N. ruficornis, 2 + » ” 
12. N. lathburiana, 2 ,, 3 55 
13. NV. lineola, 2 ey 3 oh 
14. N. marshamella, 2 ,, ‘3 55 
15. N. obtusifrons, 2 ,, eA - 
16. N. flavoguttata, 2 ,, » ”» 


Explanation of Plates. 319 


EXPLANATION OF PLATE XV. 


1, 2. N. ruficornis, 9 (two vars.), armature of apex of hind tibiae. 
3. N. sexfasciata, 2 7 » ” 
4, N. goodeniana, 2 cs 99 ” 
5. N. armata, ° a Pe ” 
6. N. flavopicta, 2 “A a » 
7, 7a, 7b. N. guttulata, 9 (3 vars.) ,, 9 ” 
8. N. bifida, 2 “: 99 » 
9, 9a. N. baccata, P (2 vars.) PH +. » 
10. N. hillana, ° ¥. » ” 
ll. N. rufipes, ? » ” ” 
12. N. flavoguttata, 3, middle femur showing the length of fringe 
beneath. 
13. N. ruficornis, 3, middle femur showing the length of fringe 
beneath. ; 
14. N. bucephalae, 3, middle femur showing the length of fringe 
beneath. 
15. N. flava, 3, middle femur showing the length of fringe beneath. 
16. N. hillana, 3 i he a “3 Se 
17. N. furva, 3, hind trochanter and femur. 
18. N. fucata, 3 i es base of femur. 
19. N. hillana, 3, apex of mandible. 
20. N. bifida, 2 - - 
21. N. fabriciana, 2 ,, Pp 
22. N. ruficornis, 9, two flagellar joints of antennae showing hairs. 
23. N. bucephalae, 2 st me is s a 


Avaust 15, 1919. 


rh a ive 


% dete = ", *. hy why sete 


th pay te: eee 


Tee 


tL aig ie 


eh DOU ea ean a shaban eavnh hog 
‘ea ik yee Ui) 
: aD Oe a 24 ; ; 
ai chy A, Sees eee ae ia yah 
a erage Sti ee italia Cinay wid secon 
aa. PAR Co Rien i ae 
: a ‘wage: be Pete salty Wid \wente4 og) b) ate 
. “ bau “rt Tey a4 apt Gay ee ae di 
f MiSs oT A, a Pay oe 2, at ie eo 
a Re eilaraek, Tare aif MS RTS allie wi 
C4 “ oy Wis Ws 
; st * i (the¥ beg 5 Guan 2p cr. 
» . ' «< ~ % ~ = a ‘ 
4 a ; * ee +8 . ‘ oe itary 
. acer 35 diounl ot galyud: sodas, oibblin (3 ADIN Cf re 
aati: $5. stuntd salt gudweile “sist oti Ve Sinyities we 
marty Lew stéqae, its a ieceeh, eAiMan & ryan ren WN Ni 
Nf A é tiga eats 
tire) Saath todigial oa tuuiwosta sina eran a peat 
eg KYAT my Ae ater ‘orhenta 1 AL 
‘ ALK its ego, pret sf ‘\ 
Wee " ii Tip Yo dents ‘ ike 
; ; ‘. mat dluibwilite Bric hy a eR 
iv, : MMS. . 1 idee « + pes 
‘ ‘ \ Wy 15 ae ’ Bivig 5 Se piatas a 
oejieut hii saanitent ye ‘4 elasin| vail tem) |Buy . 
a ys 7) sa a) eal on Aen} ” 
i" igltiagan? ; ‘ 7 
au % Posie i ‘ ! 
. ‘I Hi gh bed x 
‘NCOP, wt, ai, ; i 
yeu I adit ee dard ) 7 , ean 
Ca ‘ . Prides 
7 Ns ee F > my \ vs Rt 
ik br ea aie hick aA 
bai earns Men 
ee 
a 4 he Pin. 


Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1919, Plate X11. 


coo 
pena. 
Lees 


14 


Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1919, Plate XIV. 


Be erry 
eS ek ea, 


8 


oe 
Ye 


teks ho gc | 
qe. 7 Pad ai : if ee iG 
4" Dore penn we 


Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. ro1g, Plate XV. 


, Zo 
oad TN ‘ a 
; 15 


ITT 
16 


— 


os 
bo 
— 


VIIL. Notes on the Exotic Proctotrupoidea in the British and 
Oxford University Museums, with Descriptions of 
New Genera and Species. By Atan P. Dopp. 
Communicated by 8. A. Neave, M.A., D.Se. 


[Read June 4th, 1919.] 


THis paper is an attempt to identify the material of the Proc- 
totrupoidea in the British Museum and the Hope Depart- 
ment, Oxford University Museum. Four new genera, 
sixty-three new species and two new varieties are described. 
At the same time I have examined other authors’ types, 
and have been able to sink several genera, and rightly 
place a number of species. The genera are not well defined 
nor understood, especially in the Scelionidae, and too many 
genera have been erected of recent years without defining 
their relationships and differences. 


Family SCELIONIDAE. 


ProsaPeaus Kieffer. 


Kieffer erected this genus to contain Apegus elongatus 
Ashmead, stating that the antennae are filiform in both 
sexes; but elongatus was described from the male sex only. 
The species described herewith form a natural group, and 
agree fairly well with Ashmead’s description of elongatus, 
except for the presence of false basal and median veins; the 
raised area on the median segment seems to be a distinctive 
character. The species are more robust than those of 
Macroteleca. In violaceus and atrellus, the raised area on 
the median segment is not well separated from the post- 
scutellum, and it would be easy to take them for species of 
Chromoteleia. The Australian species described by me in 
the genus Cacellus may also belong here, but this point I 
hope to clear up later. 


Prosapegus violaceus, n. sp. 


3. Dark blue; legs, including the coxae, bright yellow; antennae 
black, the scape brown. 

Head transverse; with large dense punctures; eyes large, bare ; 

TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PARTS Ill, IV. (DEO.) Y 


322 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Noles on 


ocelli large, rather close together. Antennae 12-jointed; filiform ; 
scape slender; pedicel rather short, half as long as funicle 1, 2 dis- 
tinctly shorter than 1, 3 with a distinct excision, 4-9 subequal and 
subquadrate. Thorax stout; scutum and scutellum with large 
confluent punctures ; parapsidal furrows well determined, wide apart ; 
postscutellum short ; median segment at base with a raised triangular 
area extending almost to posterior margin, the rest of the sclerite 
obliquely longitudinally striate. Fore-wings long, but not reaching 
apex of abdomen; sooty; venation fuscous; submarginal vein 
attaining costa at half-wing length; marginal vein rather shorter 
than the stigmal which is long and oblique; postmarginal hardly 
longer than the stigmal ; basal vein long, oblique, the median reaching 
posterior wing margin; radial vein represented by a long dark line 
parallel with the anterior wing margin. Abdomen long and slender, 
fusiform ; longitudinally rugose, the basal segment striate, the apical 
segment punctate; apex with two sharp points; lateral margins of 
basal segments carinate, 2-5 with a distinct median carina; | some- 
what wider than long, 2-4 longer than wide and subequal. Legs 
slender ; posterior tarsi no longer than their tibiae. Length, 8 mm. 

©. Like the male but the abdomen is pointed at apex; median 
carina subobsolete on segment 5. Antennae 12-jointed; scape 
slender; pedicel twice as long as its greatest width; funicle 1 about 
three times as long as pedicel, 2 one-half as long as 1, 4 as wide 
as long; club 6-jointed, the joints rather wider than long. Length 
11 mm. 


Described from one pair labelled “ Dore, Dutch New 
Guinea; Wallace.” 

Type in the British Museum; cotype in the Hope Collec- 
tion, Oxford. 

This beautiful species is the largest Scelionid I have seen. 


Prosapegus atrellus, n. sp. 


9. Black, the head and thorax with a faint aeneous tinge ; antennae 
wholly black ; coxae black, the anterior and intermediate legs reddish- 
brown, the posterior legs dull dusky-red. 

Head transverse, no wider than thorax; vertex declivous poste- 
riorly, with large sub-confluent punctures, laterally with two oblique 
carinae continued down the cheeks; lower half of cheeks with only 
a few large punctures; no frontal depression; frons with large non- 
confluent punctures, the lower half with a large smooth mesal area; 
eyes very large, bare; ocelli large, rather close together, the lateral 
pair separated from the eyes by nearly their own diameter. Antennae 
12-jointed; scape long and slender; pedicel fully twice as long as 


Exotic Proctotrupoidea. 323 


its greatest width; funicle 1 elongate, twice as long as pedicel, 2 
slightly longer than pedicel, 3 quadrate, 4 wider than long; club 
6-jointed, 1 the longest, a little longer than wide, 2-5 wider than 
long. Thorax about twice as long as its greatest width; pronotum 
with several strong longitudinal striae, its angles rounded ; scutum 
and scutellum with large scattered punctures; parapsidal furrows 
deep and distinct ; median lobe of scutum a little depressed at meson 
anteriorly where there is a faint median carina; scutellum large, its 
posterior margin foveate; postscutellum visible as a foveate line ; 
median segment with a raised triangular area at meson, which is 
rather longer than its basal width and with a median carina; rest of 
median segment rugose, with two carinae, and with a whitish patch 
of pubescence laterally; mesopleurae very coarsely striate and 
sulcate like the pronotum ; metapleurae rugose. ore-wings reach- 
ing beyond apex of fourth abdominal; broad; deeply embrowned, 
the colour darker in the area enclosed by submarginal, basal, and 
median veins; venation nearly black; submarginal vein attaining 
costa at half-wing length; marginal vein almost as long as the stigmal 
which is moderately long and nearly perpendicular; postmarginal 
no longer than the marginal; basal vein long, very oblique ; median 
vein long; radial vein rather well marked and very long; discoidal 
vein faintly indicated. Abdomen long and fusiform, not twice as 
long as head and thorax united; pointed at apex; segment 1 some- 
what wider than long, 2 and 3 somewhat longer than wide, 4 a little 
shorter and as wide as long, 5 a little shorter than 4, 6 shorter than 5; 
1-5 with a strong median carina; 1-4 with a strong lateral carina; 
1 strongly striate, the rest densely longitudinally rugose; venter 
of abdomen shining, with large scattered punctures and sparse striae. 
Length, 7 mm. 

g- Similar to the female but the abdomen is blunt and emarginate 
at apex; legs sometimes lighter in colour, the coxae more or less 
reddish. Scape slender; pedicel hardly longer than its greatest 
width ; flagellar joint 1 more than twice as long as pedicel, 2 distinctly 
shorter than 1, 3 somewhat excised on one margin at apex. 


Described from three males, one female in the Wallace 
Collection from Dore, Dutch New Guinea, and Mysol. 


Type and cotypes in the Hope Collection, Oxford; one 
cotype in the British Museum. 


Prosapegus metatarsalis, n. sp. 


g- Black; legs clear yellow, the coxae more or less reddish; 
antennae black, the scape brown. 


Head normal; frons not depressed ; eyes moderately large, bare; 


324 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Noles on 


ocelli rather wide apart, the lateral pair a little separated from the 
eyes; upper half of frons and the vertex strongly longitudinally 
striate (thus between the striae there is a suleate appearance), 
toward occipital margin with a rugose tendency; lower half of frons 
smooth; a few strong striae converging around mouth; cheeks with 
large dense punctures. Antennae 12-jointed; scape slender; 
pedicel as wide as long; flagellum filiform, the joints elongate, 1 
hardly longer than 2, 3 not excised and hardly shorter than 2, the 
penultimate joint over twice as long as wide. Thorax plainly 
longer than its greatest width; pronotum short, foveate-striate ; 
parapsidal furrows deep and foveate, wide apart and almost parallel ; 
median lobe of scutum with large dense punctures; lateral lobes 
narrow, almost smooth, with a faint median carina; scutellum 
transverse, its posterior margin straight, with a row of foveae at its 
base, and with large foveae along posterior margin, thus the central 
smooth area is quite short; postscutellum visible as a foveate line; 
median segment with a raised rectangular area at meson which has 
its lateral margins straight and carinate, its posterior Margin concave, 
its meson with two carinae; median segment laterally pubescent. 
Fore-wings reaching a little beyond apex of fourth abdominal seg- 
ment; broad; not greatly embrowned; submarginal vein attaiming 
costa at half-wing length; marginal vein one-half as long as the 
oblique stigmal vein; postmarginal more than twice as long as the 
stigmal; radial vein indicated; basal and median veins as thick 
yellow lines, the former oblique. Abdomen fusiform, about twice 
as long as head and thorax united ; almost pointed at apex; segment 
1 rather longer than wide, 2 and 3 subequal, 4 a little shorter, 5 as 
wide as long, 7 very small, emarginate at apex; 1 somewhat raised 
at meson, 1 and 2 carinate laterally, 2 and 3 with a blunt median 
carina; 1 strongly striate, and smooth between the striae, 2 and 3 
densely finely rugose and with irregular longitudinal striae, 4 and 5 
similar but the striae very fine. Legs slender; basal joint of posterior 
tarsi very long, three times as long as the remainder united. Length, 
7 mm. 


Described from two males in the Wallace Collection from 
Mysol and the Aru Islands, Kast Indies. 
Type and cotype in the Hope Collection, Oxford. 


Prosapegus glorianus, n. sp. 


d- Head black; thorax and first abdominal segment brilliant 
orange; second and third abdominal segments black, the remainder 
dark violet-blue; legs wholly yellow; antennal scape yellow, next 
four joints dusky, the apical joints black. 


Exotic Proctotrupoidea. 325 


Head normal; vertex smooth and shining, with a very few 
punctures; cheeks large, with scattered punctures; frons feebly 
depressed, smooth and shining, laterally with one or two subobsolete 
striae, with a median carina running for some distance from antennal 
insertion; eyes large, bare, narrowing ventrally; ocelli large, wide 
apart, the lateral pair against the eyes; mouth with converging 
striae. Antennae 12-jointed; scape moderately long and stout; 
pedicel one-half longer than its greatest width; flagellar joint 1 fully 
twice as long as the pedicel, 2-10 gradually shortening. Thorax 
twice as long as its greatest width; pronotum hardly visible from 
above; scutum and scutellum smooth and shining, with a few 
scattered punctures; scutum as long as wide, its anterior margin 
broadly rounded; parapsidal furrows deep and foveate, wide apart 
and almost parallel; scutellum foveate at anterior and posterior 
margins, its posterior margin straight; postscutellum short, foveate ; 
raised area at base of median segment rectangular, its lateral margins 
straight, its posterior margin concave and obtusely bidentate, its 
surface rugose and with several striae or carinae; laterally the 
median segment is pubescent. Jore-wings long, extending beyond 
apex of fourth abdominal segment; very deeply fuscous; venation 
black; marginal vein barely one-half as long as the oblique stigmal 
vein ; postmarginal over twice as long as the stigmal; basal, median, 
and radial veins well marked, the basal very oblique. Hind-wings 
deeply fuscous, the basal third hyaline. Abdomen almost twice 
as long as head and thorax united; hardly narrowed at base, blunt 
at apex; segments 1-4 longer than wide, 2 and 3 longest, 5 as wide 
as long, 6 somewhat shorter than 5; 1-3 irregularly strongly rugulose, 
the rugae wavy and sublongitudinal ; 4-6 densely punctate, 6 with 
stiff black pubescence. Basal joint of posterior tarsi very long. 
Length, 7 mm. 


Described from one male labelled “ Suva, Fiji; R. C. L. 
Perkins.” 

Type in the British Museum. 

This strikingly beautiful species is closely allied with 
metatarsalis, both having the rectangular raised area on 
the median segment, the long basal joint of the posterior 
tarsi, and the straight posterior margin of the scutellum. 


Macroteleia gracilicornis, n. sp. 


2. Black; coxae black, the femora dusky, the tibiae and tarsi 
brownish-yellow ; antennae black, the basal six joints a little suffused 
with brown. 

Head subquadrate, finely confluently punctate and coriaceous; 


326 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Notes on 


frontal depression shallow, not margined, finely coriaceous; eyes 
large, bare; ocelli wide apart, the lateral pair close to eye margins. 
Antennae 12-jointed; scape slender; pedicel about twice as long 
as its greatest width, as long as funicle 3; funicle 1 much longer, 
several times as long as wide, somewhat longer than 2; 4 shortest 
but longer than wide; club 6-jointed, joints subquadrate, 1 a little 
the largest. Scutum finely densely punctate and with short fine 
pubescence ; parapsidal furrows feeble, failing anteriorly ; scutellum 
semicircular; postscutellum and median segment unarmed. Fore- 
wings reaching apex of abdomen; broad; subhyaline; venation 
brown ; marginal vein rather longer than the stigmal which is rather 
short; postmarginal a little longer than the marginal; basal and - 
median veins hardly indicated. Abdomen not twice as long as head 
and thorax united, slightly narrowed at base, pointed at apex, the 
apical segments not compressed; an indistinct protuberance on 
basal segment; segments 1-3 a little longer than wide, 4-6 wider 
than long, 2 and 3 subequal, 6 quite short; 1-4 densely confluently 
longitudinally punctate, 5 with scattered punctures, 6 smooth. 
Legs slender; tibiae as long as their tarsi. 

3g. Apex of abdomen blunt; no basal protuberance. Antennae 
filiform; funicle joints all longer than wide, 3 and 10 longest, 1 as 
long as pedicel. Length, 3 mm. 


Described from two females, one male, labelled “St. 
Helena; Wollaston.” 

Type and cotypes in the British Museum. 

This species is not typical of the genus on account of 
the shorter non-compressed abdomen. 


Macroteleia emarginata, n. sp. 


9. Black; legs, including coxae, and first six antennal joints 
bright yellow. 

Head subquadrate; rather densely pubescent; densely punctate, 
the punctures not large; frontal depression shallow, elongate, not 
margined, smooth; eyes large, bare ; ocelli large, well separated, the 
lateral pair against eye margins. Antennae 12-jointed; scape 
slender; pedicel slender, fully twice as long as its greatest width; 
funicle 1 a little longer than pedicel, 2 distinctly shorter than 1, 3 
a little longer than wide, 4 wider than long; club 6-jointed, the 
joints wider than long. ‘Thorax rather densely pubescent ; scutum 
and scutellum densely punctate; parapsidal furrows delicate ; 
scutellum large, its posterior margin feebly yet distinctly emarginate ; 
median segnient somewhat shorter than scutellum. Fore-wings 
long, reaching beyond fourth abdominal segment ; broad ; subhyaline ; 


Exotic Proctotrwpoidea. 327 


venation brownish; marginal vein a little longer than the stigmal, 
which is moderately long, straight; postmarginal nearly twice as 
long as the marginal; basal and median veins not indicated. Abdo- 
men long, about twice as long as head and thorax combined ; rather 
narrower than thorax, the sixth segment compressed laterally ; 
segment 1 no longer than its greatest width, the remainder all longer 
than wide, 2 and 3 a little the longest; basal segment without a 
trace of a protuberance ; with fine pubescence ; wholly longitudinally 
striate; apical segment punctate. Length, 6°5 mm. 


Described from one female from Kuching, Borneo, and 
labelled “ Macroteleia flavipes Cameron.” 
Type in the British Museum. 


Macroteleia perkinsiana, n. sp. 


9. Black; legs yellow, the coxae fuscous ; antennal scape yellow; 
funicle a little suffused with yellow, the club black. 

Head normal ; subquadrate ; wholly densely rather finely punctate 
except for a smooth area above antennal insertion; frons not 
depressed ; cheeks large; eyes large, bare; ocelli small, wide apart, 
the lateral pair against the eyes. Antennae 12-jointed; scape as 
long as next fotr joints combined; pedicel fully twice as long as 
its greatest width; funicle joints rather narrower than pedicel, 1 
more than twice as long as wide, 2 much shorter, 3 and 4 quadrate ; 
club 6-jointed, joints 1-5 a little wider than long. ‘Thorax longer 
than wide ; scutum as long as wide, narrowed anteriorly ; the median 
lobe punctate, densely anteriorly, less so posteriorly, the lateral 
lobes with scattered punctures; parapsidal furrows distinct and 
foveate; scutellum semicircular, smooth except for a few minute 
punctures; median segment short, striate; all pleurae densely 
punctate, the mesopleurae with a narrow smooth depression. fore- 
wings reaching apex of abdominal segment 4; broad; hyaline; 
venation fuscous ; marginal vein distinctly longer than the stigmal, 
the postmarginal no longer than the marginal; basal and median 
veins not represented. Abdomen not twice as long as head and 
thorax united ; slender; no horn or tubercle at base ; segment 6 only 
compressed ; wholly densely finely longitudinally striate and with 
fine pubescence ; segment 1 as wide as long, the others longer than 
wide, 2 and 3 subequal, 4 a little shorter, 5 distinctly shorter than 
4, 6 a little longer than 5. Posterior tarsi no longer than their ° 
tibiae, their basal joint a little shorter than the following united. 
Length, 3-5 mm. 


Described from two females labelled ‘‘ Bundaberg, 
Queensland; R. C. L. Perkins.” 


328 . - Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Noles on 


Type and cotype in the British Museum. 

I have much pleasure in naming this species after the 
collector, to whom I am indebted for this and other 
specimens. 


Macroteleia erythrogaster Ashmead. 


Several females reared from base of grass, Imperata 
caudata, containing Tomaspis carmodyi, Issorora, N. W. 
District, British Guiana, 2.vii.l6 (C. B. Williams). The 
type locality is St. Vincent, West Indies. 


Macroteleia carinata Ashmead 


One female swept from grass, Bon Intento, Betterver- 
wachting, British Guiana, 24.v.16 (C. B. Williams). The 
type locality is St. Vincent, West Indies. 


Romilius Walker 


Romilius Walker, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., vol. 10, 1842, 
p. 274. 
Triteleaa Kieffer, Berlin Ent. Zeitschr, vol. 50, 1906, p. 265. 


I cannot distinguish any generic distinction in Kieffer’s 
genus; the species zotale Walker is unknown to me, but I 
have examined the type of duris Walker, which is a typical 
Macroteleia with a third ill-defined groove on the scutum. 
But Kieffer has described a variety trisulcata of the species 
Macroteleia gladiator Kiefter, which has this third groove ; 
hence both Romilius and Triteleia should fall, probably, as 
synonyms of Macroteleia. 


Romilius duris Walker. 
Scelio duris Walker, Mon. Chalciditum, vol. 2, 1839, p. 61. 


3g. Black; legs yellow, the coxae blackish; scape brown. 

Head subquadrate; densely punctate, the punctures not large; 
eyes large, bare; lateral ocelli almost touching the eyes. Scape 
slender; pedicel not much Jonger than its greatest width; flagellar 
joint 1 distinctly longer than pedicel, 2-9 shorter than 1. Scutum 
finely coriaceous, the median lobe punctate except laterally ; parapsi- 
dal furrows deep and distinct, the median groove shallow ; scutellum 
finely coriaceous and with some punctures, its caudal margin foveate. 
Fore-wings long but not attaining apex of abdomen; sub-hyaline ; 


Exotic Proctotrwpoidea. 329 


venation dusky; marginal vein as long as the rather long curved 
stigmal; postmarginal a little longer than the marginal; basal and 
median veins indicated. Abdomen over one-half longer than head 
and thorax united; scarcely narrowed at base; bispinose at apex, 
the spines short; segment 3 a little the longest, longer than wide, 
6 short; 1 and 2 striate; the rest densely confluently punctate and 
with some pubescence. Length, 3 mm. 


Described from Walker’s type labelled “ Tasmania.” 

I know of no Australian Macroteleia with the median 
groove or impression on the scutum; nor do I know any 
other Macroteleia from Tasmania. 


Chromoteleia nigrescens, n. sp. 


g. Black; antennae wholly black; legs, except the coxae, reddish- 
yellow. 

Head transverse, no wider than thorax; coarsely rugo-punctate 
and with scattered stiff pubescence; cheeks with similar sculpture ; 
frontal depression shallow, not margined, no wider than its distance 
from the eye margins; between the antennal insertions is a blunt 
tooth; around mouth with converging striae ; eyes large, pubescent ; 
ocelli wide apart, the lateral pair a little separated from eye margins. 
Antennae 12-jointed ; scape slender ; pedicel no longer than its great- 
est width ; funicle joint 1 cupuliform, nearly twice as long as its great- 
est width, 2 shorter, 3 quadrate, 4-9 a little wider than long. Thorax 
stout ; pronotum truncate anteriorly, its angles subacute ; parapsidal 
furrows deep and complete ; scutum with large confluent punctures, 
these not so dense on scutellum ; postscutellum rugose, conspicuous, 
triangular, not much shorter than scutellum ; median segment with 
its posterior margin profoundly excavated, its meson hidden by the 
postscutellum, distinctly lateral and rather finely rufose; pleurae 
coarsely rugose. Fore-wings almost reaching apex of abdomen; 
broad ; dusky ; venation blackish; submarginal vein attaining costa 
at fully half-wing length; marginal vein punctiform; stigmal vein 
long, the postmarginal nearly three times as long as stigmal; basal 
and median veins indicated by thick brown lines, the former perpen- 
dicular; radial vein indicated, running from stigmal vein to wing 
apex ; discoidal and recurrent veins indicated. Abdomen somewhat 
longer than head and thorax united ; hardly narrowed at base, blunt 
at apex; segments all much wider than long, 2 and 3 a little longer 
than | or 4; 1 in centre at base a little produced; 1 rugo-striate, the 
rest densely confluently punctate with a longitudinal tendency. 
Length, 2-75 mm, 


330 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Notes on 


Described from one male labelled “ Yallingup, §.W. 
Australia, Dec. 1913; R. KE. Turner,” 

Type in the British Museum. 

The first Australian member of the genus. 


Chromoteleia rufithorax Kieffer. 


Two females labelled “ Teapa, Tabasco, Mexico; H. H. 
Smith.” 


Lapitha Ashmead. 


Lapitha Ashmead, Bull. U.S. National Museum, 1893, 
. 222. 
Acantholapitha Cameron, Soc. Entom., Stuttgart, 27, 1912, 
p10, 


I do not think that Cameron’s genus ought to be con- 
sidered distinct; it differs from Lapitha only in the slightly 
different form of the postscutellum. 


TABLE OF MALAYAN SPECIES. 


(1) Spine on postscutellum simple . divina, n. sp. (Java). 
Spine on postscutellum with lateral 


subacute angles. (2) 
(2) Colour brown and yellow . . .  citreicoxa,n. sp. (Borneo). 
Colour black. (3) 


(3) Head strongly punctured . . . migricollis, Cam. (Borneo). 
Head finely punctured . . . javanica, n. sp. (Java). 


Lapitha citreicoxa, n. sp. 


3. Head black; thorax rich ochreous, the centre of scutum, the 
scutellum and the postscutellum dusky-black ; abdomen dull brown, 
yellow in centre; legs, including the coxae, pale lemon yellow ; scape 
and pedicel yellow, the rest of the antennae black. 

Head transverse; densely rugo-punctate, the sculpture not 
coarse ; occipital margin transversely striate ; cheeks striate ; mouth 
with converging striae; lower half of frons with a broad shallow 
depression, smooth and shining and with a pair of fine median 
carinae running to antennal insertions ; eyes large, bare ; ocelli wide 
apart, the lateral pair against the eye margins. Antennae 12-jointed ; 
scape slender; pedicel short, as wide as long} flagellar joints long 
and filiform, subequal, several times as long as wide. Thorax a 
little longer than its greatest width; parapsidal furrows absent; 


: 
) 
: 
: 


Exotic Proctotrupordea. 331 


scutum large, with fine dense pubescence and finely wrinkled or 
alutaceous; scutellum semicircular, its anterior and _ posterior 
margins foveate, with sculpture similar to the scutum ; postscutellum 
a little produced, transverse, its angles sub-acute, produced at 
meson into a distinct spine, with two curved carinae running from 
the angles to the meson; median segment short, rugose ; propleurae 
depressed, smooth; mesopleurae with a deep elongate smooth 
depression; metapleurae rugose. Fore-wings reaching apex of 
abdomen; broad; a little yellowish; venation fuscous ; submarginal 
vein attaining the costa at fully half-wing length; marginal vein 
one-half as long as the stigmal which is moderately long and a little 
curved; postmarginal over twice as long as stigmal; basal vein 
distinct, perpendicular, the median and radial veins indicated. 
Abdomen somewhat longer than head and thorax united ; fusiform ; 
segments wider than long, 2 and 3 longest, 5 and 6 short ; 1—3 striate, 
4—6 densely finely punctate. Legs slender; basal joint of posterior 
tarsi as long as the rest united. Length, 3 mm. 


Described from three males labelled “ Acanthoteleia 
ruficolis Cam., Kuching, Borneo; J. H. Hewitt.” 
Type and cotypes in the British Museum. 


Lapitha javanica, n. sp. 


3. Black; coxae black, the legs dusky, the anterior and tibiae 
yellow; scape brown, rest of antennae black. 

Head transverse ; finely densely punctate and coriaceous ; mouth 
with converging striae; lower half of frons smooth and shining, not 
depressed, and with a median carina; eyes large, bare; ocelli wide 
apart, the lateral pair a little separated from the eye margins. 
Scape long and slender; pedicel short, as wide as long; flagellar 
joints cylindrical, filiform, pilose, slightly decreasing in length 
toward apex, 3 with a slight excision at half its length. Thorax 
stout; parapsidal furrows absent; scutum and scutellum densely 
granulate and with very short pubescence ; scutellum with a foveate 
line at anterior and posterior margins ; postscutellum as in citreicova ; 
pleurae mostly smooth, mesopleurae with a narrow elongate depres- 
sion, striate against the tegulae. ore-wings reaching alittle beyond 
apex of abdomen; broad; infuscate; venation fuscous; marginal 
vein one-third as long as the stigmal which is a little curved ; post- 
marginal twice as long as the stigmal; basal vein distinct, oblique, 
the median and radial veins faintly marked. Abdomen a little 
longer than head and thorax conbined; segments all wider than 
long, 3 hardly longer tham 2; shining ; segments 1-3 striate, 4-6 with 
minute punctures and short pubescence. Length, 2-5 mm. 


332 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Notes on 


Described from three males labelled “5000-7000 feet, 
Tyibodas, Java, Aug. 1913; Dr. Konigsberger.” 

Type and cotypes in the British Museum. 

Belongs to the Acantholapitha group and near nigricollis, 
which according to Cameron has the vertex and frons 
strongly punctured. 


Lapitha divina, n. sp. 


3. Dull reddish-brown, the scutum, except posteriorly, and the 
frons, bright ochreous; coxae dusky, the legs yellow; scape yellow, 
the antennae black. 

Head transverse ; vertex, cheeks, and upper half of frons densely 
coriaceous and with obscure small punctures; lower half of frons 
with a smooth faint depression traversed by a median carina; on 
either side of this depression finely wrinkled ; mouth with converging 
striae; eyes large, bare; ocelli wide apart, the lateral pair a little 
separated from the eye margins. Antennae 12-jointed; pedicel 
no longer than wide; flagellar joints long and filiform, pilose, I a 
little longer than 2, which is shortest, 4 and 5 longest each twice as 
long as 2; scutum and scutellum finely wrinkled or alutaceous, and 
with fine pubescence; parapsidal furrows absent; scutellum with 
a foveate line at anterior and posterior margins; postscutellum 
with a triangular tooth that is no longer than its basal width; 
pleurae as in javanica. Fore-wings reaching a little beyond apex 
of abdomen; somewhat dusky, almost hyaline at base; venation 
fuscous; marginal vein one-half as long as the stigmal which is 
rather short ; postmarginal twice as long as the stigmal; basal vein 
distinct, a little oblique ; median and radial veins indicated. Abdo- 
men a little longer than head and thorax united ; segment 2 as long 
as its greatest width, 3 as long as 2; 1-3 striate, 3 rather finely so, 
4—6 rather finely densely pubescent and finely sculptured. Length, 
1-75 mm. 


Described from four males labelled “‘ 5000-7000 feet, 
Tyibodas, Java, Aug. 1913; Dr. Konigsberger.” 
Type and cotypes in the British Museum. 


MERRIWA, n. gen. 


g. Head normal, transverse; frons with a broad area faintly 
depressed and margined laterally; eyes large, bare; ocelli wide 
apart, the lateral pair a little separated from the eye margins. 
Antennae 12-jointed; scape long and slender; the flagellar joints 
long and cylindrical. Thorax normal; pronotum hardly visible 


Exotic Proctotrwpoidea. 399 


from above, rounded anteriorly; parapsidal furrows deep and 
distinct ; scutellum semicircular, with a foveate line along anterior 
and posterior margins, with a short spine against either latero- 
posterior margin ; postscutellum short, with two large teeth ; median 
segment declivous laterally, its posterior margin straight, with three 
carinae at meson. Fore-wings long and broad; submarginal vein 
attaining costa at half-wing length; marginal vein one-third as 
long as the stigmal which is moderately long; a long false radial 
vein reaches the costa thus forming a long false radial cell; post- 
marginal vein long ; basal vein distinct, the median hardly indicated. 
Abdomen fusiform ; a little longer than head and thorax combined ; 
somewhat narrowed at base; segment 1 as long as wide, 2 gradually 
widening, a little longer than its greatest width, 3 as long as 2 and 
as long as wide, the others transverse. Legs slender. 


In Kieffer’s table of genera (1910), running to Dichoteleas 
Kieffer, from which it differs in having the postscutellum 
bispinose ; agreeing with Dilapitha Kieffer, except for the 
short spines on the scutellum. 

Type, the following species. 


Merriwa quadridentata, n. sp. 


3. Dull black; coxae fuscous, also the femora and apical half 
of posterior tibiae, the legs otherwise pale yellow; antennae black, 
the scape yellow. 

Vertex finely granulate, with a few fine transverse striae against 
occipital margin; eye margins carinate; upper half of frons finely 
transversely striate, the lower half smooth and shining and with a 
median carina running from antennal insertions; cheeks finely 
granulate. Pedicel almost twice as long as its greatest width; 
flagellar joints pilose, 1 nearly twice as long as pedicel, 2-9 very 
gradually shortening, 10 a little longer than 1. Scutum and 
scutellum finely densely punctate and a little pubescent ; propleurae 
and mesopleurae shining, without sculpture, the latter deeply 
depressed and foveate along its margins; metapleurae smooth. 
Fore-wings reaching a little beyond apex of abdomen; brownish, 
hyaline at base; venation fuscous. First abdominal segment 
striate, 2 striate, the others finely rather densely punctate and with 
fine pubescence. Length, 2-25 mm. 


Described from three males labelled ‘‘ 5000-7000 feet 
Tyibodas, Java, Aug. 1913; Dr. Konigsberger.”’ 
Type and cotypes in the British Museum. 


334 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Notes on 


Baryeonus Foerster. 


Baryconus Foerster, Hym. Stud. Aachen, vol. 2, 1856, 
pe LOL. 

Lamproteleia Kieffer, Bull. Soc. Ent. France, vol. 15, 1910, 
p. 293. 

Kieffer has described his genus as having no postmarginal 
vein; I have examined the genotype, and find that the 
postmarginal vein is very long, but owing to the colorational 
characters of the wing, while the marginal vein is very dark, 
the postmarginal is very faintly coloured, which would 
account for Kieffer’s mistake; fasciatipennis Kieffer is 
remarkably like several of the Australan species, notably 
fasciatus Dodd. 

Baryconus pictus, n. sp. 
~ 9. Dull reddish-brown; abdomen clear yellow, marked with 
dusky black as follows :—basal horn, along lateral margin of segment 
2 for apical two-thirds, along lateral margin of segment 3 for apical 
half, bands across posterior margins of segments 2-4, also tip of 
abdomen ; legs clear yellow, the coxae dusky ; antennal scape and 
club fuscous, the funicle yellow. 

Head normal; wholly densely confluently punctate and finely 
coriaceous ; eyes moderately large, with a few long setae; lateral 
ocelli separated from the eye margins by their own diameter ; frons 
not depressed. Antennae separated at base by a tubercle; 12- 
jointed ; scape long and slender; pedicel nearly twice as long as its 
greatest width; funicle 1 fully as long as pedicel, 2 a little longer 
than wide, 3 quadrate, 4 wider than long; club 6-jointed, the joints 
wider than long, 1 small, 2 a little the largest. Thorax somewhat 
longer than its greatest width; pronotum short, rounded anteriorly ; 
scutum and scutellum sculptured like the head; parapsidal furrows 
wanting; postscutellum very short, unarmed; median segment 
unarmed. 

Fore-wings reaching a little beyond apex of abdominal segment 
4; broad; rather deeply dusky, with a long hyaline band beneath 
the second third of the submarginal vein, and an irregular narrow 
hyaline band beneath marginal and most of stigmal veins ; venation 
fuscous; submarginal vein attaining the costa at fully half wing 
length; marginal vein one-half as long as the stigmal which is long, 
oblique ; postmarginal one-half longer than the stigmal; no trace 
of other veins. Abdomen narrowed at base, pointed at apex; 
one-half longer than head and thorax united; with a basal horn 
projecting over median segment; 1-3 all longer than wide, 3 a little 
longer than 2, 4 one-half as long as 3, 5 shorter than 4, 6 conical, 


i — 
tient ee 


Exotic Proctotrupoidea. 335 


nearly twice as long as 5, about three times as long as its basal width ; 
1-3 rather finely striate, the rest smooth except for a few pin- 
punctures; basal horn rugose. Length, 2 mm. 


Described from one female labelled “Ceylon; Dr. 
Thwaites.” 
Type in the Hope Collection, Oxford. 


Holoteleia tenuicornis, n. sp. 

2. Fuscous; thorax dull dusky reddish; legs wholly yellow; 
antennal scape and funicle brown, the club fuscous. 

Head normal; smooth and shining, against occipital margin 
pubescent and finely coriaceous; eyes large, feebly pubescent; 
ocelli wide apart, the lateral pair well separated from the eyes; 
frons not depressed. Antennae 12-jointed; scape slender; pedicel 
hardly longer than its greatest width; funicle joints 1-3 long and 
slender, pilose, 1 somewhat shorter than 2, 3 hardly shorter than 2, 
4 quite short and no longer than wide; club plainly 6-jointed, the 
joints a little wider than long. Parapsidal furrows distinct and 
complete; scutum smooth and shining, the anterior half of median 
lobe finely pubescent and coriaceous, the lateral lobes with a few 
small punctures; scutellum large, smooth, its anterior and posterior 
margins foveate; postscutellum unarmed; median segment longi- 
tudinally foveate-striate, its caudo-lateral angles subacute. Fore- 
wings reaching a little beyond apex of abdomen; moderately 
broad; subhyaline; venation fuscous; submarginal vein attaining 
costa a little before half-wing length; marginal vein as long as the 
stigmal which is moderately long and oblique; postmarginal four 
times as long as the stigmal; basal vein distinct, the median hardly 
indicated. Abdomen hardly longer than head and thorax united ; 
basal segment distinctly narrowed, somewhat longer than wide; 
without a horn or protuberance at base; 3 a little longer than 2, 
as long as the following united; 1 and base of 2 strongly striate, 
the rest smooth and without sculpture. Length, 1:6 mm. 

g-. Antennae filiform; pedicel hardly longer than wide; flagellar 
joint 1 distinctly shorter than 2 or 3 which are more than three 
times as long as wide, 4—9 shortening. 

Described from two females, one male, labelled ‘ 5000— 
7000 feet, Tjibodas, Java, Aug. 1913; Dr. Konigsberger.” 

Type and cotypes in the British Museum. 


Opisthacantha bifasciata, n. sp. 


. Dull red-brown; abdomen yellow, its second and fourth 
segments fuscous; antennae fuscous, the funicle yellow; legs,* 
including the coxae, yellow. 


336 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Notes on 


Head normal; wholly densely reticulate and coriaceous; frons 
not depressed; eyes rather large, a little pubescent; ocelli wide 
apart, the lateral pair a little separated from the eye margins. 
Antennae 12-jointed; scape long and slender; pedicel one-half 
longer than its greatest width; funicle 1 as long as pedicel, 2 a little 
shorter, 3 and 4 small and transverse; club 6-jointed, the joints 
wider than long, 2 a little the largest. Thorax a little longer than 
its greatest width; pronotum very short, rounded anteriorly ; scutum 
and scutellum sculptured like the head; parapsidal furrows absent ; 
postscutellum with ashort spine; median segment with its posterior 
angles with a short tooth. Fore-wings reaching apex of abdomen ; 
moderately broad; base of wing hyaline, a broad fuscous band 
beneath apex of submarginal and all marginal and stigmal veins 
followed by a narrow hyaline band, the apex broadly fuscous; sub- 
marginal vein attaining the costa at more than half-wing length; 
marginal vein two-thirds as long as the stigmal which is short and 
very oblique; postmarginal over twice as long as the stigmal; 
basal vein well marked, perpendicular. Abdomen a little longer 
than head and thorax united; narrowed at base, pointed at apex; 
‘segments much wider than long, 3 a little longer than 2 and as 
long as the following combined, | with a small protuberance at 
base; 1 and 2 finely striate, the rest without sculpture. Length, 
1-25 mm. 


Described from one female labelled “Ceylon; Dr. 
Thwaites.” 
Type in the Hope Collection, Oxford. 


Probaryeonus minor Wollaston. 


Scelio nunor Wollaston, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. vol. 1, 1858, 
p. 26. 


This is not a Scelio, but belongs here; the postmarginal 
vein is short, as long as the stigmal; parapsidal furrows 
wanting; postscutellum with a short blunt tooth; abdo- 
men narrowed at base, with a distinct basal protuberance 
in the female. 


Sceliacantha subplana, nh. sp. 


9. Dull black; legs, except the coxae, clear yellow; antennal 
scape yellow, the antennae otherwise fuscous. 

Body somewhat flattened. Head rather flattened; eyes rather 
small, with long scattered setae; ocelli small, wide apart, the 


es 


Exotic Proctotrupoidea. doT 


lateral pair separated from the eyes by more than half their distance 
from the median ocellus; frons not depressed; vertex, cheeks, 
and frons (except for a smooth area above antennal insertion), 
punctate but not densely, and with indications of longitudinal 
connecting striae or sulci. Antennae separated by a tubercle; 
12-jointed; scape long and slender; pedicel one-half longer than 
its greatest width; funicle 1 hardly as long as pedicel, 2 as wide 
as long, 3 and 4 wider than long; club 6-jointed, the joints much 
wider than long, 1 small. Thorax hardly longer than its greatest 
width; pronotum hardly visible, rounded anteriorly; scutum and 
scutellum punctate like the head; parapsidal furrows complete ; 
postscutellum as a foveate line, with two small teeth, wide apart; 
median segment short at meson, its lateral margins with a blunt 
tubercle at half its length, its posterior angles with a sharp tooth. 
Fore-wings rather short, hardly reaching apex of abdomen; moder- 
ately broad; a little infuscate; venation yellowish; submarginal 
vein attaining the costa at half-wing length; marginal vein one- 
third as long as the stigmal which is moderately long, the post- 
marginal hardly developed, as long as the marginal; no trace of 
median and basal veins. Abdomen fusiform; somewhat longer 
than head and thorax united; a little wider than thorax; pointed 
at apex; segment | with a tubercle at base, 3 a little wider than 
long and as long as 1 and 2 united or the following united; 1 and 2 
striate, 3 polygonally reticulate and finely striate, 4-6 punctate. | 
Length, 1-25 mm. 


Described from one female labelled “Ceylon; Dr. 
Thwaites.” 

Type in the Hope Collection, Oxford. 

The type and only other member of the genus is Australian. 
The present species differs in having the postmarginal vein 
poorly developed. 


Trichoteleia atripes, n. sp. 


®. Coal-black; coxae black, the legs black with a brownish 
tinge, the tarsi paler, also the knees; antennae wholly black. 

Head normal; eyes large, bare;- ocelli moderately wide apart, 
each in a margined depression; frontal depression large, deep, 
and margined, smooth and shining, very narrowly separated from 
eye Margins; vertex with large shallow punctures, not confluent ; 
occipital margin foveate; cheeks punctate. Antennae 12-jointed; 
scape long and slender; pedicel one-half longer than its greatest 
width; funicle 1 rather longer than pedicel, twice as long as its 

TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PARTS III, IV. (DEC.) Z 


338 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Notes on 


greatest width; 2 as long as 1, 3 a little shorter, 4 longer than 
wide; club slender, 6-jointed, the joints longer than wide, 2 the 
longest. Thorax somewhat longer than its greatest width; prono- 
tum very short, its angles rounded; scutum large, opaque, minutely 
transversely wrinkled; parapsidal furrows deep and complete, 
wide apart; scutellum semicircular, smooth and shining, its posterior 
margin foveate; postscutellum foveate, with a short bidentate 
tooth at meson; median segment short, rugose; propleurae punc- 
tate; mesopieurae punctate, with a smooth depressed central area ; 
metapleurae rugose. Fore-wings attaining apex of abdomen; 
broad; dusky; venation fuscous; submarginal vein attaining 
costa at half-wing length; marginal vein one-third as long as the 
stigmal which is long, almost perpendicular; postmarginal fully 
twice as long as the stigmal; radial vein indicated; basal and 
median veins as thick yellow lines, the-former oblique and almost 
joining the marginal vein. Abdomen a little longer than head and 
thorax united; a little narrowed at base, pointed at apex; seg- 
ments all wider than long, 3 a little longer than 2 and almost as 
long as the following united; 1 without a horn or protuberance ; 
1 and 2 strongly striate, 3 and 4 densely punctate in irregular 
longitudinal rows, 5 less densely punctate. ‘Legs slender. Length, 
4 mm. 


Described from one female labelled ‘‘ Dore, Dutch New 
Guinea; Wallace.” 

Type in the Hope Collection, Oxford. 

I think this species belongs here; the type species is 
from Madagascar. 


Rhacoteleia Cameron. 


I have examined the types of pilosa Cameron, the type 
species. I think the genus is synonymous with Hoploteleva 
Ashmead ; it differs only in having the third groove on the 
scutum subobsolete, but this character is found in several 
of the Australian species of Hoploteleia. 


Hoploteleia Ashmead. 


Hoploteleia Ashmead, Bull. U.S. National Museum, 1893, 
p- 227. 

Apegusoneura Cameron, Soc. Entom., Stuttgart, 27, 1912, 
p. 69. 


Cameron could not have known Hoploteleia or he would 
have seeu that his genus was identical with it; he also 


Exotic Proctotrupoidea. 339 


states that the female antennae are filiform, but he mis- 
took the sexes; I have seen a female of carinata Cameron 
which has typical clubbed antennae. The three species 
nmigricormis Cameron, carinata Cameron, and striolata 
Cameron, all fall into Hoploteleva. 


Hoploteleia africana, n. sp. 


9. Black, the antennae concolorous, the first four or five joints 
more or less brownish; coxae black, femora dusky-black, tibiae 
and tarsi yellow. 

Head subquadrate; finely reticulate or shagreened; vertex also 
with a few irregular longitudinal striae or carinae; with white 
pubescence; frons with a large deep margined depression which 
has fine cross-striae; eyes large, bare; ocelli large, well separated. 
Antennae 12-jointed; scape slender; pedicel not much longer than 
its greatest width; funicle 1 rather longer than pedicel, 2-4 shorter 
than 1; club 6-jointed, joint 2 a little the largest. Mesothorax 
pubescent; scutum with three well-defined furrows, shagreened ; 
scutellum coarsely rugose; postscutellum with two sharp teeth 
close together. Fore-wings reaching apex of abdomen; hyaline; 
venation fuscous; submarginal vein attaining costa at fully half- 
wing length; marginal vein short, the stigmal moderately long and 
oblique; postmarginal over twice as long as the stigmal. Abdomen 
rather stout, not much longer than its greatest width; pointed and 
with two stout spines at apex; segments wider than long, the third 
as long as the preceding two united; segments I and 2 striate, 
3 and 4 finely longitudinally rugose. Length, 1°75 mm. 

3. Legs, except coxae, golden-yellow; differs from the female 
in that the head is rather coarsely rugose; there is very little 
pubescence on head and thorax; and the sculpture of the abdomen 
is rather coarser. Pedicel short and stout, the flagellum filiform, 
joint 1 a little thé longest, 3 slightly excised. 


Described from one pair labelled ‘‘ Durban, Natal; 
F. Muir.” 

Type and cotype in the British Museum. 

This is the first African species of the genus. The male 
may be that of another species, the differences possibly 
being more than sexual. 


Hoploteleia orthopterae, n. sp. 
2. Black; legs bright reddish-yellow, the coxae black; antennal 
scape bright reddish-yellow, next six joints dusky-yellow, the 
apical five black; tegulae yellow. 


340 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Notes on 


Head no wider than thorax; vertex twice as wide as long; vertex 
and cheeks densely granulate, and also with shallow obscure large 
punctures which are wanting around ocelli; between ocelli rugose ; 
against occipital margin with a more or less distinct abbreviated 
median carina; frontal depression large, profound, and margined, 
finely transversely striate; eyes large, bare; ocelli large, close 
together, the lateral pair a little separated from the eyes. Antennae 
12-jointed; scape slender; pedicel almost twice as long asits greatest 
width; funicle 1 a little longer than pedicel, almost three times as 
long as wide, 2 and 3 somewhat longer than wide, 4 quadrate ; 
club 6-jointed, joint 1 small and wider than long, 2 somewhat longer 
than wide, 3-5 quadrate. Thorax not much longer than its greatest 
width; scutum densely granulate, the median lobe with indications 
of shallow punctures; parapsidal furrows distinct, the median 
groove replaced by an obscure carina; scutellum semicircular, 
granulate, with a median row of punctures, also punctate around 
the margins; postscutellum with a short bidentate tooth; median 
segment, mesopleurae and metapleurae, longitudinally rugo-striate ; 
propleurae granulate. Fore-wings reaching slightly beyond apex 
of abdomen; broad; hyaline; venation yellowish; submarginal 
vein attaining the costa at half-wing length; marginal vein short, 
about one-fourth as long as the stigmal which is long and nearly 
perpendicular; postmarginal barely twice as long as the stigmal. 
Abdomen hardly longer than thorax; hardly twice as long as its 
greatest width; pointed at apex and with two short spines; seg- 
ment 3 somewhat wider than long, as long as 1 and 2 united, and 
longer than the following united; 1 strongly striate, 2 striate, and 
between the striae finely reticulate, 3 irregularly striate and densely 
reticulate, 5 and apex of 4 finely granulate. Posterior tarsi hardly 
longer than their tibiae, their basal joint almost as long as the 
following united. Length, 2°5 mm. 

¢g- Agreeing in all respects with the female. Antennae testaceous, 
dusky toward apex; pedicel a little longer than its greatest width; 
funicle 1 over twice as long as its greatest width, 3 hardly shorter 
than 1 and a little longer than 2, 4-9 one-half longer than wide. 


Described from two females, two males, bred from eggs 
of an Orthopteron on leaf, Freetown, Sierra Leone, West 
Africa, 1915 (A. W. Bacot). 

Type and cotypes in the British Museum. 

At once differing from africana in lacking the median 
groove of the scutum. Of the European species nearest 


europaea Kieffer, but the flagellar joints in the male are 
longer. 


Exotic Proctotrupoidea. 341 


Hoploteleia serena, new name. 


Hoploteleia carinata Kiefier, Insecta, 1913, p. 368. 
Kieffer’s name is preoccupied by carinata Cameron (1912). 


Hoploteleia atricornis, new name. 


Hoploteleia ngricorms Dodd, 1913, Trans. Royal Soc. of 
S. Aust., p. 134. 


The name nigricornis is preoccupied by Cameron’s species 
(1912). 


Hoploteleia mandibularis Kieffer. 


Seven specimens labelled “‘ Teapa, Tabasco, Mexico: 
5 > BI 


H.ste Smith,” 


Hoploteleia rugosiceps Kieffer. 


One female labelled ‘“‘ Atoyac, Vera Cruz, Mexico; H. H. 
Smith ” ; originally described from Nicaragua. 


Hoploteleia erythropa Cameron. 


Macroteleia erythropa Cameron, J. R. Agric. Soc., Demerara, 
1913, p. 134. 


I have examined the type of this species; it is a typical 
species of Hoploteleia. 


Cremastobaeus bicolor Ashmead. 


One female bred from base of grass, Imperata caudata, 
July 1916, Issorora, N. W. District, British Guiana (C. B. 
Willams). The type locality is St. Vincent, West Indies. 


PARASCELIO, n. gen. 


Q. Head subquadrate; somewhat produced anteriorly, not 
emarginate but with numerous fine small tubercles; frons straight 
from this production to the mouth which is against posterior margin 
of head; eyes large, bare; ocelli wide apart, the lateral pair against 
eye margins. Antennae normal, 12-jointed, the club 6-jointed. 
Thorax normal; parapsidal furrows distinct; scutellum unarmed: 
postscutellum with a short spine; median segment unarmed. Fore- 
wings normal; marginal vein as long as the stigmal which is moder. 
ately short; postmarginal absent. Abdomen several times as long 


342 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Notes on 


as wide; fusiform; not narrowed at base; pointed at apex; seg- 
ments | and 2 as wide as long, 3 and 4 subequal and longer than 
1 or 2, 5 and 6 short; 1 without a horn or protuberance; 2 at base, 
3 at base and apex, and 4 at base, depressed; so that viewed from 
the side the abdomen has a series of humps or ridges. 


With the general habitus of Macroteleia; the form of the 
head and more especially the abdomen, make the genus 
quite distinct. 

Type, the following species. 


Parascelio undulatus, n. sp. 


2. Black; legs wholly yellow; antennae fulvous, the club black. 

Head finely coriaceous and with dense moderately large punc- 
tures. Scape slender; pedicel more than twice as long as its 
greatest width; funicle joints narrow, | fully as long as pedicel, 
2 distinctly shorter, 4 as wide as long; club joints somewhat wider 
than long, 2 a little the longest. Scutum and scutellum densely 
punctate and with short pubescence. Wings hyaline, reaching 
apex of abdomen. Abdomen hardly twice as long as head and 
thorax united; segments 1 and 2 strongly striate, 3 and base of 4 
striate and also with punctures, the rest rather finely punctate. 
Length, 2°25 mm. 


Described from one female labelled “ Frontera, Tabasco, 
Mexico; H. H. Smith.” 
Type in the British Museum. 


Anteris charmus Walker. 


Telenomus charmus Walker, Mon. Chalciditum, vol. 2, 1839, 
p. 99. 

@. Black; legs brownish-yellow or suffused dusky; antennal 
scape brown. 

Head subquadrate; finely densely reticulate; eyes large, bare; 
ocelli small, wide apart, the lateral pair against the eyes. Antennae 
12-jointed; scape longer than next five joints combined; pedicel 
one-half longer than wide; funicle joints small, 1 longest but 
distinctly shorter than pedicel, 2-4 wider than long; club stout, 
6-jointed, joints wider than long, 2 a little the longest. Scutum 
and scutellum finely densely reticulate; parapsidal furrows absent ; 
scutellum foveate at base; postscutellum with a short tooth. Fore- 
wings reaching a little beyond apex of abdomen ; venation fuscous ; 
marginal vein thickened, as long as the short stigmal; postmarginal 


Exotic Proctotrupoidea. 343 


absent. Abdomen short; broadly oval; narrowed at base ; scarcely 
longer than its greatest width; pointed at apex; segment 1 very 
short, transverse;. 3 occupying half: of surface but wider than 
long; 1 and 2 striate, the rest finely densely reticulate. Length, 
1mm. 


Walker’s type from Albany, 8. W. Australia. 


Sparasion sinense Walker. 


I have seen Walker’s type, also a second specimen 
labelled “‘ Hongkong, F. W. Terry.’ Very similar to 
formosum Kieffer, with which I have compared it, but 
the scattered punctures on the scutum are more marked 
in smmense, the pleurae are smooth centrally, the abdomen 
is more slender and with very few hairs (in formosum 
rather densely pubescent), and the first flagellar joint is 
rather longer, twice as long as the second. 


Seelio crassellus, n. sp. 


2. Black; antennae concolorous; coxae deep brown, the legs 
yellow, the tibiae a little suffused with brown. 

Head normal, transverse; very coarsely rugo-punctate, without 
pubescence; antennal depression narrow, short, deep, and smooth, 
not as wide as its distance from the eyes. Antennae 12-iointed ; 
scape long and slender; pedicel somewhat longer than its greatest 
width; funicle 1 hardly one-half longer than its greatest width, 
2 wider than long; club at least 7-jointed. Thorax normal; pro- 
notum truncate anteriorly, its angles subacute; scutum and scutel- 
lum very coarsely rugo-punctate; postscutellum short, foveate ; 
median segment short at meson, sculptured like the scutellum, the 
sculpture finer laterally where there is white pubescence; pleurae 
densely rugo-punctate, but not as coarse as on scutum; parapsidal 
furrows not evident. Fore-wings not reaching apex of abdomen; 
broad; fuscous; venation rather distinct; a stigmal spot involves 
apex of submarginal and base of stigmal veins, the latter rather 
long and nearly perpendicular. Abdomen conic-ovate; segments 
wider than long; 3 almost as long as 1 and 2 united, 4 as long as 
3; 2 distinctly depressed at base; 1 strongly rugo-striate, 2-4 
densely rather finely striate and between the striae finely granulate, 
5 with a few striae. Length, 4 mm. 


Described from one female from Kuching, Borneo 
(J. Hewitt), and labelled “ Rhopaloscelio rufipes Cameron.” 
Type in the British Museum. 


344 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Notes on 


Scelio wallacei, n. sp. 


3. Black; antennae wholly black; legs wholly black, the knees 
ferruginous. 

Head normal, transverse; eyes large, bare; ocelli large, wide 
apart, the lateral pair separated from the eyes by their own diameter ; 
frons with a narrow shallow impression which is smooth and shin- 
ing; vertex with large rather dense punctures, confluent and with 
a rugose tendency on the frons; mouth with converging striae ; 
cheeks margined and also with two long central carinae, between 
these carinae punctate. Antennae 10-jointed;, scape long and 
slender; pedicel hardly longer than its greatest width; funicle 1 
one-half longer than its greatest width, 2 a little shorter, 3 enlarged 
and wider than the other joints and as long as wide, 4-7 wider than 
long. Thorax stout; pronotum rugose, truncate anteriorly ; parapsi- 
dal furrows distinct for posterior half; scutum with large shallow 
punctures, subconfluent, with a longitudinal tendency; scutellum 
coarsely rugose; postscutellum as a foveate line; median segment 
rather finely rugose, laterally with a pubescent area; all pleurae 
densely rugo-punctate. Fore-wings almost reaching apex of abdo- 
men; broad; dusky, almost hyaline along margins; venation 
fuscous; submarginal vein reaching the margin in a punctiform 
marginal vein; stigmal vein leaving the submarginal, long, faintly 
curved; radial vein indicated, the basal and median veins repre- 
sented by thick yellow lines; stigmal spot obscure. Abdomen 
fusiform; rounded at apex; segments wider than long, 3 a little 
longer than 2 or 4; 2 a little depressed at base; 1 and 2 strongly 
striate and finely rugose between the striae, 3 with irregular striae 
and coarse reticulate rugosity, 4 with more striae and less reticula- 
tion, 5 and 6 striate and between the striae opaque. Legs slender. 
Length, 5 mm. 


Described from one male labelled ‘‘ Dore, Dutch New 
Guinea; Wallace.” 
Type in the Hope Collection, Oxford. 


Scelio subpolitus, n. sp. 


¢. Black; coxae black, the legs dusky black; antennal scape 
black, the flagellum brown. 

Head normal ; frons not depressed; eyes large, bare; ocelli 
large, wide apart, the lateral pair separated from the eyes by nearly 
their own diameter; vertex with large scattered punctures, with 
a smooth impunctate area between the ocelli; punctures dense 
and in transverse rows against occipital margin; cheeks margined, 


Exotic Proctotrupoidea. 345 


with two long central carinae and between the carinae rugo-punctate ; 
upper half of frons confluently punctate, the lower half smooth and 
shining; mouth.with converging striae. Antennae 10-jointed; 
scape long and slender; pedicel a little longer than its greatest 
width; funicle 1 one-half longer than its greatest width, 2 as wide 
as long, 3 a little widened and rather wider than long, not much 
longer than following joints. Thorax normal; pronotum truncate 
anteriorly, its angles subacute, rugose ; scutum smooth and shining, 
with a few scattered punctures; parapsidal furrows consisting of a 
row of punctures; scutellum coarsely longitudinally puncto- 
striate; median segment finely rugose, with a pubescent area 
laterally; all pleurae coarsely rugo-punctate. Fore-wings reach- 
ing apex of abdomen; broad; a little dusky, with a dark 
area in place of basal and median veins; venation indistinct; sub- 
marginal vein not reaching the costa, the stigmal rather long; 
stigmal spot small. Abdomen fusiform, rounded apically ; segments 
wider than long, 3 rather longer than 2 or 4; 2 plainly depressed 
at base; 1 strongly striate, the rest finely striate and between the 
striae coriaceous, 3 and 4 almost smooth at meson, sutures between 
segments smooth and shining. Length, 3-5 mm. 


Described from one male labelled “ Mysol, East Indies ; 
Wallace.” 
Type in the Hope Collection, Oxford. 


Seelio erythropus, n. sp. 


9. Head and posterior half of abdomen, black; thorax and 
basal half of abdomen, orange; scutellum dusky; legs orange, 
also scape, funicle fuscous, the apical four or five club joints pale 
yellow. 

Head normal, with large punctures, these confluent on frons, 
sub-confluent on vertex; a few striae around mouth; frontal 
depression short and narrow, smooth; eyes large, bare. Scutum 
confluently rugo-punctate, also the scutellum; parapsidal furrows 
evident; median segment rugose. Fore-wings reaching apex of 
abdomen; dusky; venation indistinct; stigmal spot distinct, 
covering base of a stigmal vein. Abdomen about twice as long as 
its greatest width; segments all wider than long, 3 a little the 
longest; 1 rugo-striate, the rest rather finely densely striate and 
finely coriaceous between the striae, apex of 3, 4 and 5 with a semi- 
smooth narrow mesal area. Scape long and slender; funicle 1 
longer than pedicel and distinctly longer than its greatest width, 
the following all wider than long. Length, 4 mm. 


346 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Notes on 


Described from one female labelled “ Adelaide River, 


North Australia.” 
Type in the British Museum. 


Seelio australiensis Kieffer. 


Scelio australiensis Kieffer, Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat., Metz, 
1905, p: 100. 

S. australiensis Kieffer, Ann. Soc. Scient., Bruxelles, 1908, 
p. 133. 

S. australiae Kieffer, Genera Insectorum, 1910, p. 74. 


Kieffer has made the strange mistake of describing the 
same insect twice under the same name, and then finding 
a new name for the second description of the insect. The 
type specimen is from Mt. Victoria, New South Wales. 
Closely allied with punctaticeps Dodd, and may be identical. 


Scelio semisanguineus Girault, var. nigrocinetus, n. var. 


9°. Head black; thorax bright red, the scutellum fuscous, centre 
of thorax ventrally fuscous; abdomen red, margined narrowly 
with fuscous, segments 5 and 6 fuscous, beneath wholly red; legs 
reddish yellow, the intermediate and posterior coxae black; first 
four antennal joints yellow, the others black. 

Head normal; vertex twice as wide as long; occipital margin 
concave; eyes large, bare; lateral ocelli against eye margins; 
without distinct pubescence; coarsely rugo-punctate, this sculpture 
disappearing behind anterior ocellus where there are irregular 
striae; transversely striate against occipital margin; with con- 
verging striae around mouth; frontal depression narrow, short, 
and smooth. Antennae 12-jointed; scape as long as next five 
joints combined; pedicel one-half longer than its greatest width; 
funicle 1 one-half longer than its greatest width, 2 rather wider 
than long; club stout, 6- or 7-jointed. Pronotum truncate 
anteriorly, its angles rounded; parapsidal furrows evident, but 
rather obscure; scutum’ and scutellum coarsely rugo-punctate ; 
median segment moderately long, longitudinally obliquely striate 
and finely rugose, with fine pubescence laterally, at meson with 
two straight striae appearing as carinae; all pleurae strongly striate. 
Fore-wings long; broad; hyaline at base, deeply cloudy for the 
rest; venation indistinct; stigmal spot obscure; stigmal vein 
rather long. Abdomen conic-ovate, more than twice as long as its 
greatest width; segment 3 no longer than 1 and 2 united, 4 a little 
shorter than 3; 2 distinctly depressed at base; 1 and 2 densely 


Exotic Proctotrupoidea. BAT 


longitudinally striate and between the striae finely coriaceous; 
3 densely and finely polygonally reticulate, somewhat irregular and 
in raised lines; 4 with similar sculpture in centre at base, otherwise 
finely striate; 5 striate. Length 3 mm. 


Described from one female labelled “ Yallingup, 8.W. 
Australia, Dec. 1913; R. E. Turner.” 

Type in the British Museum. 

The abdomen is much more red than in the typical form. 


Scelio melanogaster, n. sp. 


9. Head and abdomen black; thorax bright red, the scutellum 
fuscous; legs wholly reddish-yellow; antennae black, the scape 
fuscous. 

Head normal; vertex rather long, not twice as wide as long; 
without pubescence; with very large confluent punctures; frontal 
depression smooth, not long, not as wide as its distance from the 
eye margins; eyes large, bare. Antennae 12-jointed; scape rather 
stout; pedicel somewhat longer than its greatest width; funicle 2 
wider than long; club 6- or 7-jointed. Thorax normal; pro- 
notum truncate anteriorly, its angles rounded ; scutum and scutellum 
coarsely rugo-punctate, with a longitudinal tendency; parapsidal 
furrows not evident; postscutellum short, faintly emarginate; 
median segment long, without pubescence, more finely rugo-punc- 
tate than the scutum. Fore-wings long and broad; rather deeply 
infuscate; stigmal spot not large, the stigmal vein moderately long 
and oblique. Abdomen hardly twice as long as its greatest width; 
segment 4 as long as 3, which is almost as long as 1 and 2 combined ; 
2 strongly depressed at base; 1-4 rugo-puncto-striate, apex of 4, 
and 5 and 6 more plainly striate. Length, 3 mm. 


Described from one female labelled “ Mackay, Queens- 
land, May 1897; R. E. Turner.” 
Type in the British Museum. 


Scelio gobar Walker. 


I have examined the types, and as the original descrip- 
tion is very insufficient, I give a short description. 


@. Black, the antennae concolorous, the pedicel brownish; 
coxae black, femora dusky, tibiae and tarsi yellow. 

Frons with large confluent punctures, the lower half with striae 
converging toward mouth; centre of vertex partly smooth. Scutum 
and scutellum coarsely rugo-punctate; parapsidal furrows present, 


348 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Notes on 


Abdominal segments wider than long, 3 a little the longest, 1 strongly 
striate, the rest finely striate and granulate, striae absent at meson. 
Fore-wings ample; dusky; submarginal vein not well determined ; 
a distinct stigmal spot involves almost all the stigmal vein. Pedicel 
longer than funicle 1 and longer than its greatest width, Length, 

“4mm. 
g. Head coarsely rugose, also scutum and scutellum; stigmal 


spot not marked. . 
Two females, one male labelled “ V.D.L.” (Van Diemen’s 
Land). 


The male quite probably is that of a different species. 


Seelio australis Froggatt. 


Scelio australis Froggatt, Farmers’ Bull. N.S. Wales, No. 29, 
1910, p. 34. 

Scelio froggatti Crawford, Proc. U.S. Nat. Museum, 41, 
1911, p. 268. 

I have sent specimens of australis to Mr. J. C. Crawford 
of the United States National Museum, who has compared 
them with the types of froggatti, pronouncing them to be 
identical. This is a very common species ranging from the 
Northern Territory to New South Wales. 


Seelio brasiliensis Kieffer. 


I have seen a male of what I take to be this species 
collected by C. B. Willams in British Guiana. 


Seelio venezuelensis Marshall. 


Several specimens bred from eggs of Schistocerca para- 
nensis, 1.1x.17, Kaitima, Barima River, British Guiana (L. 
D. Cleare). I think I have identified the species correctly. 
The femora are a little brownish; the male antennae are 
black, the flagellum a little brownish, the third flagellar 
joint distinctly enlarged. 


Diseelio Kieffer. 


Discelio Kieffer, Ann. Soc. Ent. Bruxelles, 32, 1908, p. 116, 
124. 
Dichacantha Kiefier, ibidem, p. 118, 147. 
I have examined the types of Discelio thoracicus Ashmead, 
Discelio insularis Ashmead, and Dichacantha lutea Cameron, 


Exotic Proctotrupoidea. 349 


and they are certainly congeneric; thus Dichacantha must 
fall. The genus differs from Scelio only in the bidentate 
form of the postscutellum. I cannot blame Kieffer for 
the characters he attributes to Dichacantha as Cameron’s 
original description of lutea is very faulty. 


- Sceliomorpha ceylonensis, n. sp. 


2. Black; legs, including the coxae, and first six antennal joints 
golden-yellow. 

Head normal, the frons convex; eyes very large, bare; ocelli 
large, the lateral pair against eye margins; frons with a deep 
margined depression; transversely rugo-striate. Antennae 12- 
jointed ; scape slender; pedicel over one-half longer than its greatest 
width; funicle 1 hardly as long as pedicel, 2 and 3 as wide as long, 
4 widened; club joints wider than long, 1 a little the longest. 
Thorax stout; scutum and scutellum coarsely rugose, with a longi- 
tudinal tendency ; parapsidal furrows distinct, wide apart, the median 
lobe with a delicate median carina; postscutellum as long as wide, 
projecting over median segment which is very short. Fore-wings 
reaching apex of abdomen; venation yellowish; submarginal vein 
well separated from the costa which it joins rather beyond half- 
wing length; marginal vein punctiform, the stigmal long, oblique ; 
postmarginal absent. Abdomen hardly longer than head and 
thorax united, pointed at apex; segments all wider than long; 
2 and 3 subequal; wholly longitudinally rugo-striate. Length, 
3 mm. 


Described from four females labelled “Ceylon; Dr. 
Thwaites.” 
Type and cotypes in the British Museum. 


Sceliomorpha mirella, n. sp. 


Q. Black; antennal scape and funicle slightly suffused with 
red; legs orange-yellow, the coxae black; tegulae yellow. 

Head normal, twice as wide as long; very coarsely rugose ; 
occipital margin transversely rugo-punctate, and with two irregular 
transverse striae or carinae; cheeks rugose, with a long carina 
some distance from eye margins, between this carina and the eye 
with short cross-carinae; frontal depression large, deep, margined, 
transversely striate, its margin very shortly distant from eye 
margin; eyes large, bare; ocelli wide apart, the lateral pair against 
eye margins; head with some stout setae. Antennae 12-jointed; 
scape slender, as long as next three joints combined; pedicel fully 


350 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Notes on 


one-half longer than its greatest width; funicle 1 fully one-half 
longer than its greatest width, as long as pedicel, 2 rather wider 
than long, 4 a little widened; club 6-jointed, the joints wider than 
long, 1 the longest. Thorax normal; pronotum truncate anteriorly, 
angles subacute; scutum and scutellum coarsely rugo-punctate 
and shining, the sculpture variable, being dense or partly obliter- 
ated; parapsidal furrows deep and foveate; scutum with a distinct 
median carina; postscutellum projecting at meson as a rugose scale 
or flat tooth, as long as wide; median segment short, rugose. Fore- 
wings reaching to apex of fourth abdominal segment; broad; sub- 
hyaline at base; dusky for the rest; venation brown; submarginal 
vein distant from costa which it joins at half-wing length in a puncti- 
form marginal vein, giving off a short straight stigmal vein before 
it joins the costa; no trace of other veins. Abdomen somewhat 
longer than head and thorax united; a little narrower than thorax ; 
three times as long as its greatest width; scarcely narrowed at 
base; somewhat convex above; six visible segments, 2 slightly 
longer than 3, all distinctly wider than long; basal segment at 
its base with two distinct depressions, well separated, their inner 
margins with a distinct stria or carina; segment 5 a little produced 
at caudo-lateral angles; 6 on either side with a distinct narrow plate 
which is slightly convex, its apical margin concave; 1, 2 (except 
laterally), and medial area of 3 rather finely irregularly longitudinally 
striate, between the striae finely rugose; the rest more strongly 
striate and with very shallow obscure punctures; 4 and 5 with a 
median carina. Length, 3 mm. 

3. Abdomen rather shorter than in the female; 5 and 6 segments 
very slightly emarginate at caudo-lateral margins; apex emarginate. 
Antennae 12-jointed; wholly black; pedicel small, as wide as 
long; funicle 1 cupuliform, somewhat longer than its greatest width, 
2-9 subequal, as wide as long. Length, 2°60 mm. 


Described from four males, five females, labelled “S.W. 
Australia, Yallingup, Dec. 1913; R. E. Turner.” 

Type and cotypes in the British Museum. 

A species very distinct from the other Australian forms, 
the abdominaal characters being peculiar. 


Hadronotus subfasciatus Wollaston. 


Telenomus subfasciatus Wollaston, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 
1858, p. 25. 


The female antennae are 12-jointed. 


Exotic Proctotrupoidea. 351 


Hadronotus divisus Wollaston. 


Telenomus divisus Wollaston, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 1858, 
p. 20. 


The female antennae are 12-jointed. 


Hadronotus antestiae, n. sp. 


9. Black; abdomen bright orange; legs yellow, the coxae black, 
the anterior femora broadly black; antennal scape yellow, the 
funicle fuscous, the club black. 

Head a little wider than thorax; vertex not very transverse ; 
occipital margin hardly concave; viewed from the front somewhat 
wider than deep; frons alittle convex; frontal depression extending 
as far as a line drawn across ventral end of eyes, not margined ; 
eyes large, faintly pubescent; ocelli wide apart, the lateral pair near 
occipital margin and close to eyes; sculpture rather finely densely 
reticulate-rugose, on either side of frontal depression finely granu- 
late, the depression itself transversely striate. Antennae 12-jointed ; 
scape slender; pedicel one-half longer than its greatest width; 
funicle joints distinctly narrower, 1 hardly longer than wide, 2-4 
wider than long; club 6-jointed (or 5-jointed, joint 1 much smaller 
than the others), the joints all much wider than long. Thorax 
stout; viewed from the side somewhat convex above; scutum and 
scutellum moderately longitudinally rugose; scutellum semi- 
circular. Fore-wings long and broad, reaching well beyond apex 
of abdomen; hyaline; submarginal vein attaining costa at half- 
wing length; marginal vein as long as the stigmail which is moder- 
ately long and oblique; postmarginal reaching almost to wing apex. 
Abdomen broadly oval, no longer than its greatest width; segments 
transverse, 2 a little the longest and not occupying more than 
one-third of surface; 1 strongly longitudinally striate, 2 and 3 more 
finely striate, the rest smooth. Legs slender; posterior tarsi no 
longer than their tibiae, their basal joint not as long as the others 
combined. Length, 1:10 mm. 

¢g- At once differing from the female in having the abdomen 
wholly black; otherwise the same. Flagellum moniliform, the joints 
subquadrate except the first which is distinctly longer than its 
greatest width and hardly shorter than the pedicel. 


Described from a series bred from eggs of the coffee-bug, 
Antestia variegata, Nairobi, British Kast Africa (7. J. 
Anderson). 

Type and cotypes in the British Museum. 


352 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Notes on 


Hadronotus chrysolaus Walker. 


Telenomus chrysolaus Walker, Mon. Chalciditum, 1839, 
p. 80. 


This is a male Hadronotus; | have examined the type. 


Hadronotoides rugostriatus, n. sp. 


9. Black; legs red, the coxae and femora somewhat brownish; 
first six antennal joints yellow, the others black. 

Head transverse, a little wider than thorax; coarsely densely 
rugose; cheeks finely rugose; eyes large, somewhat pubescent ; 
ocelli wide apart, the lateral pair against eye margins; frontal de- 
pression large, margined, smooth and shining. Antennae 12-jointed ; 
scape long and slender; funicle 1 twice as long as its greatest width, 
2 shorter, 4 rather wider than long; club large, 6-jointed, the joints 
quadrate, 2 the longest and a little longer than wide. Thorax 
stout, no longer than its greatest width; scutum and scutellum 
very coarsely rugose; parapsidal furrows wanting; scutellum 
projecting over postscutellum and median segment, its posterior 
margin emarginate and feebly concave; from lateral aspect a small 
tooth is visible on postscutellum. Fore-wings attaining a little 
beyond apex of abdomen; broad; a little dusky ; venation fuscous ; 
marginal vein one-third as long as the stigmal, which is rather long, 
oblique; postmarginal a little longer than the stigmal; basal and 
median veins not indicated. Abdomen short, not one-half longer 
than its greatest width; pointed at apex; somewhat convex above ; 
strongly longitudinally rugo-striate; segment 2 nearly twice as long 
as the following united. Length, 1:25 mm. 


Described from one female labelled “Ceylon; Dr. 
Thwaites.”’ 

Type in the Hope Collection, Oxford. 

The genus has hitherto been known only from Australia. 


Mantibaria Kirby. 


Mantibaria Kirby, Mon. of Christmas Island, 1900, p. 82. 

Rielia Kieffer, Boll. Lab. Zool. Portici, 1910, p. 107. 

Rieliomorpha Dodd, Trans. Royal Soc. of 8. Aust., 1913, 
p. 155. 


The type material of anomala Kirby is in the British 
Museum; Kirby states that the wings are rudimentary, 
but on examination I think they have been destroyed. 


Exotic Proctotrupoidea. 353 


Rieliomorpha is undoubtedly synonymous, and I think that 
Rielia is only the other sex. The types of each genus were 
bred from Mantid oothecas, and while Kirby and myself 
had female material, Kieffer’s specimens were all males. 
The female antennae in anomala are 10-jointed, the flagellum 
8-jointed. The position of the genus is certainly anoma- 
lous; Kirby thought it was related to the Dryinidae, but I 
agree with Kieffer that it should be placed in the Scelioncdae. 


Trissoleus laeviventris Cameron. 


Hadronotus laeviventris Cam., J. R. Agric. Soc., Demerara, 
IStSyp. 132: 


The antennae are 11-jointed; scutum with three short 
grooves; I have examined the types. 


Trissolcus metallicus Cameron, 


Trissolcus metallicus Cam., J. R. Agric. Soc., Demerara, 
1913, p. 132. 


This is a Chalcid of the family Encyrtidae; I have seen 
the types. 


Telenomus Haliday. 


Telenomus Hal., Ent. M. Mag., 1833, p. 271. 
Immsia Cameron, Indian Forest Records, 4, 1913, p. 104. 


Cameron has based his genus on the long articulate joint 
of the scape; I consider this a very variable character 
and only a specific detail. The same character is mentioned 
in the original description of compere: Crawford. 


Telenomus truncativentris, n. sp. 


2. Black; legs, except the coxae, yellow; antennal scape yellow. 

Head transverse, somewhat wider than thorax; occipital margin 
somewhat concave; eyes large, bare; ocelli wide apart, the lateral 
pair against occipital margin and close to eyes; frontal depression 
faint; vertex finely reticulate or granulate; frons smooth and with- 
out sculpture. Antennae 11-jointed; scape slender, as long as next 
four joints combined; funicle 1 as long as pedicel and twice as long 
as its greatest width, 2-4 subquadrate; club 5-jointed, the joints 
somewhat wider than long, 2 the largest. Thorax stout; scutum 
with fine pubescence; median segment finely rugose. Fore-wings 
reaching well beyond apex of abdomen; moderately broad; hyaline ; 
submarginal vein attaining costa a little before half-wing length; 
marginal vein one-third as long as stigmal which is long and straight ; 

TRANS, ENT. SOC, LOND. 1919:—PaRTS III, IV, (DEC.) AA 


354 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Notes on 


postmarginal hardly twice as long as stigmal. Abdomen hardly 
longer than its greatest width; from dorsal aspect abruptly truncate 
at apex of segment 2; segment | and base of 2 strongly striate, 


~ otherwise smooth. Length, 1 mm. 


¢. Antennae 12-jointed; brownish-yellow, the apical joints 
dusky; pedicel hardly longer than its greatest width; flagellar 
joints moniliform, 1-3 subequal and nearly twice as long as wide, 
4—9 shorter. 


Described from a series bred from eggs of the coffee-bug, 
Antestia variegata, Nairobi, British East Africa, 1917 (7. J. 
Anderson). 

Type and cotypes in the British Museum. 


Telenomus piceipes, n. sp. 


2. Black; coxae black; femora black, yellowish at base and 
apex; tibiae and tarsi brownish-yellow; antennal scape yellow. 

Head somewhat wider than thorax; occipital margin faintly 
concave; eyes large, bare; ocelli wide apart, the lateral pair against 
occipital margin and close to eyes; frontal depression feeble; wholly 
finely granulate, more or less smooth below anterior ocellus; anten- 
nae |l-jointed; scape slender; pedicel nearly twice as long as its 
greatest width; funicle 1 almost as long as pedicel, 2 quadrate, 3 
wider than long,*4 a little widened; club joints wider than long, 1 
somewhat the largest. Scutum and scutellum with fine pubescence, 
finely coriaceous, the posterior half of the latter more or less smooth ; 
median segment very short at meson. Fore-wings reaching beyond 
apex of abdomen; moderately broad, but not as broad as in trun- 
cativentris; hyaline; submarginal vein attaining costa rather 
before half-wing length; marginal vein two-thirds as long as stigmal 
which is long and slender; postmarginal fully twice as long as 
stigmal; venation brownish. Abdomen somewhat longer than its 
greatest width; pointed at apex; segment 2 a little longer than the 
following united; segment 1 (except along posterior margin) and 
base of 2, strongly striate, the striae continuing very feebly at meson 
of the latter, the remaining segments each with a transverse row of 
fine hairs. Length, 0°70 mm. 

6. Antennae 12-jointed; brownish, the apical joints }iceous; 
pedicel no longer than wide; flagellar joints 1 and 2 over twice as 
long as wide, 3-9 shorter. 


Described from a series bred from undetermined eggs on 
coffee, Songhor, British Hast Africa, Sept. 1917 (7. J. 
Anderson). 


Exotic Proctotrupoidea. 355 


Type and cotypes in the British Museum. 

The dusky legs and less truncate abdomen together with 
antennal and wing differences sa eae ges this species from 
truncativentris. 


Telenomus striaticeps, n. sp. 


9°. Black; coxae black, femora brown, tibiae and tarsi yellow; 
antennal scape yellow, the funicle fuscous, the club black. 

Head transverse, somewhat wider than thorax, its occipital margin 
feebly concave; eyes large, bare; ocelli wide apart, the lateral pair 
separated from eyes by rather more than their own diameter; vertex 
longitudinally rugo-striate and finely coriaceous; frons laterally 
more distinctly longitudinally striate, in centre with a median 
carina that branches above antennal insertion, on either side of 
this carina with short cross-striae; mouth with converging striae 
and between the striae smooth and shining. Antennae 11-jointed ; 
scape as long as next five joints combined; pedicel twice as long as 
its greatest width; funicle joints shorter and narrower than pedicel, 
1 almost twice as long as its greatest width, 2 as wide as long, 3 a 
little wider than long, 4 transverse; club 5-jointed, joint 1 very 
transverse, 2-4 somewhat wider than long. Thorax as wide as 
long; scutum and scutellum densely reticulate-punctate; median 
segment not visible from above; margins of pleurae foveate, their 
centre smooth. Fore-wings reaching well beyond apex of abdomen ; 
moderately broad; hyaline; venation yellowish; submarginal vein 
attaining costa a little before half-wing length; marginal vein 
two-thirds as long as the stigmal which is moderately long; post- 
marginal twice as long as the stigmal. Abdomen stout, not much 
longer than its greatest width; segment 1 very short and transverse, 
2 as long as wide, the rest very short; 1 strongly striate and foveate ; 
2 foveate at extreme base, for the rest closely densely striate and 
between the striae finely granulate, its posterior margin smooth; 
remaining segments with a few fine setae. Legs slender; posterior 
tarsi distinctly longer than their tibiae, the basal joint hardly as 
long as the three following united. Length, 1 mm. 


Described from several ae bred from Pentatomid 
eggs, Mt. Mlanje, Nyasaland, 5.vi.1913 (iS. A. Neave). 

Type and cotypes in the British Museum. 

The sculpture of the head easily distinguishes this species. 


Telenomus carinifrons Cameron. 


Immsia carinifrons Cameron, Ind Forest, Rec., 4, 1913, 
p- 105. 


356 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Notes on 


. Black; legs yellow, the coxae black; antennal scape and 
funicle yellow. 

Head transverse, a little wider than thorax; occipital margin — 
somewhat concave; frontal depression very shallow; eyes large, 
bare; ocelli wide apart, the lateral pair against occipital margin and 
also against the eyes; strongly rugose and between the rugae finely 
granulate; frontal depression strongly transversely striate, with a 
distinct median carina. Antennae 11-jointed; articulate joint of 
scape fully one-third as long as the scape itself; scape slender, as long 
as next three joints combined; funicle 1 rather longer than pedicel, 
fully twice as long as its greatest width, 2 as wide as long, 3 wider 
than long; club 6-jointed, joint 2 quadrate, the others wider than 
long. Thorax stout; scutum and scutellum coarsely rugose. Fore- 
wings reaching a little beyond apex of abdomen; not very broad; 
hyaline; venation pale; marginal vein one-half as long as the long 
slender stigmal vein; postmarginal nearly twice as long as the stig- 
mal. Abdomen broadly oval, no longer than its greatest width, not 
truncate posteriorly ; segment 2 fully twice as long as the following 
united; 1 and base of 2 strongly striate, the striae continued deli- 
cately for two-thirds length of the latter; 3 and following minutely 
punctured. Length, 1°75 mm. 


Five females from ‘‘ Dehra Dun, Northern India.” 

Type in the British Museum. 

Allied to comperei Crawford from China, but its much 
larger size and coarse sculpture of the head distinguish 
carunifrons. 


Telenomus barrowi, n. sp. 


9. Black; coxae black, femora brown, tibiae and tarsi yellow; 
antennal scape brown. 

Head transverse, a little wider than thorax; occipital margin 
feebly concave; vertex densely granulate, the frons densely punc- 
tate; frontal depression non-carinate, transversely striate; eyes 
large, bare; ocelli almost in a line, the lateral pair against eye 
margins. Antennae Il-jointed; articulate joint of scape short; 
scape slender, as long as next three joints combined; pedicel hardly 
twice as long as its greatest width; funicle 1 distinctly longer than 
pedicel and nearly four times as long as its greatest width, 2 one-half 
as long as 1, 3 quadrate; club 6-jointed, the joints wider than long, 
2 the widest. Thorax stout; scutum and scutellum densely some- 
what longitudinally rugose and with some pubescence; pleurae 
smooth and shining in centre, foveate around margins. Tore-wings 
reaching somewhat beyond apex of abdomen; broad, the apex 


Exotic Proctotrupoidea. 357 


broadly rounded; hyaline; venation yellow; marginal vein one- 
third as long as the stigmal vein which is long and slender; post- 
marginal not twice-as long as the stigmal. Abdomen broadly oval, 
no longer than its greatest width; segment 2 occupying most of sur- 
face; 1 and base of 2 strongly striate, 2 otherwise finely striate, its 
posterior margin smooth, the others finely punctate. Length, 2mm. 


Described from one female bred from ege of a Sphingid, 
Dalhousie, N.W. India, Sept. 1906 (H. J. W. Barrow). 

Type in the British Museum. 

At once differing from compere: and carinifrons in the 
short articulate joint of the scape. A fine large species. 


Telenomus frenchi, n. sp. 


9, Black; coxae black, femora piceous, tibiae and tarsi yellow; 
antennae piceous. 

Head a little wider than thorax; occipital margin faintly concave ; 
eyes large, with a little short pubescence; ocelli wide apart, the 
lateral pair near the eye margins; frontal depression shallow; vertex 
finely reticulate or coriaceous, the frons smooth and shining. Anten- 
nae 11-jointed; scape as,long as next four joints combined; pedicel 
twice as long as its greatest width; funicle 1 as long as pedicel, 2 
shorter, 3 and 4 quadrate; club 5-jointed, the joints wider than long, 
1 small, 2 the largest. Scutum and scutellum with fine pubescence, 
the former finely coriaceous, the latter practically smooth; median 
segment rugose at meson, smooth laterally. Fore-wings reaching 
well beyond apex of abdomen; broad, the apex broadly rounded ; 
hyaline; submarginal vein attaining the costa at about half-wing 
length; marginal vein one-third as long as the stigmal which is 
long and slender; postmarginal nearly twice as long as the stigmal. 
Hind-wings rather broad, their longest discal cilia equal to about 
two-thirds greatest wing width. Abdomen somewhat longer than its 
greatest width; segment 2 no wider than long, three times as long as 
the following united; 1 and base of 2 strongly striate, the rest 
smooth. Length, 0°70 mm. 


Described from eight females labelled ‘‘ Melbourne, 
Victoria; C. French.” 
Type and cotypes in the British Museum. 


Hoplogryon Ashmead. 


Hoplogryon Ashmead, Bull. U. 8. Nat. Museum, 1893, p. 200. 
Henwmorus Cameron, Soc. Ent. Stuttgart, 1912, poe 


I have examined the type of Hemimorus, and the genus 


358 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Notes on 


is identical with Hoplogryon. Cameron’s description is 
quite at fault; the marginal vein is long, the stigmal short, 
the postmarginal absent; postscutellum toothed; abdo- 
minal segments 1 and 2 short, 3 long. 


Hoplogryon rotundus, n. sp. 


©. Clear yellow-brown, the head black, the base and apex of 
abdomen dusky; legs wholly testaceous; antennal scape brown, the 
rest black. 

Head transverse, a little wider than thorax; wholly finely rugose 
or coriaceous; eyes large, faintly pubescent; ocelli small, very wide 
apart, the lateral pair against the eyes; fronsnotimpressed. Anten- 
nae 12-jointed; scape long and slender; pedicel one-half longer 
than its greatest width; funicle 1 as wide as pedicel and slightly 
longer, almost twice as long as wide, 2 as long as 1, 3 and 4 small, 
wider than long; club 6-jointed, the joints wider than long. Thorax 
hardly longer than its greatest width; pronotum not visible from 
above; parapsidal furrows not indicated; scutum and scutellum 
finely coriaceous and with fine short pubescence; scutellum trans- 
verse; postscutellum with a short acute spine; median segment 
short, its posterior angles with a short spine. Wings wholly absent. 
Abdomen broadly rounded; much wider than thorax; not more 
than one-half longer than its greatest width; segment 1 very short 
and transverse, 3 occyuping half of surface; 1 striate; 2 with a few 
fine striae at meson; rest of 2 and all the other segments finely 
densely alutaceous and with short fine rather dense pubescence. 
Length, 1-5 mm. 


Described from one female labelled “ Madeira; Wollas- 
ton.” 


Type in the British Museum. 


Hoplogryon pilosiceps, n. sp. 


3. Black; prosternum, tegulae, anterior edge of mesopleurae, 
postscutellum, apex of thoracic spines, mandibles, and antennal 
insertions, deep red; base of abdomen slightly reddish; coxae 
fuscous, posterior tibiae and tarsi fuscous, rest of legs pale yellow; 
antennal scape yellow or brown, the antennae black. 

Head no wider than thorax; vertex very thin; frons a little 
convex, with a distinct carina running from antennal insertion to 
anterior ocellus; eyes moderate, a little pubescent; ocelli large and 
close together; head with fine rather dense white pubescence; vertex 
not sculptured; frons finely longitudinally striate. Antennae 12- 


Exotic Proctotrupoidea. 359 


jointed; nearly twice as long as the body, inserted on a level with 
centre of eyes; scape no longer than flagellar joint 2; pedicel very 
short, wider than long; flagellar joints long and filiform, pilose, 1 
somewhat shorter than 2,2—9 subequal. Thorax slightly longer than 
its greatest width; scutum and scutellum with some pubescence ; 
scutum finely densely punctate and with several oblique fine sulci and 
carinae on either side extending for one-third its length from posterior 
margin; scutellum very fine punctured at base, its posterior half 
smooth and shining, its posterior margin foveate; postscutellum 
foveate, with a very long central spine that is almost as long as the 
scutellum; median segment rugose and pilose, with a distinct short 
spine laterally; mesopleurae foveate along margins, striate against 
tegulae and sternum, smooth centrally. Fore-wings reaching some- 
what beyond apex of abdomen; broad; faintly dusky; venation 
fuscous; marginal vein long, the stigmal short and a little oblique ; 
postmarginal absent. Abdomen broadly rounded at apex; segment 
1 a little longer than its greatest width; 3 longest, wider than long, 
twice as long as the following united; 1 with four striae; 2 striate, 
smooth laterally and against posterior margin; 3 striate at extreme 
base, smooth mesally, laterally with fine pubescence and with traces 
of fine striae, 4-6 with fine pubescence. Legs slender. Length, 
2°5 mm. 


Described from two males labelled ‘‘ 5000—7000 feet, 
Tjibodas, Java, Aug. 1913; Dr. Konigsberger.” 
Type and cotype in the British Museum. 


Trimorus politiceps, n. sp. 


6. Black; postscutellum deep red; base of abdomen somewhat 
reddish; mandibles and antennal insertions yellow; legs, including 
the coxae, yellow a little suffused dusky; antennae black, the scape 
brown. 

Head transverse; vertex very thin; smooth and shining, without 
sculpture or pubescence; lower half of frons longitudinally striate ; 
no carina on frons. Antennae 12-jointed, nearly twice as long as the 
body, inserted on a level with lower eye margins; scape no longer 
than flagellar joint 1; pedicel very short, wider than long; flagellar 
joints long, filiform, pilose, and subequal. Parapsidal furrows 
delicate, complete, and almost parallel; median lobe of scutum 
rather coarsely confluently punctate, also base of scutellum ; lateral 
lobes of scutum and the scutellum (except at base) smooth, shining, 
without sculpture; postscutellar spine acute, not long; median 
segment with blunt lateral teeth; pleurae smooth centrally, foveate 
along margins. Fore-wings reaching beyond apex of abdomen; 


\ 


360 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Notes on 


broad; a little dusky; venation fuscous; marginal vein long, the 
stigmal short. Abdomen broadly rounded posteriorly; segment 1 
hardly wider than long; 3 longest, wider than long, a little longer 
than the following united; 1 and 2 striate, the latter smooth against 
posterior margin; 8 striate at meson at base, with a few small 
setigerous punctures; 4 and 5 with a row of setigerous punctures at 
base. .Legs slender. Length, 2°25 mm. 


Described from one male labelled ‘‘ 5000-7000 feet, 
Tyibodas, Java, Aug. 1913; Dr. Konigsberger.” 
Type in the British Museum. 


Trimorus politus, n. sp. 


6. Black; basal abdominal segment yellow; antennae black, 
the scape suffused with yellow; legs yellow, a little dusky. 

Head transverse, the vertex thin; smooth and shining, without 
sculpture; frons with a median carina that does not reach anterior 
ocellus. Antennae rather longer than the body; 12-jointed; scape 
normal; pedicel no longer than its greatest width; flagellar joints 
long, filiform, pilose, 1 and 2 a little shorter than 3, 3-10 about sub- 
equal, 3 a little excised on one margin. Thorax smooth and shining, 
without sculpture; parapsidal furrows distinct and complete; 
scutellum finely foveate at anterior and posterior margins ;. postscu- 
tellar tooth very short; median segment with a small blunt tooth at 
posterior angles. Fore-wings extending well beyond apex of abdo- 
men; moderately broad; faintly tinted; venation yellowish, termin- 
ating not much beyond half-wing length; marginal vein about as 
long as the submarginal, the stigmal quite short. Abdomen short; 
broadly rounded posteriorly; segment 1 rather wider than long; 1 
and most of 2 striate, the rest smooth and shining. Length, 1 mm. 


Described from one male labelled ‘‘ 5000-7000 feet, 
Tjibodas, Java, Aug. 1913; Dr. Konigsberger.” 
Type in the British Museum. 


GRYONOIDES, ni. gen. 


Head transverse, the vertex thin; frons not depressed; eyes 
large, bare; ocelli well separated from the eyes. Antennae inserted 
well above the mouth, 12-jointed; in the female the funicle joints 
elongate, the club 6-jointed; in the male the flagellum very long and 
pilose. Thorax stout; parapsidal furrows present; scudellum with 
two long spines, wide apart and near posterior margin; postscutellum 
with a long spine; posterior angles of median segment acute. Fore- 
wings long; marginal vein long, several times as long as the short 


Exotic Proctotrupoidea. 361 


stigmal vein; postmarginal, basal, and median veins absent. Abdo- 
men narrowed at base; broadly rounded posteriorly; segment 3 
somewhat the lengest; basal segment without a horn or protuberance 
in the female. Legs slender. 


At once differing from the other genera of the Teleasinae 
in having the scutellum spined. 
Type, G. pulchellus. 


Gryonoides pulchellus, n. sp. 


9. Head black; thorax rich reddish-brown; abdomen black, 
the third segment orange; legs yellow; antennal scape black, red 
at base, pedicel fuscous, funicle 1 and 2 fulvous, 3 paler yellow, 4 
fuscous, the club black. 

Vertex and occiput smooth; frons with dense silvery pubescence, 
the lower half with striae converging toward mouth; lateral ocelli 
farther from the eyes than from the median ocellus. Articulate 
joint of scape rather long; scape long and slender; pedicel one-half 
longer than its greatest width; funicle 1 twice as long as pedicel, 2 as 
long as 1, 3 shorter, 4 a little longer than wide; club slender, the 
joints quadrate. Scutum and scutellum rather coarsely rugose with 
a longitudinal tendency; parapsidal furrows not easily discernible 
on account of the sculpture; spines on scutellum long but much 
shorter than the very long spine on postscutellum. Fore-wings 
reaching somewhat beyond apex of abdomen; broad; hyaline; 
venation fuscous; marginal vein somewhat shorter than the sub- 
marginal. Abdomen one-half longer than its greatest width; basal 
segment fully as long asits greatest width, 3 longer than the following 
united; 1, 2 (except posteriorly), and extreme base of 3, striate, the 
rest smooth; sides and apex of 3 and the following segments with 
fine scattered pubescence. Length, 2 mm. 


Described from one female labelled “'Teapa, Tabasco, 
Mexico; H. H. Smith.” 


Type in the British Museum. 


Gryonoides glabriceps, n. sp. 


3. Black; thorax and base of abdomen slightly suffused reddish ; 
legs wholly yellow; antennal scape yellow. 

Vertex, occiput, and frons smooth, the latter not pubescent 
except for a few setae around mouth; lower half of frons with a few 
converging striae. Antennae very long, over twice as long as the 
body; scape somewhat thickened at middle; pedicel very short ; 
flagellar joints very long and slender, pilose; 3 with a slight excision 


362 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Notes on 


at base; 2 one-half longer than 1, 3 the longest and a little longer 
than 2. Structure of thorax and wings as in pulchellus. Abdomen 
as in pulchellus, but the striae at meson of segment 3 are continued 
for some distance, and only a few setae are present on apical seg- 
ments. Length, 1°75 mm. 


Described from two males labelled « Teapa, Tabasco, 
Mexico; H. H. Smith.” 
Type and cotype in the British Museum. 


Gryonoides scutellaris, n. sp. 


3. Black; spines on thorax, and the legs, yellow; base of scape 
red. 

Structurally similar to pulchellus. Antennae as in glabriceps but 
rather stouter, the hairs on the flagellum shorter. Length, 2 mm. 


Described from two males labelled ‘‘ Atoyac, Vera Cruz, 
Mexico; H. H. Smith.” 

Type and cotype in the British Museum. 

Owing to the very great colorational differences, I cannot 
consider this species to be the other sex of pulchellus; as 
far as my experience goes, the sexes do not usually differ 
in colour to any great extent. 


Acolus diversus Wollaston. 


Telenomus diversus Woll., Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 1858, 
p. 26. 
Telenomus flavicornis Woll., ibidem, p. 26. 


I have seen the types; the species certainly should 
belong here; flavicornis is the male sex of dwersus. 


Ceratobaeoides (Ceratobaeus) turneri, n. sp. 


Q. Dull black; base of second abdominal segment yellow; legs 
brown, the tibiae and tarsi yellow; antennae brown, the club black. 

Head transverse, wider than the thorax; occipital margin con- 
cave; very finely and densely rugose or coriaceous; eyes large, bare ; 
ocelli wide apart, the lateral pair close to the eyes; frons not de- 
pressed. Antennae short; scape long and slender; pedicel about 
twice as long as its greatest width ; funicle joints distinctly narrower, 
1 a little longer than wide, 2-4 much wider than long; club large, 
oval, twice as long as its greatest width, apparently 4-jointed, the 
divisions oblique and indistinct. Thorax short, hardly longer than 


Exotic Proctotrupoidea. 363 


wide; scutum large, without furrows; scutellum short, transverse ; 
secutum and scutellum sculptured like the head; median segment 
hidden by the abdominal horn, unarmed. Fore-wings hardly 
reaching apex of abdomen; moderately broad; slightly fumated ; 
discal cilia fine and dense; marginal cilia quite short; venation 
eS, ; marginal vein rather more than half as long as the stigmal, 
which is rather long; postmarginal and basal veins not developed. 
Abdomen depressed; elongate conic-ovate, distinctly longer than 
head and thorax united; basal segment short, transverse, with a 
long horn projecting as far as the scutellum; segment 3 longest, 
rather longer than wide, but no longer than the following united ; 
1 and 2 striate and finely rugose between the striae, the rest finely 
and densely reticulate-rugose; horn on basal segment rugose at 
base, smooth and shining at apex. Length, 1:25 mm. 


Described from one female labelled “‘ 1100 feet, Kuranda, 
N. Queensland, May 1913; R. EK. Turner.” 

Type in the British Museum. 

The third species of Ceratobaeoides Dodd. Of the 
Australian species of Ceratobaeus Ashmead, it runs near 
giraulti Dodd, but possesses a much longer abdomen than 
that species. I have much pleasure in naming the species 
after Mr. Turner, whose work on Hymenoptera is so well 
known. 


PROCTOTRUPIDAE. 


Proctotrupes turneri, n. sp. 


9. Shining black, the antennae concolorous; coxae black, the 
legs golden yellow; venation sooty black. 

Head with scattered minute punctures and pubescence; trans- 
verse; eyes large and bare. Antennae long and filiform, the joints 
longer than wide. Propleurae smooth, with a few striae in centre; 
mesopleurae smooth; scutum rather densely pubescent, also the 
scutellum, the latter depressed at base; median segment divided 
into two parts, the anterior portion long, finely rugose, with a dis- 
tinet median carina, the posterior portion shorter and coarsely 
rugose. Fore-wings long, broad, hyaline; stigma rather longer 
than wide; the radial cell distinct but narrow; radial vein longer 
than the stigma. Petiole not visible from above; abdomen slightly 
convex above from lateral aspect ; with a median groove and several 
short striae at base; smooth; oviduct filiform, no longer than body 
of abdomen. Length, 5 mm., to apex of oviduct. 

g. Femora dusky; otherwise like the female. Length, 4 mm. 


364 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Notes on 


Described from three females, one male, labelled “ Mt. 
Wellington, Tasmania; R. H. Turner.” 
Type and cotypes in the British Museum. 


Proctotrupes nitens, n. sp. 


9. Shining black; legs fuscous, the tarsi and base and apex of 
femora and tibiae, yellow; antennal scape yellow, the rest black. 

Head normal; vertex rather narrow; smooth and shining, and 
with microscopic punctures; below antennal insertion with distinct 
silvery pubescence. Antennalscape stout, about as long as funicle 1; 
pedicel very short; flagellum filiform, the joints slender, 1 about 
four times as long as wide, the penultimate joint twice as long as 
wide. Propleurae smooth, with several striae in centre ; mesopleurae 
wholly striate; metapleurae smooth for basal half, the rest finely 
rugose; scutum smooth and shining, without distinct pubescence, 
wholly gently convex; scutellum convex, depressed at base ; median 
segment gradually declivous, not divided, finely rugose and with a 
deep median longitudinal groove. Fore-wings long, broad; hyaline; 
with a deep smoky patch beneath the stigma; venation fuscous ; 
stigma large, as wide as long, the radial vein almost confluent with 
its distal margin, the radial cell thus subobsolete; basal, median, and 
recurrent veins faintly indicated. Petiole not visible; base of abdo- 
men without impressions or striae; abdomen compressed, with a long 
compressed oviduct, which is somewhat longer than the abdomen 
itself. Length, 6 mm. to apex of oviduct. 

g. Antennae wholly black, the joints hardly as long as in the 
female; smoky patch beneath stigma small; base of median seg- 
ment smooth on either side of median channel. 


Described from one pair labelled “ Yallingup, 8.W. Aus- 
tralia, Nov. 1913; R. E. Turner,” 
Type and cotype in the British Museum. 


Proctotrupes janthinae Dodd, 1915. 


One female, one male, labelled “‘ Mt. Wellington, Tas- 
mania, March 1913; R. E. Turner.’ Originally described 
from Victoria. In this species the median segment is not 
plainly divided, there being no distinct posterior declivous 
portion, the carinae not distinct, the short anterior areas 
smooth; scutellum deeply depressed at base. Male anten- 
nae wholly black; pubescent; joints 6-10 of funicle acute 
on one side apically. In these Tasmanian specimens the 
radial vein is practically confluent with the stigma, the 
radial cell thus subobsolete. 


Exotic Proctotrupoidea. ~ 365 


Proctotrupes gravidator Linné, var. partipes, n. var. 


6: Head, thorax (including the tegulae), petiole, and extreme base 
of abdomen, black; abdomen blood-red, dusky at apex; antennae 
wholly black; coxae black, also anterior femora, and posterior tibiae 
and tarsi; intermediate legs (except the coxae), anterior tibiae and 
tarsi, and posterior femora, red. 

Head transverse, with fine short dense pubescence. First funicle 
joint about five times as long as wide. Scutum and scutellum 
densely pubescent; parapsidal furrows wholly absent; scutum raised 
at meson ; median segment long, the posterior portion declivous but 
not abruptly so, wholly densely reticulately rugose, with a long 
median carina, the anterior portion separated from the posterior 
portion by a faint transverse carina; propleurae densely pubescent 
and with fine dense reticulate rugosity, also the mesopleurae except 
for posterior half of dorsal portion which is smooth; metapleurae 
rugose. TFore-wings long, broad, faintly tinted; venation fuscous ; 
stigma somewhat longer than its greatest width; radial cell narrow; 
the radial vein curved, no longer than the stigma, continued as a 
brown straight line proximad; other veins, except the submarginal, 
present as yellowish lines. ‘Tarsal claws simple; large spur on hind 
tibiae one-fourth as long as basal tarsal joint. Petiole somewhat 
longer than wide, rugose ; base of abdomen strongly striate ; abdomen 
at apex with a long bidentate genital process. Length, 7-50 mm. 


Described from one male labelled, “‘ 5000 feet, Kashmir, 
N.W. India, April 1901; C. G. Nurse.” 

Type in the British Museum. 

With only the one sex, I have preferred to class this as a 
variety of the common European species, gravidator; the 
colour of the legs distinguishes it from other varieties of the 
species. 


Exallonyx orientalis, n. sp. 


°. Black; coxae black, the legs deep reddish-brown; basal three 
antennal joints red, the others fuscous; tegulae red. 

Head transverse, smooth and shining, pubescent. Antennae 
13-jointed; scape stout; pedicel very short, almost hidden by the 
scape; funicle 1 two and a half times as long as its greatest width, 
the others gradually shortening, the penultimate joint longer than 
wide. Pronotum very short, transversely striate; scutum and 
scutellum with fine short dense pubescence, without sculpture; 
parapsidal furrows not indicated; scutellum not at all depressed ; 
posterior half of median segment abruptly declivous, the whole 


366 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Notes on 


with a strong median carina, the anterior half subglabrous with sub- 
obsolete transverse rugosity and distinct lateral carinae, the posterior 
half rugose; propleurae smooth; mesopleurae smooth for dorsal 
half, the lower half pubescent; metapleurae coarsely rugose. Fore- 
wings long, broad, slightly tinted; venation fuscous; stigma semi- 
circular, longer than its greatest width; radial cell very narrow; 
radial vein longer than the stigma, continued as a brown line toward 
centre of wing; other veins, except the submarginal, marked by 
brown lines. Anterior and intermediate tarsal claws bidentate; 
large spur on posterior femora nearly half as long as basal tarsal 
joint. Petiole short, transversely striate; abdomen, including 
oviduct, hardly longer than the thorax; oviduct straight, not half 
as long as rest of abdomen; base of abdomen not striate, with a 
long median groove. Length, 7 mm. 


Described from one female labelled “‘ 5000 feet, Shillong, 
Assam, Sept. 1903; R. HE. Turner.” 
Type in the British Museum. 


Family CERAPHRONIDAE. 


Megaspilus mandibularis, n. sp. 


©. Golden-yellow or ochreous; eyes and ocelli black; legs 
wholly yellow; antennae fuscous, the scape yellow. 

Head rather wider than thorax; vertex rather broad; viewed 
from in front no wider than deep; dénsely rather finely reticulate- 
punctate; ocelli very close together; eyes rather small, densely 
pubescent; mandibles very large and conspicuous, bidentate, the 
outer tooth long and acute. Antennae 11-jointed; scape as long 
as next four joints combined; pedicel cupuliform, barely one-half 
longer than its greatest width; funicle 1 cupuliform, a little longer 
than its greatest width, 2-8 twice as wide aslong. Thorax somewhat 
longer than wide; scutum truncate anteriorly; scutum and axillae 
sculptured like the head; parapsidal and median furrows distinct; 
scutellum finely granulate and with moderately dense punctures; 
postscutellum with a stout tooth. Fore-wings reaching a little 
beyond apex of abdomen; broad; somewhat fumated; venation 
fuscous; marginal vein thickened for apical half; stigma semi- 
circular; stigmal vein almost twice as long as the stigma. Abdomen 
slightly longer than thorax, not twice as long as its greatest width; 
almost flat above, convex beneath; basal segment occupying a 
little more than half of surface, striate for its basal half, smooth for 
the rest; remaining segments finely pubescent. 

Posterior femora much swollen. Length, 2 mm. 


Exotic Proctotrupoidea. 367 


Described from two females labelled “ Bundaberg, 
Queensland, 1904; R. C. L. Perkins.” 

Type and cotype in the British Museum. 

Closely allied with another Queensland species, scabriceps 
Dodd, but the sculpture of the thorax is different. 


Conostigmus brunneipes, n. sp. 


. Dull brown, the antennae and legs concolorous, the tarsi 
yellow. 

Head normal, a little wider than thorax; densely finely coriaceous ; 
eyes large, with short pubescence; ocelli small, close together. 
Antennae 11-jointed; scape long and slender; pedicel over twice 
as long as its greatest width; flagellum hardly clavate; joint 1 
as long as pedicel, 2 shorter, 3-8 subequal and somewhat longer 
than wide, the apical joint twice as long as the penultimate. Thorax 
a little longer than its greatest width; with scattered setae; scutum 
and scutellum sculptured like the head, the former almost truncate 
anteriorly ; median and parapsidal furrows distinct and complete ; 
scutellum a little longer than its greatest width; median segment 
short, granulate. Wings rudimentary, mere flaps that reach to 
base of abdomen. Abdomen wider than thorax; about twice as 
. long as its greatest width; pointed at apex; striate at base; basal 
segment occupying rather more than one-half of surface; smooth 
and shining, and with subobsolete fine impressed reticulation. 
Length, 1°75 mm. 

6. Like the female, the wings rudimentary also. Pedicel short, 
no l6énger than wide; flagellar joints filiform, joint 1 three times as 
long as wide, 2-8 gradually shortening, 8 one-half longer than 
wide. Length, 1°50 mm. 


Described from one pair labelled “ Madeira; Wollaston.” 
Type and cotype in the British Museum. 


Conostigmus wollastoni, n. sp. 


9. Black; coxae black, femora and tibiae piceous, tarsi fulvous; 
antennal scape fulvous. 

Head a little wider than thorax; very finely and densely rugose 
or granulate; vertex twice as wide as long; eyes large, bare; ocelli 
large, rather close together, the lateral pair nearer the anterior 
ocellus than to the eye margins. Antennae I1-jointed; scape 
slender; pedicel distinctly shorter than following joint; flagellum 
non-clavate, joint 1 twice as long as wide, 2-8 subequal and a little 
longer than wide. Thorax stout; pronotum not visible from above ; 


368 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Notes on 


scutum, scutellum, and axillae wholly densely finely coriaceous; 
anterior angles of scutum subacute; median and parapsidal furrows 
distinct and complete; axillae meeting at, base of scutellum; 
scutellum large; median segment declivous. Fore-wings long and 
broad; hyaline, with an oblong sooty patch beneath whole of 
stigmal vein; venation piceous; stigma semicircular; stigmal 
vein one-half longer than stigma, hardly curved. Abdomen hardly 
longer than its greatest width; almost flat above, convex beneath; 
smooth and shining, striate at base; basal segment longer than the 
rest united. Length, 2°50 mm. 


Described from two females labelled ‘St. Helena; 
Wollaston.” 


Type and cotype in the British Museum. 


Conostigmus rufinotum Dodd. 


One female from Bundaberg, Queensland, 1904 se Ce di. 
Perkins). ‘ 


Conostigmus terrestris, n. sp. 


®. Ochreous, the legs concolorous; antennal scape yellow, the 
antennae otherwise piceous; eyes and ocelli black. 

Head hardly wider than the thorax; with fine punctures, each 
giving off a fine seta; eyes not large, faintly pubescent; ocelli very 
close together, with a shallow groove running from median ocellus 
to occipital margin. Antennae 1]-jointed; scape slender, as long 
as next five joints combined ; pedicel one-half longer than its greatest 
width; flagellum thickened toward apex, without a distinct club; 
joint 1 a little shorter than pedicel, 2-8 wider than long, the apical 
joint longer than the two preceding united. Scutum with fine 
punctures giving off fine setae; parapsidal and median furrows 
deep and distinct; scutellum and axillae with a few pubescent 
punctures. Wings wholly wanting. Abdomen distinctly wider 
than thorax; hardly longer than its greatest width; somewhat 
convex beneath; striate at base; with sparse pubescence; basal 
segment three times as long as the rest united. AII femora a little 
thickened; posterior tarsi no longer than their tibiae, their basal 
joint fully as long as the rest united. Length, 1:1 mm. 


Described from one female labelled “ Victoria; C. 
French.” 

Type in the British Museum. 

The first wingless species of the genus from Australia. 


Exotic Proctotrupoidea, 369 


Family BELYTIDAB. 


Paraclista antipoda, n. sp. 


. Black; scutum and scutellum deep red; legs wholly red; 
scape and pedicel reddish-yellow, the remaining joints dusky to 
fuscous. 

Head viewed from the side as long as high; viewed from above, 
the antennal insertion very prominent; with rather dense pubes- 
cence; eyes small, with a few setae; mandibles small. Antennae 
15-jointed; scape thickened, as long as next four joints combined ; 
pedicel one-half longer than its greatest width; flagellum not 
incrassate, joint 1 as long as pedicel, 2-12 plainly wider than long. 
Thorax smooth, with some long pubescence; somewhat flattened, 
wider than its greatest height; parapsidal furrows distinct and 
complete; scutellum with a large fovea at base; median segment 
with a plain median carina. Fore-wings long; broad; subhyaline; 
marginal vein long, fully as long as the closed radial cell, the stigmal 
vein short; recurrent vein short and straight; basal vein distinct, 
the median and discoidal faint. Petiole over twice as long as wide, 
rugose; abdomen depressed at base and with a median groove;, 
with scattered setae; segment 2 twice as long as the following 
united, 3-8 very short and transverse. Legs stout, the posterior 
femora much thickened. Length, 3°25 mm. 


Described from one female labelled “ Mt. Wellington, 
Tasmania, March 1913; R. E. Turner.” 

Type in the British Museum. 

Differs from aureipes in the colour of the thorax, and the 
rugose petiole. 


Paraclista aureipes Dodd. 


Meuselia aureipes Dodd, Trans. Royal Soc. S. Australia, 
1915, p. 393. 


I place this and the following species here on account of 
the flattened thorax; the thick posterior femora may be 
a sufficient character to form a new genus. 


Xenotoma albohirta, n. sp. 


Q. Shining black; anterior and intermediate legs, including the 
coxae, yellow; posterior coxae, tibiae and tarsi fuscous, the posterior 
femora yellowish; antennae black, the scape yellow. 

TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PART III, 1V. (DEC.) BB 


370 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Notes on 


Head normal; smooth and shining; with fine pubescence; 
antennal prominence distinct; mandibles long and crossed, one 
bidentate, the other tridentate, the outer tooth long and curved. 
Antennae 15-jointed; scape long and slender; pedicel hardly longer 
than wide; flagellum filiform, joint 1 one-half as long as the scape, 
2-12 gradually shortening, 12 somewhat longer than wide. Thorax 
smooth and shining, with fine white pubescence; parapsidal furrows 
complete and distinct; scutellum with a circular fovea at base; 
median segment with a plain median carina. Fore-wings reaching 
beyond apex of abdomen; broad; . hyaline; venation black; 
marginal vein long, the stigmal short, the radial cell closed and 
somewhat longer than the marginal vein; recurrent vein long and - 
curved, and directed toward the discoidal. Petiole slender, nearly 
four times as long as wide, carinate; body of abdomen twice as 
Tong as petiole; smooth and shining; depressed at base and with 
a long median groove; apical segments very short and transverse. 
Posterior tarsi rather longer than their tibiae. Length, 3 mm. 

g. Antennae 14-jointed, the flagellar joints shortening less than 
in the female. 


Described from four females, four males, labelled ‘‘ 5000— 
7000 feet, Tjibodas, Java, Aug. 1913; Dr. Konigsberger.” 
Type and cotypes in the British Museum. 


Pantoclis javensis, n. sp. 


. Head piceous; thorax rich chestnut; abdomen chestnut, 
somewhat dusky; legs yellow, a little dusky; first three joints of 
antennae reddish yellow, the remainder piceous. 

Head smooth, shining; cheeks with a few fine setae; eyes large, 
with a few setae; mandibles normal. Antennae 15-jointed; scape 
long and slender; pedicel a little longer than wide; flagellum hardly 
clavate, joint 1 twice as long as pedicel, 2 distinctly shorter than 
1, 3 subequal to pedicel, 4-12 subquadrate, 13 not much longer than 
12, somewhat longer than its greatest width. Thorax normal, 
smooth and shining, with scattered Jong fine setae; parapsidal 
furrows distinct and complete; scutellum with a deep circular 
fovea at base; postscutellum short, unarmed; median segment 
long, unarmed, with a distinct median and lateral carinae. Fore- 
wings long, reaching a little beyond apex of abdomen; broad; 
subhyaline; venation fuscous; submarginal vein joining costa at 
fully one-half wing length; marginal vein not as long as the stigmal 
which is oblique; radial cell closed, several times as long as the 
marginal vein; recurrent vein short, the basal distinct, the median 
and discoidal faintly indicated. Hind-wings with one closed cell. 


Exotic Proctotrupoidea. 37] 


Abdomen composed of eight segments including the petiole; petiolo 
nearly twice as long as wide, with several carinae; body of abdomen 
conic-ovate, narrow and pointed at apex; smooth and shining, 
with a few setae on apical segments; striate at extreme base; 
basal segment fully twice as long as the remainder united. Length, 
2:5 mm. 


Described from four females labelled ‘‘ 5000-7000 feet, 
Tjibodas, Java, Aug., 1913; Dr. Konigsberger.” 
Type and cotypes in the British Museum. 


g. Colour varying to dull brownish-red. Antennae 14-jointed; 
wholly fuscous; pedicel no longer than wide; flagellar joints long 
and filiform, slightly decreasing in length, 1 slightly excised on one 
side at half its length. 


Four males labelled as the females. 


Procinetus apicalis, n. sp. 


2. Dull brown, apex of abdomen and the petiole lighter; head 
piceous; legs brown; antennal scape reddish, the three apical 
joints pale yellow, the rest fuscous. 

Head normal; eyes bare; head without setae, also the scutum 
and scutellum. Antennae 15-jointed; scape slender; pedicel 
somewhat longer than wide; flagellum gradually thickening toward 
apex, the basal joints long and slender, 1 hardly longer than 2, many 
times longer than wide, 11 and 12 quadrate, the apical] joint twice 
as long as its greatest width. Thorax normal, unarmed; parapsidal 
furrows deep and distinct, nearly parallel; scutellum with a deep 
circular fovea at base; postscutellum short; median segment long 
and smooth, with a median carina. Fore-wings long and broad, 
reaching a little beyond apex of abdomen; subhyaline; venation 
fuscous; marginal vein long, the stigmal short, the radial cell no 
longer than the marginal vein; recurrent vein short, the basal 
distinct, the median and basal faint. Petiole twice as long as wide, 
carinate; body of abdomen slender, conic-ovate; smooth and 
shining; basal segment more than twice as long as the following - 
united; oviduct distinctly exserted. Length, 2 mm. ; 


Described from one female labelled ‘‘ 5000-7000 feet, 
Tyibodas, Java, Aug. 1913; Dr. Konigsberger.”’ 
Type in the British Museum, also cotypes. 


g. Antennae 14-jointed; flagellar joints long, with long hairs 
which are three times as long as width of the joints, joints gradually 


372 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Notes on 


shortening. Apical abdominal segments short and _ transverse. 
Flagellum wholly black. 


Two males with the female. 
_ The only other species in the genus is from New Guinea. 


Pantolytoidea nigricans Dodd, 1916. 


Three females, two males labelled “Tasmania; A. M. 
Lea,” and “ Mt. Wellington, Tasmania, April 1913; R. E. 
Turner.” These agree very well with the description of 
nigricans Which is from New South Wales. 


Oxylabis wollastoni, n. sp. 


« 9. Chestnut-brown, the prothorax and mesothorax ochreous; 
legs brownish-yellow; antennae reddish-yellow, the apical half 
dusky. 

Head with numerous minute punctures and rather long fine 
yellowish pubescence; eyes moderate, hairy; ocelli small. An- 
tennae inserted on a frontal prominence; 15-jointed; scape long 
and slender; pedicel almost twice as long as its greatest width; 
funicle J distinctly longer than pedicel, 2 one-half as long as 1 and 
a little longer than wide; the last eight or nine joints form a slender 
ill-defined club, the joints as wide as long. Thorax about twice as 
long as its greatest width; pronotum a little visible from above; _ 
scutum and scutellum with yellowish pubescence like the head; 
parapsidal furrows deep and complete; scutellum with a deep 
transverse fovea at base; postscutellum with a short spine or tooth ; 
median segment smooth and shining, pubescent laterally, with a 
distinct median and lateral carinae. Wings rudimentary, extending 
to one-third length of abdomen; very narrow; hyaline; sub- 
marginal vein distant from the costa, the marginal and stigmal 
veins short; basal vein present, perpendicular; no other veins. 
Petiole one-half longer than its greatest width; body of abdomen 
ovate, pointed at apex, wider than the thorax, striate at base, its 
second third pubescent; basal segment three times as long as the 
following united, 3-6 transverse, 7 longer than its greatest width 
and as long as the preceding three united. Legs slender. Length, 
2-3 mm. 


Described from four females labelled ‘‘ Madeira; 
Wollaston.” 


Type and cotypes in the British Museum. 


Exotic Proctotrupordea. 373 


Family DIAPRITDAE. 


Hoptopria Ashmead. 


Syn. Hoplopriella Dodd, 1915, Trans. Roval Soc. of 8. 
Aust., p. 416. 


Hoplopria simulans Dodd, 1915. 


One female labelled “ Kuranda, \N. Qld., May 1913; 
R. E. Turner.” This is the type locality. 


Hoplopria fuscitegula Dodd, 1915. 


Five females labelled “Mt. Wellington, Tasmania, 
March 1913; R. EH. Turner.” This is the type locality. 


Hoplopria aterrima, n. sp. 

2. Black; legs black, hardly suffused with red, the tarsi fulvous ; 
antennae black. 

Head subquadrate; a carina runs from the occipital margin 
through the median ocellus terminating in an acute short projection 
above the antennal prominence; interior eye margins carinate, 
these carinae terminating subacutely in a line with the termination 
of the median carina, so that from dorsal aspect the frons has three 
acute short teeth; cheeks with large punctures, also a row of 
punctures along occipital margin, two rows along inner eye margins, 
and a few punctures between these rows and the ocelli; no punctures 
on frons below anterior ocellus, this area finely alutaceous. An- 
tennae 13-jointed; scape covering base of pedicel and bispinose ; 
pedicel one-half longer than its greatest width; funicle 1 rather 
longer than the pedicel, the others gradually shortening; last 
five joints forming a club, each wider than long. Pronotum short, 
striate; scutum and scutellum smooth and shining, with a few 
small punctures; parapsidal furrows deep and complete; lateral 
lobes of scutum feebly depressed, with a foveate groove against the 
tegulae; scutellum at base with two circular foveae close together, 
a long shallow fovea along each lateral margin, a small fovea against 
each tegula, its posterior margin foveate; median segment with a 
stout curved spine at base. Fore-wings reaching apex of abdomen; 
broad; fuscous; venation blackish; marginal vein almost puncti- 
form, thickened, the stigmal vein oblique; basal and median veins 
faint. Petiole over one-half as long as rest of abdomen, four times 
as long as wide, carinate; body of abdomen smooth and shining, 
conic-ovate, raised from the petiole, without striae or impressions 


374 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Notes on 


at base; basal segment four times as long as s the rest united. 
Length, 2°50 mm. 

3g. Like the female. Antennae 13-jointed, a little longer than 
the body; pedicel short; funicle joints cylindrical, subequal, not 
excised. 


Described from one pair from Kuching, Borneo (J. 
Hewitt), and labelled “ Brachyaulax striaticollis Cameron.” 

Type and cotype in the British Museum. 

The genus Hoplopria Ashmead has not formerly been 
known from Asia; however, Kieffer has described four 
species of Odontopria Kieffer from Java and Sumatra, but 
for that genus he does not mention the scape being produced, 
and I do not understand what his character of the ““scutum 
with four grooves ”’ represents. 


Hoplopria wallacei, n. sp. 


®. Black; tegulae and legs deep-red; antennae wholly black. 

Head normal, smooth and shining; ocelli on a prominence. 
Antennae inserted on a frontal prominence; 13-jointed; scape 
long and slender, produced at apex and covering base of pedicel; 
pedicel cupiliform, one-half longer than its greatest width; flagellum 
without a distinct club, the apical joints a little thickened, joint 1 
distinctly longer than pedicel, about three times as long as wide, 
2 distinctly shorter than 1, 3-10 gradually shortening, 8-10 quadrate, 
the apical joint twice as long as the penultimate. Thorax normal; 
scutum and scutellum smooth and shining; parapsidal furrows 
complete and distinct; median lobe of scutum with two shallow 
depressions anteriorly, the lateral lobes distinctly depressed; 
scutellum with two longer than wide foveae at base separated only 
by a line, an elongate fovea at either anterior angle, a long fovea 
along either side, and the posterior margin foveate ; median segment 
covered with short pubescence, with a raised carina at base. Fore- 
wings reaching apex of abdomen; subuniformly lightly yellowish; 
venation terminating in a triangular margin vein at one-half wing 
length; basal vein distinct. Petiole fully twice as long as wide, 
smooth and shining, with indications of carinae; body of abdomen 
ovate, no more than twice as long as its greatest width, the basal 
segment several times as long as the rest united; smooth and 
shining; the anterior margin straight. Length, 4°50 mm. 


Described from one female 1 in the Wallace collection from 


Buru, Hast Indies. 
Type in the Hope Collection, Oxford. 


Exotic Proctotrupoidea. 375 


Hoplopria obsoleta, n. sp. 


®. Black; tegulae and the legs wholly reddish. 

Head normal, smooth and shining, without punctures; eyes 
normal, bare; ocelli on a prominence, between this and the eye 
margins are two very obtuse carinae. Antennae 13-jointed; scape 
as long as next three joints combined, prolonged at apex; pedicel 
hardly as long as funicle 1; flagellum with the apical six or seven 
joints forming a club; funicle 1 twice as long as wide, 2 as long as 
1, the others gradually shortening, the club joints wider than long, 
the apical joint no longer than its greatest width. Scutum and 
scutellum smooth, without punctures; parapsidal furrows wholly 
wanting; scutum with a large shallow depression on either side, 
and two elongate shallow depressions at meson for anterior half; 
scutellum sub-carinate at meson, the basal foveae very large, circular, 
well separated, the lateral foveae small and inconspicuous ; median 
segment with a raised triangular scale at base. Fore-wings reaching 
somewhat beyond apex of abdomen; broad; subhyaline, somewhat 
dusky in centre but not conspicuously blotched or banded; venation 
fuscous, terminating at half-wing length; marginal vein short. 
Petiole of abdomen over twice as long as wide, strongly carinate ; 
body of abdomen conic-ovate; pointed at apex; over twice as long 
as petiole; its anterior margin straight; its base without:striae or 
sulci; smooth and shining; basal segment several times as long as 
the rest united. Length, 3 mm. 


Described from one female labelled ‘‘ Omilteme, Guerrero, 
Mexico, 8000 feet; H. H. Smith.” 

Type in the British Museum. 

Distinguished from all other American species by the 
non-patterned wings and absence of parapsidal furrows. 


Hoplopria affinis, n. sp. 

2. Black; legs wholly red, also the tegulae and basal seven 
antennal joints. 

Closely allied to obsoleta, but distinctly smaller; thorax somewhat 
flattened ; lateral depressions of seutum feeble, the medial pair only 
present against anterior margin; foveae at base of scutellum not 
so large; petiole barely twice as long as wide; funicle joints shorter, 


2 distinctly shorter than 1, 3 only slightly longer than wide. Length, 
2mm. 


Described from two females labelled “ Teapa, Tabasco, 
Mexico; H. H. Smith.” 


Type and cotype in the British Museum, 


376 | Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Notes on 


Hoplopria caniculata Cameron. 


Paramesius caniculatus, Cameron, Biol. Cent. America, 
1888, p. 439. 


Three females labelled “ Teapa, Tabasco, Mexico; 
H. H. Smith.” 


Neurogalesus carinatus Kieftler. 


Tn the British Museum besides the type, are two females 
labelled “‘ Mackay, Qld., R. E. Turner,” and one female 
labelled “Sydney.” The species is closely allied with 
dissimilis Dodd and rubripes Dodd, differing from both 
in having a sulcus or depression on either side of the median 
groove at base of abdomen. The pedicel is shorter than 
the first funicle joint; the legs are deep red, the femora 
dusky; the antennae except the black club are also deep 
red. 

Spilomierus Westwood. 
Bothriopria Dodd, Trans. Royal Soc. 8. Australia, 1915, 
p- 406. 


The Australian species of Bothriopria should fall here, 
the obscure foveae along margins of scutellum not being a 
distinctive character. 


Spilomicrus unicolor Dodd. 


Bothriopria unicolor Dodd, Trans. Royal Soc. 8. Australia, 
1915, p. 407. 

Two males, two females from Bundaberg, Queensland 
(R. C. L. Perkins). 


Hemilexis gracilis Dodd. 


Spilomicrus gracilis Dodd, Trans. Royal Soc. 8. Australia, 
1915, p. 402. 


This species should fall here ; the abdomen is subtruncate 
at apex; the stigmal vein is quite distinct. I have seen 
a female taken at Bundaberg, Queensland, 1904 (R. C. L. 
Perkins). 


Exotic Proctotrupordea. 377 


Hemilexis truncata Dodd, 1915. 


One female labelled “ Mt. Wellington, Tasmania; R. H. 
Turner.” This is the type locality. 


Hemilexis paucisetis, n. sp. 


9. Black, the antennae concolorous; coxae, femora, and tibiae, 
dusky brown, the tarsi yellow. 

Head subquadrate, a little wider than long; smooth and shining; 
with scattered long slender setae. Antennae 13-jointed, the joints 
with rather long setae; scape slender; pedicel twice as long as its 
greatest width; funicle 1 twice as long as its greatest width, 6 as 
long as wide; club 5-jointed, 1-4 plainly wider than long. Thorax 
smooth and shining; scutum with a few long setae; parapsidal 
furrows deep and complete; scutellum with two circular foveae at 
base; median segment with an acute raised scale or tooth at base. 
Fore-wings reaching well beyond apex of abdomen; broad; a 
little dusky; venation fuscous, terminating in a short triangular 
marginal vein at almost one-half wing length; basal vein distinct. 
Petiole about three times as long as wide; carinate; body of 
abdomen short, not much longer than its greatest width, its base 
raised from the petiole, its apex abruptly truncate from lateral 
aspect; smooth and shining; without impressions or striae at base. 


Described from one female labelled “ Mt. Wellington, 
Tasmania, March 1913; R. KE. Turner.” 

Type in the British Museum. 

This is very distinct from the other Australian species. 


Bakeria rugosa, n. sp. 


®. Black; scutellum deep red; body of abdomen fuscous; legs 
wholly reddish-yellow; first six antennal joints yellow, the next two 
dusky, the others black. 

Head normal, smooth and shining, without sculpture, the occiput 
pilose; eyes with a very few setae; ocelli close together, on a small 
prominence. Antennae 13-jointed; scape slender, not produced 
at apex; pedicel twice as long as its greatest width; flagellum with 
the last six joints feebly and gradually thickened; funicle 1 distinctly 
longer than pedicel, 2 shorter than 1; club joints no wider than long, 
the apical joint nearly twice as long as the penultimate. Thorax 
plainly convex above; scutum and scutellum densely and coarsely 
rugose-punctate; parapsidal furrows complete; scutellum convex, 
without foveae, but depressed at its base; median segment as long 


378 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Notes on 


as scutellum, without a median scale or tooth, coarsely rugose. 
Fore-wings reaching apex of abdomen; broad; hyaline along its 
margins except distad, for the rest a little brownish, but not dis- 
tinctly banded or blotched; venation reddish, terminating a little 
beyond half-wing length; marginal vein long, several times as long 
as the short stigmal; basal vein very distinct, the median vein 
present distad of basal vein and not reaching the posterior wing 
margin, no longer than the basal. Petiole very long, many times 
as long as wide, as long as body of abdomen, carinate, its basal half 
eoarsely rugose; body of abdomen conic-ovate; ‘smooth and 
shining; with a median sulcus or depression for basal half; basal 
segment three times as long as the following united. Length, 3mm. 


Described from one female labelled ‘‘ 8000 feet, Omil- 
teme, Guerrero, Mexico; H. H. Smith.” 

Type in the British Museum. 

Bakeria Kieffer formerly contained one species from 
Central America; rugosa is a very distinct and peculiar 
species, and should possibly form a new genus. 


Paramesius longior, n. sp. 


®. Black; legs wholly deep red; apex of abdomen reddish; 
antennae red, the apical joints fuscous. 

Head normal; smooth and shining, with a very few long setae; 
frons straight from anterior ocellus to antennal insertion; eyes 
moderately large, with a very few setae. Antennae 13-jointed; 
long; scape very long, nearly as long as next four joints eombined, 
non-spinose at apex; pedicel almost twice as long as its greatest 
width; flagellum very gently incrassate, without a distinct club, 
joint 1 fully twice as long as its greatest width, 2-10 gradually 
shortening, 10 somewhat longer than wide, the apical joint twice as 
long as the penultimate. Thorax smooth and shining, with a few 
long setae; pronotum visible from above and truncate anteriorly ; 
scutum narrowed anteriorly; parapsidal furrows delicate, failing 
anteriorly; scutellum with one large circular fovea at base, a narrow 
fovea along each lateral margin; median segment with a plain 
median carina. Fore-wings reaching apex of abdomen; broad; 
stained yellowish; venation fuscous, terminating in a long slender 
marginal vein; basal vein not indicated. Petiole about four times 
as long as wide, carinate; body of abdomen not raised from petiole 
no wider at base than the petiole, gradually widening for more than 
half its length, then rather abruptly narrowing; segment 2 three 
times as long as the following united, 3-4 very short, apical segment 
long and narrowly pointed. Length, 4 mm. 


Exotic Proctotrupoidea. 379 


g. Abdomen rounded at apex, without a narrow cone. Antennae 
13-jointed, very long, twice as long as the body; black, faintly red 
at base; scape moderately long; pedicel as wide as long; flagellar 
joint 1 a little longer than wide, 2 about six times as long as 1, 
2-11 about subequal. 


Described from one pair from Kuching, Borneo (J. 
Hewitt), and labelled “ Brachyaulax rufipes Cameron.” 
Type and cotype in the British Museum. 


Pentapria chiriquensis Cameron. 


Paramesius chiriquensis Cameron, Biol. Centr. America, 
1888, p. 439. 


I have examined the type; the scutellum has three foveae 
at base. 


Neopria tinetipennis Cameron. 


Spilonucrus tinctipennis Cameron, Biol. Cent. America, 
1888, p. 440. 


Belongs to Neopria Dodd, agreeing with all the char- 
acteristics of that genus, which was formerly known only 
from Australia. 


‘Neopria pallida Ashmead. 


Idiotypa pallida Ashm., Jour. Linn. Soc. London, 1894, 
p. 248. 


There are three foveae at base of scutellum. 


Tropidopsis eclavatus Ashmead. 


I have one female labelled ‘‘ Teapa, Tabasco, Mexico; 
H. H. Smith.” The type is from St. Vincent. 


Mantra, 0. gen. 


3. 9. Head normal, subquadrate; eyes small, situated far 
forward; ocelli absent; mandibles small. Antennae inserted low 
down on the face, on a small antennal prominence; in the female 
12-jointed, with a 4-jointed non-abrupt club, the scape normal, 
not produced at apex; in the male 14-jointed, the flagellum gently 
clavate, the basal joints slender, the apical joints as wide as long. 
Thorax narrowed; neck of pronotum distinct; pronotum proper 
truncate anteriorly, and covered with dense pubescence; scutum 
with parapsidal furrows; scutellum small, without foveae, a little 


380 Mr. Alan P. Dodd’s Notes on 


depressed ; postscutellum not evident; median segment long, with 
two large spines or furcae springing from its base, these somewhat 
curved and horizontal, reaching the posterior margin of the thorax. 
Wings wholly absent in both sexes. Petiole rather longer than wide 
covered with dense pubescence; body of abdomen ovate, its anterior 
margin straight, without impressions or striae at base, the basal 
segment occupying almost all of the surface, the remaining segments 
minute. Legs normal, the tibiae and tarsi clavate. 


Type, the following species :— 


Mantara bifureata, n. sp. 

9. Dull black; legs and basal six antennal joints clear testaceous. 

Smooth and shining. Head, thorax, and abdomen with scattered 
fine setae; head distinctly wider than the thorax; abdomen wider 
than the thorax, fully twice as long as its greatest width. Scape 
long and slender; pedicel fully twice as long as its greatest width; 
funicle 1 a little shorter than the pedicel, 6 as wide as long; club 
joints 1-3 as wide as long, the apical joint fully twice as long as the 
preceding. Length, 1°75 mm. 

§. Similar to the female. Pedicel twice as long as its greatest 
width; funicle 1 a little shorter than the pedicel; apical six or seven 
joints a little widened, as wide as long. Length, 2 mm. 


Described from two females, one male, labelled “‘ Madeira ; 
Wollaston.” 

Type and cotypes in the British Museum. 

The peculiar structure of the median segment easily 
distinguishes this genus; the absence of wings in both sexes 
is peculiar; seeing the male alone one would certainly 
take it for a female on account of the non-filiform antennae. 


_ Trichopria acuminata Dodd, 1915. 


One female labelled “ Kuranda, N. Qld., May 1913; 
R. E. Turner.” The type locality. 


Xyalopria spinosiceps Kieffer. 


Two males, three females, of what I take to be this 
species labelled “Teapa, Tabasco” and “ Atoyac, Vera 
Cruz, Mexico; H. H. Smith.” 


Acidopria spinosiceps, n. sp. 
®. Dull black; Jegs deep red suffused with black, the tarsi 
fulvous; antennae reddish, suffused with black, paler toward apex. 
Head normal, smooth and shining, with two well separated sharp 


Exotic Proctotrupoidea. 381 


short spines behind the oceili. Antennae 12-jointed, without a 
well-defined club, the apical joints somewhat thickened; scape long 
and slender; pedicel a little longer than its greatest width; funicle 1 
as long as pedicel, 2-8 gradually shortening, 8 wider than long, 9 
distinctly larger than 8, quadrate, the apical joint one-half longer 
than the penultimate. Thorax normal; scutum and scutellum 
smooth and shining; parapsidal furrows wanting; scutellum with 
a more or less distinct median carina, at base with a large circular 
fovea; median segment with a raised triangular scale at base. 
Fore-wings reaching a little beyond apex of abdomen; broad; 
faintly infuscate; venation reddish, terminating in a triangular 
marginal vein at one-third wing length; basal vein wanting. Petiole 
over twice as long as wide, carinate; body of abdomen smooth and 
shining, one-half longer than the petiole, the basal segment three 
times as long as the following united. Length, 1°75 mm, 


Described from two females from Kuching, Borneo 
(J. Hewitt), and labelled respectively “ Brachyaulax pici- 
corms Cameron, type,’ and “ Brachyaulaz erythrocerus 
Cameron, type.” . 

Type and cotype in the British Museum. 

Acidopria Kieffer is represented by four Philippine 
and one Australian species; spinosiceps is distinct on 
account of the spines being on the vertex, not on the frons, 


Galesus muscidorum, n. sp. 


9. Black; antennae wholly black; legs bright red, the coxae 
dusky. 

Head hardly as long as its greatest width; produced between and 
before the eyes for some distance, this projection viewed from above 
with its anterior margin straight, its anterior angles acute, its lateral 
margins carinate; ocelli situated far forward; against the anterior 
ocelli are two short blunt projections and a smaller one a little 
lower down; vertex smooth and shining, somewhat roughened 
anteriorly; occipital margin finely foveate; eyes moderate, with a 
few long setae, their margins carinate; cheeks pubescent; mouth 
against thorax and directed backwards. Antennal insertion hidden 
by frontal projection; 12-jointed; scape long, rather stout, sulcate, 
apically on outer edge produced and covering base of pedicel, its 
inner angle acute; funicle 1 twice as long as its greatest width, 
2-4 moniliform and as wide as long; club 6-jointed, joints 1-5 
somewhat wider than long. Thorax normal; smooth and shining; 
parapsidal furrows widening posteriorly where they are separated 
by less than their own width; lateral lobes of scutum feebly de- 


382 Mr. Alan P. Dodd on Exotie Proctotrupoidea. 


pressed; tegulae large; scutellum with two large foveae at base, 
a smaller one on either side, and its posterior margin foveate. Fore- 
wings reaching well beyond apex of abdomen; stained yellowish; 
split mid-longitudinally from base to apex; without venation. 
Petiole distinctly longer than wide, pubescent laterally, its dorsum 
shining and tricarinate; body of abdomen ovate, about twice as 
Jong as its greatest width, with a median groove for one-third its 
length; smooth and shining; with scattered small punctures except 
at base, apically with a few long setae; basal segment twice as long 
as the following united. Length, 3 mm. 


Described from one female bred from Muscid puparium 
in breeding-ground of Glossina palpalis R. D., Uganda, 
Aug. 1910 (G. D. H. Carpenter). 

Type in the British Museum. 

Differs from female of silvestrii Kieffer in the shorter 
head and wholly black antennae. 


Aneurhynchus indicus, n. sp. 


Q. Shining-black; tegulae red; legs deep red, the coxae dusky; 
antennae black, the funicle suffused with red. 

Head transverse; smooth and shining, with a few fine setae; 
eyes rather small, with a few setae; antennal prominence feeble. 
Antennae 12-jointed; scape moderately stout; pedicel somewhat 
Jonger than its greatest width; funicle 1 nearly twice as long as its 
greatest width, 2 shorter, 3 as wide as long, 5 rather wider than long; 
club 5-jointed, joints 1-4 somewhat wider than long, the apical 
joint one-half longer than wide. Thorax smooth and shining, with 
a few minute setigerous punctures; parapsidal furrows profound, 
widening posteriorly; scutellum with two circular foveae at base; 
median segment with a plain median carina. Fore-wings reaching 
well beyond apex of abdomen; broad; subhyaline; venation 
terminating at half-wing length; submarginal vein plainly not 
reaching the costa; stigmal vein distinct and oblique; a long false 
radial vein; basal vein hardly indicated. Petiole a little longer 
than wide, carinate, between the carinae finely rugose; body of 
abdomen about twice as long as its greatest width, smooth and 
shining, with a few long setae, at base with a short median groove 
and a few striae; basal segment four times as long as the following 
united. Length, 2°5 mm. 

Described from one female labelled “‘ 4500 feet, Kangra 
Valley, N.W. India, April 1899; G. C. Dudgeon.” 

Type in the British Museum. 

The first Asiatic species of the genus. 


1/383) 


IX. The Scent-scale of Pinacopteryx liana Gr. Smith. 
By F. A. Drxry, M.A., M.D., F.R.S., Subwarden 
of Wadham College, Oxford. 


[Read June 4th, 1919.] 
Prats XVI: 


In a recent communication on the charina group of Pinaco- 
pteryzx,* mention was made of the remarkable scent-scale 
of P. liliana Gr. Smith, g. It is now proposed to give a 
fuller account of this structure, so far as its details can be 
made out in the absence of fresh material. 

As has been elsewhere recorded,} the outline of the 
lamina of this scale, when seen on the flat, resembles that 
of the thin glass flasks used in chemical laboratories 
(Pl. XVI, fig. 1). At the junction of the neck with the 
body of the flask there is a round or oval granular area (q@), 
which under moderate powers of the microscope appears 
dark by transmitted light, and usually shows a com- 
paratively transparent, highly refracting, roughly circular 
patch in the middle. The proximal part of the lamina is 
marked by a fine longitudinal ribbing, which loses distinct- 
ness as the central granular area is reached. Examined 
with a ;1,-inch immersion lens, each rib in the proximal 
dilated portion of the lamina has a varicose appearance, 
as if consisting of a row of very fine granules; these rows 
can be traced with some difficulty through the central 
area. Beyond the central area, and throughout the distal 
portion or neck of the lamina, the ribs are still visible, 
now parallel with each other and closer together; in this 
situation the ribs are finer and the varicose appearance is 
less marked. In the region of the central area, numerous 
additional granules come into view; these are somewhat 
larger than the rib-granules and are irregularly disposed. 
Their presence tends to obscure the regular ribbing of the 
scale; this, however, probably persists throughout the 
central area, being continuous in fact from base to apex 


* Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1918, p. 191. 
f Proc. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1912, p. cx, Pl. E, fig. 10. 


TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PARTS III, IV. (DEC.) 


384 Dr, F, A. Dixey on 


of the lamina. If the scale be stained with a solution of 
coal-tar “light green ”’ in alcohol and examined dry, the 
varicose ribs are shown with greater distinctness, and the 
central area is seen to contain a homogeneous body stain- 
ing deeply with the reagent; this body, hereinafter re- 
ferred to as the “ central substance,” corresponds with the 
highly-refracting patch visible in the unstained scale. 
The granules of the central area appear to be unstained; 
but the presence of the granules, and especially the deep 
coloration of the central substance, interferes with the 
tracing of the ribs in their course through the central area. 
If the stained scale be mounted in Canada balsam, it 
becomes so transparent that over the greater part of the 
lamina the ribbing can only be made out with difficulty. 
The central substance, however, is very clearly defined; 
and in its neighbourhood the ribbing and granules are 
fairly distinct. 

Further light upon the relation of the central substance 
to the general structure of the scale is afforded by some 
sections prepared with great skill by my friend Dr. H. 
Eltringham. Sections taken longitudinally through the 
fore-wing in a male specimen of P. liliana, stained with 
hght green and safranin and mounted in Canada balsam, 
show the wing-membrane stained a deep pink, with sockets 
on both upper and lower surface for the reception of the 
footstalks of the scales (Pl. XVI, fig. 2). Sockets of the 
ordinary character occur on both surfaces; but on the 
upper surface, in addition to these, there are visible the 
special sockets for the reception of the basal portion of 
the scent-scales; further reference to these special sockets 
and the articulating structure of the scale will be made 
later.* Many of the scent-scales are shown in section; 
sometimes the whole length of the scale is visible, from 
the portion engaged in the socket to the tuft of fimbriae 
at the distal extremity (Pl. XVI, fig. 3). In these cases the 
scale itself exhibits a pink staining, generally paler than 
that of the wing-membrane; while the central substance (c) 
is distinctly defined and stained blue, this colour being 
apparently the result of the combined action of the two 
staining reagents. The lamina of the scale (4) is for the 
most part extremely thin, but in the region of the central 
substance the upper and lower layers (a and b) separate 


* See p. 387, infra. 


The Scent-scale of Pinacopteryx liliana. 385 


from each other, giving rise to a cavity in which the central 
substance is seen in section as an oval or fusiform body in 
contact with the upper layer, a clear space being left 
between the central substance and the lower layer of the 
scale. The body itself tapers off distally and proximally, 
and frequently shows clefts in its substance which have 
no visible relation with any structural feature. In the 
neighbourhood of each of its thinned or pointed extremities 
there is an appearance as of a small accumulation of 
granules which seem not to share in the blue staining. 
These no doubt are the “ granules”? which were noted as 
visible in the scale mounted in balsam and observed on 
the flat, but it may be doubted whether they are due to 
anything more than irregularities of the surface of the 
lamina. 

Transverse sections under similar treatment show cor- 
responding appearances. In those sections that have 
passed transversely through the central substance, the 
clear interval between this substance and the lower layer 
of the scale is readily seen; the substance itself is fusiform 
in outline, and a similar or more marked appearance of 
unstained “ granules’’ occurs at each extremity. A faint 
beading on the upper layer in the region of the central 
substance indicates the delicate ribs seen when the scale 
is examined on the flat. Both beading and “ granules ” 
are probably the ridges or ribs of the upper surface of the 
scale in cross section. In a few cases the under surface 
of the cavity containing the central substance appears in 
transverse section to be slightly beaded. The nature of 
the central substance is uncertain, but the appearance it 
presents both in the stained and unstained condition is 
consonant with Dr. Eltringham’s suggestion that it repre- 
sents an accumulation of dried secretion. 

In scales that have been doubly stained in light green 
and safranin and mounted in Canada balsam, the footstalk 
and accessory disc are coloured pink, whereas the central 
body, as before noted, is stained blue or greenish blue. 
The latter colour is also generally to be found at the central 
region of the base of the lamina, this being the part which 
marks the insertion of the footstalk. 

When the scale is examined on the flat, with the lower 
surface uppermost, the accessory disc is usually seen to 
be superposed upon the lamina, the footstalk being so 
curved as to bring it into this position. If the upper 


TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PARTS III, IV. (DEC.) CC 


386 Dr. F. A. Dixey on 


surface is above, the condition is of course reversed, and 
the accessory disc is seen through the superposed lamina. 
In either case, the termination of the footstalk in the dise 
is quite abrupt, and is in apparent connection with a 
peculiar area of the disc, oval in outline and surrounded 
by a chitinous ring which seems to be beaded. This, as 
will be seen later, is probably an aperture. The distal 
end of the footstalk, at its junction with the lamina, is 
laterally expanded, becoming trumpet-shaped in outline. 
A longitudinal section shows that the lamina, footstalk 
and disc form an S-shaped curve; the footstalk being 
directed upwards from its origin in the disc, bending 
sharply over the upper margin of the disc, and then turn- 
ing downwards to reach the point where it passes into the 
lamina (Pl. XVI, fig. 1, c; fig. 4, e, a, 6). Here again 
there is a sharp bend (fig. 4, 6), the lamina itself being 
parallel with this distal portion of the footstalk. 

Some of the appearances presented by lamina, footstalk 
and dise are not easily interpreted; I think, however, 
that there is little doubt that the footstalk really arises 
from that surface of the disc which lies next to the wing 
membrane; that surface, consequently, which in the 
normal position of the parts is furthest from the lamina. 
What the relation may be between the origin of the foot- 
stalk and the chitinous oval rmg mentioned above is 
doubtful; I am strongly inclined, however, to think that 
while the footstalk arises from what may be called the 
ventral surface of the dise, 7. e. the surface which lies next 
to the wing-membrane, the chitinous ring bounds an 
aperture belonging to the other, or dorsal surface. In 
Ganoris rapae Linn., the footstalk has a marginal origin 
from the disc; and a notch or aperture is visible, indenting 
the margin at a point opposite to the origin of the foot- 
stalk.* If the dise of P. lana really possesses an aper- 
ture homologous with the aperture or notch in G. rapae, 
we must suppose that the disc in the former case is flattened 
at right angles to the plane of the disc in the latter. With 
respect to the interpretation of these appearances, it may 
further be noted that in many Pierine genera, e. g. Nephe- 
ronia, Pieris and Appias, the accessory disc can frequently 
be seen to carry an indentation similar to that in G. rapae, 
and like that feature, suggesting a proximal aperture. 


* See Proc. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1909, Pl. D, fig. 4. 


Lhe Scent-scale of Pinacopteryx liliana. 387 


When the wing-membrane of P. liliana has been de- 
nuded of scales, three kinds of socket for the reception of 
the footstalks of the scales come into view. Those for 
the ordinary scales are simple funnel-shaped structures, 
arranged for the most part in parallel rows nearly at 
right angles with the axis of the wing, and differing in 
aspect according to whether they belong to the upper or 
lower surface; those of the former being more amply 
surrounded by chitinous folds of the membrane, and go 
presenting a darker appearance. In addition to the 
ordinary sockets on the upper surface may also be seen 
the sockets of the scent-scales. These likewise run in 
parallel rows, between the rows of ordinary sockets. They 
are fewer in number than the latter structures, and easily 
to be distinguished from them; being larger in size, broader 
in shape and darker in aspect (PI. XVI, fig. 5, a, b,c). 
Kach terminates distally in a transparent crescentic chitin- 
ous lip, which is fringed with a row of spiny projections 
radiating from its convex margin. Proximally to the 
fringed lip the socket shows a dark opaque area, roughly 
oval or circular, which shades off into the general surface 
of the wing-membrane by a number of striations, parallel 
with the long axis of the socket, and apparently consti- 
tuted by chitinous folds. In longitudinal sections of the 
wing-membrane, the funnel-shaped contour of the ordinary 
sockets of both upper and lower surface is clearly seen ; 
it can also be recognised that the former are set at a some- 
what steeper angle to the membrane than the latter, 
which are more nearly in the plane of the wing (Pl. XVI, 
fig. 2, b, c). The sockets of the scent-scales are again 
easily distinguishable by their larger size and the pro- 
jecting lip, which is now seen in profile (fig. 2, d). A 
similar lip is visible on the side of the socket which abuts 
on the wing-membrane; the latter, however, projects from 
the main body of the socket to a much smaller extent than 
the former; it also appears to be devoid of the marginal 
row of spines. These lips may be called “ upper” and 
“lower” respectively; together they form a rim which 
appears to be continuous round the mouth of the socket. 

In a partially denuded wing examined on the flat, the 
accessory dise of each scent-scale is seen to be engaged in 
its appropriate socket (Pl. XVI, fig. 6). The disc is 
much larger than its receptacle, and the only part that is 
actually included within that structure is a semicircular 


998° Dr. F. A. Dixey on Pinacopteryx liana. 


or segmental area occupying the middle of the proxi- 
mal edge of the disc. When seen in longitudinal section, 
the disc appears to fit into a groove between the upper 
and lower lip of the socket; its proximal margin being 
curled over towards the lower lip, in contact with the 
main substance of the socket. In a fortunate section 
the footstalk may be seen to wind over the distal edge of 
the disc, and to lie in close juxtaposition with its lower 
surface (Pl. XVI, fig. 4). Before reaching the curled-over 
part of the disc it disappears, having apparently become 
fused with the dise about midway between the proximal 
and distal edges. I have never succeeded in identifying 
any appearance in these longitudinal sections as due to 
the aperture. In transverse sections, the ordinary sockets 
appear simply as chitinous rings, each enclosing a circular 
or oval lumen. The sockets of the scent-scales, besides 
being much larger, are distinguishable by the fact that 
they show a central body oval in outline and staining 
readily, in place of the orifice visible in the ordinary sockets. 
This central body is surrounded by a less deeply stained 
zone, also oval in outline, and somewhat irregular if the 
section has happened to pass through the socket near its 
insertion in the wing-membrane. In many of the sections 
the disc is seen as a beaded line crossing the socket in the 
direction of the long axis of the latter, and projecting for a 
considerable distance at each end (PI. XVI, fig. 7). Ihave 
never been able to satisfy myself that the footstalk is 
recognisable in these transverse sections. 

It is probable that the examination of material properly 
treated while fresh would clear up many points which are 
obscure in the dry condition. I am hoping that it may 
be possible to obtain in course of time some specimens of 
P. liliana which have been put at once into preservative 
reagents. Meanwhile the facts at present observed seem 
to be sufficiently interesting to be placed on record in this 
brief communication. 

I am greatly indebted to my friend Dr. H. Eltringham 
for the care and skill which he has employed in making 
the sections described and figured in the present paper. 


Westwood Bequest. 


Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1819 MP ae 


Fig. 6 


oe 
Fig. 5. s _-@ 
ae » “ in ©] x u 
Persea: fae 3 
y er a 
7 at 
Y 7, —) 3) Ra) a 
uv ey © 2 
7 ? ® g oF & . ? j= 
fae 


OF PINACOPTERYX LILIANA. 


F.A.D, del. 
SCENT-SCALE 


Explanation of Plates. 389 


EXPLANATION OF PLATE XVI. 


Fig. 1. The scent-scale of Pinacopteryx liliana Grose-Smith, viewed 
on the flat, x 500. 


a. Central granular area. 
b. Accessory disc, superposed upon the lamina, the scale 
being viewed from beneath. 
c. Trumpet-shaped distal expansion of the footstalk at 
its junction with the lamina. 
d. Aperture of the disc, surrounded by its chitinous ~ 


Fic. 2. Longitudinal section of fore-wing, x 500. 


a. Wing-membrane. 

b. Socket of ordinary scale of under-surface. 

C. a a i upper-surface. 

d. Socket of scent-scale, showing upper and under lip. 


Fic. 3. Longitudinal section of scent-scale and socket, x 500. 


a. Lower layer of scale. 

b. Upper layer of scale. 

c. Central substance, situated in the dorsal portion of 
the cavity enclosed between the upper and lower 
layers of the scale. 

d. Lamina of the scale. 

e. Junction of lamina with footstalk. 

J. Socket of scent-scale enclosing accessory disc. 

g. Wing-membrane. 


Fic. 4. Longitudinal section of scent-scale socket and footstalk, 
x 500. 


a. Footstalk, arising from about the centre of the ventral 
surface of the disc, and curling dorsally over the 
upper margin of the disc. 

b. Base of lamina close to the insertion of the footstalk. 

c. Wing-membrane. 

d. Socket, showing upper and lower lip. 

e. Accessory disc. 

Jf. Socket of ordinary scale of lower surface. 


390 Explanation of Plates. 


Fic. 5. Portion of denuded wing-membrane seen on the flat, x 310. 


a, a. Sockets of ordinary scales of upper surface. 
b, b. a K - lower surface. 
c, c. Sockets of scent-scales. 

d. Upper lip with chitinous spines. 

e. Dark opaque area of socket. 


Fic. 6. Socket of scent-scale with engaged accessory disc, seen on 
the flat, x 500. 
a. Accessory disc in outline. 
b. Aperture of accessory disc. 
c. Socket, showing upper lip with chitinous spines. 


lic. 7. Transverse section of socket of scent-scale with accessory 
disc in place, x 500. 
a. Wing-membrane. 
b. Socket. 
c. Accessory disc lodged in socket. 


i 


X. A new Hydroptila. By Marri E. Moss y, F.ES. 


[Read October 15th, 1919.] 
Puate XVII. 


Hydroptila simulans n. sp. 


A year or two ago, when collecting Hydroptilidae in the 
neighbourhood of the river Test, Hampshire, I found, one 
autumn, amongst a large number of Hydroptila sparsa Cutt., 
seven male examples which, though similar in general 
appearance to this species, showed considerable difference 
in the shape of the inferior appendages and a modification 
in the shape of the dorsal plate. Since then, some forty 
or fifty examples have turned up from the Test district, 
and one from the River Dove near Ashbourne. 

The species appears to be plentiful on the River Colne, 
in the neighbourhood of Uxbridge, Middlesex. 

In the accompanying notes on scent-organs in Hydroptila 
it will be seen that in H. simulans the form of this organ 
would alone warrant its separation from H. sparsa. 

The specimens were collected in fluid and then mounted 
in Canada balsam: I am consequently precluded from 
describing the living insect. 

The drawings were made from the preparations, the 
dorsal, ventral and lateral figures being from three 
different specimens. 


Description of the 3. 

Expanse, 53-63 nim.; abdomen, green or brown. 

Antennae about 31-jomted in the male, the head fur- 
nished with two large bivalvular lobes. 

The scent-organs, which are everted from beneath the 
lobes, take the form of two tubular filaments clothed with 
yellow hairs. When partly everted the hairs are gathered 
together into a dense golden pencil or brush. 

The dorsal plate is rather deeply excised and somewhat 
similar in form to that of H. sparsa, but the excision begins 
at the extreme angle of the plate, whereas in H. sparsa the 
hind margin is really produced from the hind angle and 
then abruptly excised. ‘Towards the base of the plate are 


TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PaRTs II, Iv. (DEC.) 


392 Mr. Martin EK. Mosely on a New Hydroptila. 


two slight projections. Two processes with the outer 
margins sinuate arise from the edges of the ninth segment, 
parallel with and on each side of the base of the dorsal 
plate. From a lateral aspect these side pieces appear to 
be triangular. The penis towards its apex is bent sharply 
round at right angles to the main stem, resembling in this 
respect several other species in the genus. The inferior 
appendages are large, and, viewed laterally, the extremities 
are seen to be considerably broadened and furnished with 
two dark warts, or blunt spines, which, from a dorsal or 
ventral aspect, appear, one at the extreme apex, and the 
other a short distance below it. From the side one wart 
appears on the upper angle, and the other a short distance 
from the lower angle along the lower margin. The upper 
margin is armed throughout its length with five or six 
widely separated spines or strong hairs. There is a hghtly 
chitinised ventral plate, somewhat excised towards the 
middle. 

I have not been able to distinguish the 9 from that of 
H. sparsa. 

For purposes of comparison, figures of the genitalia of 
both H. sparsa and H. simulans are given. 

I have in my collection two other British forms, slightly 
differing from H. sparsa in the shape of the dorsal plate and 
inferior appendages. Although I have four examples of 
each form, in none of them are the scent-organs everted. 
I am therefore deferring their description until more 
material comes to hand. 

I am indebted to Dr. H. Eltringham, who kindly made 
the drawings for the accompanying plate. 


EXPLANATION OF Piatre XVII. 


Fic. 1. Hydroptila simulans, 3. Genitalia from the side. 


a ug a 5 » above. 
3. = 35 , beneath. 
4, 9 5 Lobe of the head. 

5. an sparsa. Genitalia from the side. 

6. > 3 a » above. 

de a ie Ee , beneath. 


Westwood Bequest. Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1919, Pl. XVII. 


H. Eltringham, del. 


GENITALIA OF H. SIMULANS AND H. SPARSA. 


XI. Scent-organs in the genus Hydroptila (Trichoptera). 
By Martin E. Mose ty, F.E.S. 


[Read October 15th, 1919.] 


Prates, XVIII anp XIX. 


ScENT-ORGANS in the Trichoptera have so far attracted 
but little attention, and there are few references to them 
in the writings of entomologists. 

Packard in his “ Textbook of Entomology,’ p. 198, 
refers to the presence of scent-scales on the wing of Mysta- 
cides punctata. Scales, or thickened hairs, are found 
abundantly in the male sex on the maxillary palpi and in 
certain areas of the wings in some genera of the Serico- 
stomatidae, notably Lepidostoma, Silo, and Goéra, and 
they are also to be found on the wings of certain species 
of Setodes, Berea, Glossosoma and others. 

In Sericostoma the inner surfaces of the maxillary palpi 
of the 3 are densely clothed with masses of yellowish hairs 
or “ fluff.” It is suggested that these hairs form part of 
a system for the distribution of scent. A full description 
of the palpi is given by Bruce F. Cummings in the 
Proceedings of the Zoological Society of, London, 1914, 
pp. 459-474, and reference made to them by W. Miiller, 
“Archiv. f. Naturgesch.” 1887, pp. 95-97. I have failed 
to find further references to scent-organs in the Trichoptera. 

In Hydroptila the patterns of scent-organ are varied. 
In some species there are two eversible, tubular filaments, 
clothed with golden yellow or else black scent-hairs 
(Pl. XVIII, figs. 5 and 6; Pl. XIX, fig. 9); in another 
species there are four, without any hairs at all (Pl. XVIII, 
figs. 1, 2, and 3). The tubular filaments are probably 
everted by the action of fluid pressure. In some species 
scent-scales are present; in others, they have not as yet 
been made out. The scent-organ may consist of a mem- 
brane at the back of the lobes, which form so distinctive 
a feature of the genus. The membrane is capable of consid- 
erable dilatation and carries a few battledore scent-scales on 


TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PARTS II, IV. (DEC.) 


394 Mr. Martin E. Mosely on 


its surface (Pl. XVIII, fig. 4, and Pl. XIX, figs. 7 and 8). 
Accompanying this form of scent-organ are to be found 
two tufts of scent-hairs, similar in character to those 
clothing the eversible, tubular filament in the other pattern. 
The tufts originate in blunt, membraneous projections, 
apparently not eversible, situated towards the inner bases 
of the lobes, and developing out of a membrane which, 
in all species examined, stretches across the back of the 
head between the lobes. 

Whether all these varying characters should rightly be 
described as scent-organs, 7. e. distributors of scent, 1s a 
speculation into which the writer is not prepared to enter, 
but it appears just a little curious that in one compara- 
tively small order such as the Trichoptera so many diverse 
patterns of scent-organ should be found, varying even in 
the same genus according to the species, and all supposed 
to fulfil the same function. 

In this memoir it is proposed to give a brief description 
of the scent-organs of some of the species of Hydroptila, 
and it will be seen that the organs furnish reliable characters 
by which the closely resembling species of the sparsa form 
may be separated. In all species so far examined the head 
is furnished with two lobes varying in size and shape, in 
some species bivalvular. These lobes are erectile, are 
sometimes lined with scent-scales (Pl. XIX, fig. 10), and 
the scent-organs are all situated beneath them, or on their 
inner surfaces. When a tubular filament is withdrawn 
it is turned outside in, like the finger of a glove, 7. e. the 
apex is returned within the walls of the filament, so that 
when partly withdrawn or everted there is formed a re- 
entering cup at the extremity (Pl. XVIII, fig. 2). When 
a filament clothed with hairs is partially extended or 
retracted, the hairs are gathered together and protrude 
from the hollowed extremity in a dense yellow or black 
brush, according to the species (Pl. XVIII, fig. 5, and 
Pl. XIX, figs. 9, 10, and 11). 

In HA. femoralis this brush in its normal position rests 
in contact with the scent-scales lining the lobe, and no 
doubt, on being everted, distributes the scent collected on 
the hairs to the surrounding atmosphere. Possibly this 
arrangement may be found to exist in other species as 
well. 

The scent-organs occur in the male sex only. 


Scent-organs wm the genus Hydroptila. 395 


Description of Scent-organs. 


Hydroptila sparsa Curt. (Pl. XVITI, figs. 1, 2, and 3). 


The scent-organ consists of four eversible, tubular 
filaments arising from a membrane extending across the 
back of the head, between the lobes. Although an ex- 
amination has been made of a large number of individuals, 
I have as yet found no clear trace of scent-hairs. Two 
small groups of battledore scales are attached to the 
membrane towards the bases of the filaments. These 
scales differ in shape from those of the other species, 
having greatly elongated foot-stalks. 

The lobes appear to be merely bi-valvular caps, covering 
the membrane when the filaments are withdrawn. 


Hydroptila simulans Mosely (Pl. XVIII, figs. 5 and 6). 


There are two eversible, tubular filaments clothed with 
golden-yellow hairs. I have not been able to satisfy 
myself as to the presence or absence of scales on the inner 
surfaces of the lobes, which have somewhat the appearance 
of longitudinally bisected acorns with roughened inner 
surfaces. 


Hydroptila foreipata Eaton (Pl. XIX, figs. 7 and 8). 


The lobes are very narrow, and each is lined with a 
membrane capable of considerable dilatation. There is a 
ring of rather narrow striated battledore scales towards 
the junction of this membrane with the margin of the 
lobe. A membrane extends across the back of the head 
connecting the two lobes. ‘Towards the base of each lobe 
there is a slight swelling in this membrane, from which 
arises a bunch of scent-hairs, but there does not appear 
to be any eversible filament. 


Hydroptila maclachlani Klap (Pl. XVIII, fig. 4). 


In this species the scent-organ seems similar in construc- 
tion to that of H. forcipata. The scales on the membrane 
may perhaps be fewer in number, and the scent-hairs are 
inserted in funnel-shaped sockets. The lobes are even 
more narrow than in HZ. forcipata, and when in their normal 
position are pressed flat against the back of the head, 
inclining towards each other and nearly invisible without 
the aid of a powerful lens. 


396 Mr. Martin EH. Mosely on 


Hydroptila femoralis Eaton (Pl. XIX, figs. 9 and 10). 


The scent-organ consists of two eversible, tubular 
filaments clothed with black hairs; there are battledore 
scales very plentifully lining the cup-shaped lobes (Pl. XIX, 
fig. 10). When the filaments are retracted the hairs are 
collected together in a dense brush with their extremities 
resting against the scales of the lobes. The ends of the 
hairs are slightly broadened, and probably, as mentioned 
above, collect the scent matter and distribute it to the 
surrounding atmosphere when the filament is exserted. 


H. pulehricornis Pict. 


I have seen only two examples of this species, and they 
are both mounted in positions which do not permit of a 
high-power examination of the scent-organs. There are 
two eversible, tubular filaments clothed with black hairs as 
in H. femoralis, but I have been unable to ascertain whether 
there are any scent-scales present. 


Hydroptila occulta Eaton (Pl. XIX, figs: 11 and 12). 


In Hydroptila occulta the scent-organ is rather complex. 
There are two eversible, tubular filaments clothed with 
golden-yellow hairs. The lobes, which are rather narrow 
and blunt, are each lined with a membrane, and, towards 
the apex, this membrane can be slightly everted to form 
a secondary tubular filament. Towards its extremity 
this filament is clothed with elongated striated scales, 
but hairs, similar to those on the main filaments, are 
absent. 

Another cluster of these scales is found towards the 
base of the lobe, and a row of them occurs along the mem- 
brane which extends across the back of the head. At the 
apex of each lobe there is, in addition, a small group of 
striated battledore scales similar in shape to those of 
H. femoralis (Pl. XIX, fig. 12). 

There are, in addition, two described British species of 
Hydroptila—tigurina Ris., and sylvestris Morton—which I 
have never seen. There are also two undescribed British 
forms in my own collection which unfortunately do not 
display scent-organs sufficiently clearly for description 
here. One species certainly possesses a brush form of 
tubular filament, but a full description must be deferred 
until more material comes to hand. 


Westwood Bequest. Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond , 1919, Pl. X VIII. 


M. E. Mosely, photo. 


SCENT-ORGANS IN HYDROPTILA 


Westwood Bequest. Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1919, Pl. XIX. 


M. E. Mosely, photo. 


SCENT-ORGANS IN HYDROPTILA. 


Scent-organs im the genus Hydroptila. 397 


I have been fortunate in enlisting the interest of Dr. H. 
Hltringham, -M.A., D.Sc., F.Z.S., in these scent-organs. 
His admirable paper on a similar formation in the Danaine 
butterflies, with his splendid drawings, appeared in the 
Transactions of this Society in 1913, pp. 399-406, and in 
1915, pp. 152-176. I should like to express my thanks to 
him for the enthusiastic manner in which he has given 
his valuable time to the study of my preparations, and he 
has conferred a further obligation on me by promising a 
supplementary paper on the subject, elucidating the 
histological details of the structures. I have seen the 
rough outline of his notes, together with some beautiful 
drawings, and am grateful to him for thus filling in the 
gaps and omissions which, I fear, are all too plentiful i in 
the above descriptions. 


EXPLANATION OF PiatTE XVIII. 
Scent-organs of Hydroptila spp. 


Fic. 1. Hydroptila sparsa. Tubular filaments fully everted « 30. 


nes . Fis oa aa partly withdrawn 
x 36. 
35 5 a ie A fully withdrawn x 25, 
4, Ae maclachlani. From a dissection x 65. 
5. » simulans. Filaments partly everted x 30. 
6, Hy a a fully everted x 25. 
EXPLANATION OF PLatE XIX 
Scent-organs of Hydroptila spp. 
Fic. 7. Hydroptila forcipata x 25. 
8. 5 ss From a dissection x 105. 
9 *3 femoralis x 22. 
10. - = From a dissection (one filament re- 
moved to show scales) x 60. 
Jt o occulta. Filaments slightly retracted x 25. 
123 os Es Lobe, showing the secondary filament 


everted and the arrangement of the 
scent-scales x 116, 


( 398 ) 


XII. The Male Abdominal Segments and Aedeagus of Habro- 
cerus capillaricornis Grav. [Coleoptera, Staphylinidae]. 
By F. Morr. 


[Read October 15th, 1919.] 


PLATE XX. 


In 1911 Dr. L. Weber,* in an interesting paper, described 
and figured the male genitalia of a number of species 
of Staphylinidae, Habrocerus capillaricornis Grav., being 
among them. The figures and description of this species 
show that it departs so greatly from the normal Staphylinid 
type that the homologies of the terminal abdominal seg- 
ments and the aedeagus are not easily recognised. While 
Dr. Weber is correct in the main points, there are certain 
others which we consider of importance, such as the recog- 
nition of the membranous condition of the aedeagus, 
which he does not mention, and some of his interpretations 
we do not agree with. For these reasons, and for the 
interest attaching to the departure of a species from the 
normal type of a very large group of which it forms part, 
the following notes are published. 

In all the male Staphylinidae which we have examined 
with this one exception there are nine abdominal segments 
and an aedeagus. ‘The first tergite is in intimate relation 
with the metanotum, the lateral portion being longer 
than the middle and including the first abdominal spiracle, 
which is sometimes very large; the second tergite, which 
is often short, and the followimg seven are well defined. 
The first two sternites are mostly membranous and modi- 
fied to accommodate the hind coxae (as is the rule in the 
Coleoptera) ; the following seven are well defined. The 
hind margin of the eighth sternite is emarginate in some 
species. Hach of the first eight abdominal segments bears 
a spiracle. The eighth segment, in many species, is 
attached to the seventh by a large membrane, which 
allows of the former being drawn within the latter. The 
ninth segment is modified and differs considerably in 
different genera; it is attached to the eighth by a con- 
siderable membrane, which allows of great mobility. 

* “ Hests. Ver. Nat.,” Cassel, 1911, pp. 284-313. 

TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PaRTS III, IV. (DEC.) 


Mr. F. Muir on Aedeagus of Habrocerus capillaricornis. 399 


In Tachyporus solutus Erich., the ninth segment (figs. 1, 
2, 3) consists of four pieces, a large ovate sternite (IX), a 
pair of large subtriangular pleural plates (pp) meeting 
together on the dorsal aspect and overlapping the basal 
portion of the tergite (9) and connected by a slender strip 
on the ventral aspect, and a large dorsal plate whose basal 
area is overlapped by the pleural plates. In Leistotrophus 
we find a similar arrangement of segments, but the ninth 
difiers considerably (figs. 4, 5). The pleural plates (pp) 
are small and each bears a large style (s), on the ventral 
aspect they are connected by a narrow strip and on the 
dorsal aspect they are widely separated by the large 
tergite; a pair of large glands open on the connecting 
membrane (a) between the eighth and ninth tergites. 

What is here considered as the ninth tergite is con- 
sidered by some writers as the tenth tergite, but we can 
see no morphological reason for considering it so, and we 
have no information as to its ontogeny. The anus opens 
beneath the ninth tergite on a membrane which connects 
the aedeagus with the ninth segment (im 1). 

Without entering into a comparative study of the ninth 
abdominal segment we can consider the two mentioned as 
typical of the Staphylinidae. 

In Habrocerus capillaricornis Grav., the first tergite 1s 
well defined, between it and the second there is a fairly 
large membrane, the second and five following tergites 
are well defined. The first two sternites are small and 
membranous, the following five are well defined. The 
seventh segment is connected by a large membrane to the 
sixth some distance from its posterior edge, which gives 
the seventh great mobility and allows of it being completely 
withdrawn into the sixth. 

The eighth segment (vit in figs. 6, 7, 8, 9) is highly 
modified and consists of four pieces. A large pair of 
pleural plates (pp), on which the eighth spiracles (fig. 6, sp) 
are situated, embrace the lateral area, and from the apex 
of each a large, spine-like style arises; the dorsal aspect 
consists of a very short tergite (8), and the sternite (vit) 
consists of a large plate more heavily chitinised round the 
edges, the posterior portion is external and visible and has a 
small emargination in the middle, the rest of the sternite is 
internal. The lateral portion of the eighth tergite articu- 
lates with the lateral edges of the sternite and also articulates 
in a depression at the base of the pleural plates. The 


400° Mr. Frederick Muir on the Male Abdominal 


eighth segment is attached to the seventh by a large 
membrane (b) and can be completely withdrawn into it. 
The ninth segment is highly modified and shaped like an 
oat (fig. 11). The distal and visible portion consists of a 
pair of pointed and slightly curved lobes connected in a 
V-shaped piece on the dorsal aspect ; the basal and internal 
portion consists of a membranous plate (f) chitinised along 
the edges (g). On the ventral aspect at the meeting of 
the lobes there is a small trident body (figs.6 and 10, and 11 #) 
attached to a rod (d) which hes free within the segment. 
The segment is attached to the preceding by a membrane 
(c), which allows of considerable play between the pleural 
plates of the eighth segment. The anus (an) opens on a 
membrane between the lobes ; the rectum can be protruded. 
In figure 9 it is shown retracted and in figures 7 and 11 
protruded. 

For the sake of those who may not be acquainted with 
the male genitalia of the Staphylinidae it may be stated 
that in the more generalised forms, e.g. Gyrophaena pulchella, 
the median lobe is long, cylindrical, with the median foramen 
at the basal extremity and the median orifice at the other, 
the internal sac is small and undifferentiated and the 
tegminal lobes large. The line of specialisation is for the 
basal portion of the median lobe to become large and the 
distal portion shorter, the median foramen to move along 
the medio-ventral line towards the median orifice till they 
are separated by only a very narrow area and for the 
tegminal lobes to be greatly reduced; a good example of 
this specialisation is found in Xantholinus glabratus. The 
internal sac in these more specialised forms is large, com- 
plex and often bears a highly developed armature. In these 
forms the median lobe is a beautifully adapted bulb for the 
evagination of the internal sac by blood pressure. The 
ventral aspect is highly chitinised, also the dorsal aspect, 
but not so strongly; a band of membrane connects the 
two; muscles attach the dorsal surface to the ventral 
portion, and by their contraction the dorsal surface is 
depressed and the pressure exerted on the fluids within the 
bulb ejects the sac. In freshly dissected specimens this 
can be accomplished artificially by slight pressure on the 
dorsal surface of the bulb.* In all species in which the 
internal sac is specialised (and they include the largest 


* Yor fuller details of this subject the reader is referred to Trans. 
Ent. Soc. Lond. 1912, pp. 477 et seq, 


Segments and Aedeaqus of Habrocerus capillaricornis. 401 


portion of the Coleoptera), it is the chief functional organ, 
the tegmen and median lobe serving for its protection, 
euidance and protrusion. 

In Leistotrophus the basal portion of the median lobe 
forms but a small bulb, and the distal portion is compara- 
tively large; in Tachyporus the bulb is much larger and 
the distal portion smaller. The connection with the inner 
surface of the ninth segment is by a membrane arising 
around the edge of the median foramen; the anus opens 
on the dorsal portion of this membrane (fig. 3, im 7; in 
this figure the aedeagus is shown drawn out of this 
membrane in a diagrammatic manner impossible to do 
in nature). 

In Habrocerus capillaricornis there is nothing to corre- 
spond to the highly developed median lobe of Leistotrophus 
and Tachyporus, but the internal sac is well developed and 
specialised (7s). In the place of the median lobe we find 
a membranous tube opening in the dorsal aspect of the 
small trilobe process (figs. 10 and 11, ¢t), on the same 
membrane as the anus is situated. This tube enlarges 
coneshape and is infiexed (h) for a short distance and then 
reflexed (7), this reflexion continuing as the internal sac; 
the inflexed membrane (/q) is in close contact with the outer 
membrane (im /), and there is a small, semichitinised, 
triangular plate (e) at the pomt of inflexion. The outer 
membrane (m 1) is homologous in position to the connecting 
membrane (am 1) of Tachyporus and Leistotrophus and the 
inner, inflexed membrane (fg) with the aedeagus. 

The internal sac (fig. 12, zs) is large and covered with 
small spines pointing basad; along one side there is a row 
of nine spines fixed to the sac by large bases; the apical 
three are smaller than the others; along the opposite 
aspect there is a row of small semitriangular plates, one 
overlapping the other. 

The membranous cone (fig. 10, am 7, tg) varies somewhat 
in size in different specimens, the one figured is very distinct, 
but others are smaller and not so plain. In the absence of 
fresh or spirit specimens certain important points relating 
to the musculature have to be left unexplained, but there 
is a large group of muscles attached to the margin of the 
cone (fig. 10, h) enveloping the internal sac. This evidently 
acts as a muscular bulb in a somewhat similar manner to 
the muscular bulb in certain Lamellicornia (i.e. Melolontha 
vulgaris). There are several points in the structure of the 
TRANS, ENT, SOC. LOND. 1919.—PaRTs II, Iv. (DEC.) DD 


402 Mr. F. Muir on Aedeagus of Habrocerus capillaricornis. 


membranous aedeagus which require further investigation, 
but as the opportunity for carrying on the work will not 
occur for an indefinite period we consider it advisable to 
publish the results as they now stand. 

That this species presents profound modifications on 
what is generally recognised as the normal Staphylinid 
morphology must be admitted by all students of this group, 
but unfortunately we have very slight knowledge of the 
morphology of this large group, and so we can only blindly 
speculate as to the line of evolution it travelled to reach its 
present condition. 

The theory that nine well-developed abdominal segments 
and a well-defined aedeagus is the older type is founded 
upon good morphological reasons, but forms having once 
arrived at a certain stage of specialisation, such as exists in 
all presently known species, are not likely to undergo a pro- 
found modification. It is therefore early in the phylogeny 
of the group that Habrocerus must have started on its Ime 
of specialisation. It is possible that further research will 
reveal forms that will show us some of the stages of this 
evolution, but until then it will be safest to consider that 
the genus is very distinct from all the other Staphylinidae 
which we know and must have been so from a very remote 
period in the evolution of the family. 

Figure 12 is from a drawing by my wife, who everted 
this sac and mounted it when working with Dr. David 
Sharp. 


EXPLANATION OF PLATE XX. 


Fig. 1. Ventral view of ninth abdominal segment and aedeagus of 

Tachyporus solutus Erich. 

2. Dorsal view of the same. 

3. Lateral view of right side of the same. 

4. Dorsal view of the ninth abdominal segment of Leisto- 
trophus sp. 

5. Ventral view of the same. 

6. Ventral view of eighth and ninth abdominal segments of 
Habrocerus capillaricornis Grav. 

7. Dorsal view of the same. 

8. Articulation of eighth tergite and eighth sternite and the 
pleural plate, 


Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1979, Plate XX. 


MALE GENITALIA. STAPHYLINIDAE. 


a Le 


ie ee i 
‘ pve h 


Explanation of Plate. 403 


9. Dorsal view of the eighth and ninth abdominal segments 
showing the connecting membrane between them. 
10. Trident body and rod with membranous “ aedeagus.” 
11. Lateral view, left side, of ninth abdominal segment. 
12. The same with internal sac partially everted. 
a, duct of anal gland; aed, aedeagus; an, anus; 
b, membrane connecting seventh and eighth seg- 
ments; c, membrane between eighth and ninth 
segments; d, rod of trident process; e, slight chitin- 
isation on aedeagus; ej, ejaculatory duct; f, mem- 
brane at base of ninth segment; g, chitinisation 
along the edge of f; h, base of tegmen; 7, point 
where tube is reflexed; im 1, membrane between 
aedeagus and body wall; is, internal sac; pp, 
pleural plates; r, rectum; s, styles; sp, spiracle; 
t, trident; tg, membranous cone; 8, 9, eighth and 
ninth tergites; Vit, Ix, eighth and ninth sternites. 


( 404 ) 


XIII. On the Mechanism of the Male Genital Tube in 
Coleoptera. By Freprrick Murr. 


[Read October 15th, 1919.] 
PLATE XXI. 


ALTHOUGH we have considerable knowledge of the skeleton 
of the male genital tube of anumber of species of Coleoptera, 
but little is known as to the mechanism and muscles of this 
organ. Some of the most detailed work on this subject, 
such as Straus-Durckheim on WMelolontha vulgaris, was 
done by workers who did not recognise the importance of 
the internal sac and the predominant role it plays in copula- 
tion. For these reasons the following remarks on some of 
the types and their manner of functioning, with a few details 
relating to muscles in a couple of “ring” types, may be 
of interest, notwithstanding their desultory character. 


Orientation. 


For the sake of clearness it is necessary to define the 
terms of orientation employed. For this purpose I accept 
for orientation the point between the abdomen and thorax, 
as defined by Dr. Sharp,* as basal. The portion of any 
segment or appendage nearest to that point being the base, 
and the portion most distant being the apex. In measuring 
the respective distances a continuous line on the body wall 
must be followed, a dorsal, pleural or ventral line for their 
respective areas. Thus the tarsus of a front leg lying 
against the basal point would still be the apex of the leg, 
and the coxa the base. This orientation applies equally to 
invaginations, struts or glands, and evaginations, tegminal 
lobes, etc. Thus the base of a tegminal lobe is that part 
nearest the body of the tegmen, and the apex is the free 
end; and the base of the tegminal strut is where it joins 
the tegmen, and the apex is the free end; the apex of the 
median lobe is the free end, and the base of the internal 
sac is where it joins the median lobe. The terms anterior 
or cephalic and posterior or caudal are relative to the head 
and tail, hence the anterior margin of a thoracic segment 


* “Cambridge Natural History,” V,/‘ Insects,” I, p. 112, fig. 62. 
TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PARTS III, IV. (DEC.) 


Mr. F. Muir on the Male Genital Tube in Coleoptera. 405 


is the apical margin, and the anterior margin of an abdo- 
minal segment the basal margin. It is, however, not a good 
principle to use the terms anterior or posterior when 
discussing parts of an appendage. 

The term invagination is applied to any withdrawal of 
the ectodermal surface into the body lumen, whether it be 
long and narrow, as is the case with the median struts in 
many beetles, or broad and short,. as is the case with a 
large portion of the basal piece in many beetles. 


Relation of Structure and Function. 


A study of the skeleton, that is, of the membrane and 
the external and internal chitinisations of the male genital 
tube of Coleoptera, shows that there are several distinct 
types which it is reasonable to expect function in different 
ways, though little is known as to the method by which the 
sperm is conveyed from the testes to the spermatheca. 
One of the most interesting and instructive works on this 
subject is by Blunck on Dytiscus marginalis.* He shows 
the formation of a spermatophore within the median lobe 
and the subsequent transference of the sperm to the female 
through a hole in the wall of the spermatophore. The 
median lobe of the Dytiscidae is funnel-shape, and there 
is no specialised internal sac; the Haliplidae and Pelobiidae 
are built on a similar plan, and there is good reason to 
believe that they form spermatophores in a similar manner 
to Dytiscus. The median lobe of the Gyrinidae is not 
funnel-shape, and it is highly probable that they do not 
form spermatophores, or if they do they are of a different 
shape to that of Dytiscus. These three families belong to 
the minor section of the Coleoptera, which has no specialised 
sac, whereas the major section has a large, more or less 
highly specialised sac, which is the chief organ of copulation. 
The shape of the sac and the armature upon it is often highly 
complex, especially the armature, called the transfer 
apparatus, round the functional orifice, where the ejacu- 
latory duct opens on the internal sac. In some species 
this transfer apparatus takes the shape of a fine, long tube 
or flagellum. This is the case with the little Cucujid 
Cryptomorpha desjardinsi, which has a long sac and a long, 
slender flagellum ; during copulation the long sac is entirely 
everted and enters the long membranous vagina, and the 


* Zs. wiss. Zool. Leipzig, Bd. cii, Heft 2, pp. 169-248 (1912); 
also Carl Demandt, t.c. Bd. ciii, pp. 171-299 (1912) for the muscles. 


406 Mr. Frederick Muir on the 


long flagellum enters the long, spiral duct of the sperma- 
theca. In this manner a complete tube is formed from 
the testes to the spermatheca. In Anomala orientalis the 
sac is large and the functional orifice is large and without 
any transfer apparatus; it is not brought against the 
opening of the duct of the spermatheca but to the opening 
of the bursa copulatrix, into which the sperm is discharged. 
By what means it is conveyed to the spermatheca it is 
impossible to say at present. 

The coadaptation of the organs of the two sexes in a 
number of forms examined by Dr. Sharp and the writer is 
quite remarkable. A good case of this is in Neolamprima 
adolphinae, where the median lobe is small and produced 
into a very slender and long flagellum *; in the female 
the base of the duct leading to the spermatheca is widened 
and shaped like the median lobe; the more distal portion 
of the duct is very slender and spiral. 

The fact that some Coleoptera are known to make 
spermatophores and the probability that others do not, 
suggests the possible division of the order into two groups. 
Whether this classification would separate certain families, 
or whether it would cut across several families separately 
it is impossible to say with our present knowledge. It is 
highly probable that when no specialised sac is present, 
especially if the median orifice be large, spermatophores 
are formed; when a sac is present and no specialised transfer 
apparatus exists it 1s possible, or even probable, that sperma- 
tophores are formed; but when a highly specialised transfer 
apparatus, especially if it be a flagellum, exists it is highly 
probable that no spermatophores are formed. 

In the vast majority of Coleoptera the internal sac is the 
chief organ of copulation, the tegmen and median lobe 
acting as protectors and guides. In the following section 
the muscles explain the protrusion and retraction of the 
median lobe and tegmen and the retraction of the sac, but 
they do not explain the evagination of the sac. This is 
always brought about by blood pressure, and it is highly 
probable that the different types have followed certain 
lines of evolution to accommodate the different development 
of the sacs, and allow for their functional mechanism. 


* This is not shown in Sharp and Muir, Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 
1912, Pl. XLIV, figs. 10, 10a, as the authors failed to detect it at 
that time. As it is permanently everted it is easily broken during 
dissection, 


Mechanism of the Male Genital Tube in Coleoptera. 407 


It is among the trilobe forms of aedeagus that the sac is 
least developed; in many cases it cannot be distinguished 
from the ejaculatory duct, and in others it is only differenti- 
ated by a slight increase in size. In these cases it lies 
entirely within the median lobe. With the enlargement 
of the sac modifications have taken place in the median 
lobe and tegmen. These modifications have been mainly 
along three lines. The development of the median lobe 
into a bulb with the reduction of the tegmen (the Staphylinid 
type) : the development of the median lobe into a long tube 
(the Phytophagoidea type): and the development of the 
tegmen into a more or less tubular organ (the Melo!onthid 
type). 

Something like the beginning of the Staphylinid type can 
be seen among the trilobe forms in Syndesus cornutus,* but 
it is among the Staphylinidae that this type reaches its 
most complete development. In that family such forms 
as Gyrophaena pulchella and Zirophorus bicornis have the 
median lobe cylindrical and the internal sac small, but 
in the latter the basal portion is shghtly swollen and 
the dorsal surface but slightly chitinised, and it can be 
pressed down against the ventral portion; the median 
foramen is also very small. The line of development is 
for the apical portion of the median lobe to shorten and 
the basal portion to become enlarged and rounded, the 
ventral and dorsal areas to become chitinised, especi- 
ally the former, with a band of membrane separating 
them. The dorsal surface can be brought towards the 
ventral surface by muscular contraction. Thus a complete 
automatous bulb is formed, which reaches a high state of 
perfection in such a form as Xantholinus glabratus. In 
many Staphylinidae if the aedeagus be dissected out of a 
freshly killed specimen and slight pressure be placed upon 
the bulb the sac will instantly be evaginated. The invagin- 
ation of the sac is done by the contraction of muscles be- 
tween certain areas on the sac and others on the median 
lobe. But there are innumerable stages between these forms 
among the Staphylinidae. This line of evolution has been 
followed in other groups such as Pselaphidae and some 
Malacoderms (i.e. Telephorus limbatus and Balanophorus 
masters?). 

* For figures and descriptions of the forms mentioned the reader 


is referred to Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1912, pp. 477-642 and Plates 
XLU-LXXVIII. 


408 Mr. Prededel Muir on the 


The second line of development, the elongation of the 
tubular median lobe (the Phytophagoidea type), necessitates 
a greater or lesser amount of play between the median lobe 
and the tegmen. The limit to the length of a stiff, chitinous 
median lobe is soon reached on account of its want of 
flexibility, but this is overcome by a portion becoming 
membranous and thus capable of folding up. When the 
sac is shorter, or but little longer, than the median lobe 
the retractor muscles can ply between the sac and the median 
lobe, but when the sac becomes much longer than the 
median lobe this method of invagination would lead to a 
great crumpling up of the sac. This problem is met by 
one or two areas on the median lobe, to which the retractor 
muscles actuating the sac are attached, becoming invagin- 
ated, lengthened and chitinised. In this method the median 
struts arise which reach a wonderful state of perfection and 
slenderness in some of the Rhynchophora ; in the Longicorns 
the struts are long, wide and flat (a state also found in the 
Brenthidae). In this type the tegmen is reduced to a 
more or less slender ring and a strut, or even to a Y; the 
tegminal lobes are found in every condition from large 
(Longicorns, Brenthids) to total absence. 

The third type (the Melolonthid) is not so uniform as the 
other two, but equally worthy of notice. In this type the 
median lobe is greatly reduced and the tegmen is formed into 
a more or less complete tube. It is found in the Scara- 
baeidae and in certain Tenebrionidae. Every degree in size 
of the sac is found among these forms. 

In the Staphylinid type, as we have already stated, there 
is an automatous bulb with a small foramen, which by 
contraction can exert blood pressure upon the sac. In the 
Phytophagoidea and Melolonthid types there is no such 
development of the median lobe, and the median orifice is 
large. The blood pressure must therefore be brought about 
by some other mechanism. In the Phytophagoidea type, and 
in many of the Melolonthids, this is most likely effected by 
the reduction of the abdominal cavity, either by the con- 
traction of the abdominal walls or by the distention of the 
air sacs in the abdomen, or by a combination of the two. 

In Melolontha vulgaris Straus-Durckheim describes and 
figures some large muscles, which he styles “ les deux chefs 
du constricteur du canal ejaculatoire.” In an Anomala 
which I have examined these form a large bulb of circular 
muscles at the base of the median lobe, the basal edge 


Mechanism of the Male Genital Tube in Coleoptera. 409 


being connected to the base of the median lobe. These 
muscles do not touch the ejaculatory duct or the sac except 
where the former passes through from the body cavity. 
When retracted the apex of the sac and a length of slack 
ejaculatory duct lie loose within this muscular bulb. That 
these muscles do not act as constrictors of the duct or sac 
is perfectly evident, and it is very highly probable that 
they act as a bulb for the evagination of the sac. The 
retractors of the sac are shown in Straus-Durckheim’s work 
arising from different parts of the sac and proceeding to a 
point apparently on the wall of the muscular bulb. It 
would at first appear as if these retractor muscles had no 
connection with the median lobe, but this is not the case, 
for the dorsal strut of the median lobe proceeds as a mem- 
brane to this pomt and the muscles are attached to its 
apex. Geolrupes sylvaticus has a very small unspecialised 
sac, a very small median strut and no muscular bulb, and 
is a very much simpler structure. 

Dr. Sharp called my attention to some peculiarities of 
the sac of Anoplognathus. Upon examination I find that 
there are three ducts opening on the sac at three distinct 
spots. Two of these are of a similar nature and the third 
apparently of a glandular nature; there is also a short 
diverticulum which also appears to be of a glandular nature. 
Whether the two similar ducts proceed separately to the 
testes I am unable to say from examining only dried 
specimens. There is also a strange arrangement of the 
female uterus. 


Musculature. 


As two representatives of the Phytophagoidea type I have 
selected Rhynchophorus ferrugineus and Strangalia armata. 
The Sphenophori differ from the other Rhynchophora in 
possessing a pseudotegmen formed by the chitinisation of 
part of the membrane connecting the tegmen with the 
body wall, and by the eighth abdominal segment being 
invaginated within the seventh, the pygidium being formed 
by the seventh tergite. In Strangalia armata not ‘only are 
the eighth tergite and sternite well developed, but there is a 
well-developed ninth segment, a condition not found in any 
of the Rhynchophora. Ido not know if this distinction 
holds throughout the Longicornia, but should it do so it 
will be of great importance. 


410 Mr. Frederick Muir on the 


Figure | represents in a semidiagrammatic manner the 
skeleton of the male genitalia of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus. 
The seventh tergite is large and forms the pygidium, its 
apical margin meets the apical margin of the seventh 
sternite and closes the outer cloaca. The eighth tergite 
is much smaller and fits into the convexity of the ventral 
side of the seventh tergite, to which it is connected by a 
large membrane allowing of considerable play. The basal 
margin of the eighth tergite is produced into two large, 
flat processes or struts to which the protractor muscles 
are attached and allow of greater play. The eighth sternite 
is small and together with the eighth tergite closes the 
inner cloaca. The apical margins of the eighth segment 1s 
connected to the base of the tegmen by a large membrane 
(um I and ptg), the median portion of which is chitinised 
and forms the pseudotegmen. At the base where it joins 
the eighth segment this membrane forms a narrow tube 
(shown too large in the figure), which allows of the median 
lobe moving through it but does not admit of any lateral 
motion. The anus (av) opens on the membrane beneath the 
eighth tergite. The tegmen consists of a strong chitinous 
ring (tr), incomplete on the dorsal area where the chitin 
curves slightly apically but does not meet, and a large, 
strong strut (/gs) which varies somewhat in shape and size 
in different specimens, the one figured (1 @) being large and 
broad at the apex; a strong keel runs down the dorsal 
surface of the strut. The median layer or median tube 
consists of the median lobe and the membrane connecting 
it to the tegmen. The median lobe is a tube incompletely 
chitinised, the ventral plate being nearly divided into three 
pieces by two deep, narrow membranous areas; the basal 
corners of the ventral plate are continued as two narrow 
struts (ms); the dorsal plate is produced basad farther - 
than the ventral plate. The median struts (ms) at first form 
chitinisations on the surface of the median lobe and later 
join the invaginations which form the free struts. The 
internal sac (7s) lies within the median lobe. 

The chief muscles which control the movements of this 
skeleton are (fig. 2) :— 

(a) Retractor and protractor muscles from the pseudo- 
tegmen to the eighth segment, by which the pseudotegmen 
is held firmly in its place and moved through a limited 
distance. 

(b) A large series of muscles from the apex of the pseudo- 


Mechanism of the Male Genital Tube in Coleoptera. 411 


tegmen to the large apical portion of the tegminal strut 
(tgs). This holds the rmg of the tegmen into the base of 
the pseudotegmen, where it fits quite tightly, the membrane 
connecting the pseudotegmen and the tegmen forming a 
fold between them. 

(c) The retractor of the median lobe connects the base of 
the median lobe and the base of the median struts with the 
inner surface of the apex and the ridge of the tegminal strut. 

(d) The protractor of the median lobe connects the ring 
of the tegmen (ir) with the outer surface of the apex of the 
median struts. 

(e) The retractors of the internal sac connect certain 
points (e!, e, e?, figs. 3, 4) on the sac with the inner surface 
of the apex of the median struts. At the point on the sac 
where the largest of these muscles (e?) is attached there is 
a large Y-shaped sclerite. A few small muscles connect the 
basal portion of the sac (g) with the median lobe near its 
apex. When it is remembered that the median struts are 
invaginations or prolonged folds of the median lobe it 
will be seen that all the muscles of the internal sac are in 
fact attached to the median lobe. 

VWigure 5 represents in a semidiagrammatic manner 
the skeleton of Strangalia armata with the internal sac 
partly evaginated. In this species of Longicorn the eighth 
tergite is well developed and forms the last visible segment ; 
the eighth sternite (fig. 7, vim) is small and membranous 
with two small triangular chitin plates and a short strut or 
spiculum. The ninth tergite (fig. 6, 9) is distinct and forms 
a small arc, each corner of which is produced into a small 
spiculum (lsp); the ninth sternite (1x) is well developed 
and produced into a large spiculum (sp). The membrane 
(am 1) connects the ninth segment with the tegmen. The 
tegmen consists of a “ring” with a pair of large, dorsal- 
tegminal lobes (fig. 5, ¢gl), the ventral portion being pro- 
duced into a large strut ((gs), the chitinisation not meeting 
till the apex. The median lobe is tubular with a gusset of 
membrane along each lateral area, the ventral chitinisation 
extending further distad than the dorsal and is pointed and 
hooked at the apex, the base is produced into two wide 
struts (ms). The base of the struts and the base of the 
body of the lobe is indicated by the attachment of the 
membrane (vm 2) which connects the tegmen with the 
median lobe. The internal sac is very long, simple, cylin- 
drical, bent about half-way and again near the apex, with 


412 Mr. Frederick Muir on the 


two small subcrescent-shaped sclerites near the base and 
a semichitinised patch near the apex; there is no complex 
transfer apparatus. 

Muscles connect the spiculum of the eighth sternite with 
the seventh sternite (fig. 7), and a larger series of muscles 
connect the plates of the eighth sternite with the large 
spiculum of the ninth sternite. These muscles hold the 
ninth sternite and its spiculum in place and take off the 
strain of the protractors and retractors of the tegmen 
(g and 6). A few bundles of muscle connect the small 
spiculum of the ninth segment to the connecting membrane, 
and others connect it with the walls of the rectum (fig. 6, 
m,. Ke, l): 

The retractor of the tegmen (figs. 7, 8 6) consists of a large 
series of muscles attached to the membrane (im 1), mainly 
on its right side and near its junction with the tegmen, and 
to the apex of the spiculum (sp). 

The protractor of the tegmen (g) consists of a large 
bundle of muscles from the inner surface of the base of the 
spiculum of the ninth sternite to the apex of the tegminal 
strut. 

The retractor of the median lobe consists of a long muscle 
from the inner surface of the apical half of the median lobe 
to the apex of the tegminal strut (fig. 8 ¢). 

The protractor of the median lobe (fig. 8 d) proceeds from 
the ring of the tegmen to the apical portion of the median 
struts. 

Retractors of the internal sac (fig. 8 e) are yery long and 
fine muscles from the apex of the median struts to areas on 
the internal sac, a few to the crescent-shaped sclerite near 
the base of the sac, and others to the semichitinous area 
near the apex. There are other small bundles from the sac 
to the inner surface of the median lobe. 

Another muscle (fig. 8 ») connects the apex of the teg- 
minal strut with the apex of the median struts. This 
would help to co-ordinate the movements. 

To those who are interested in the mechanism of insect- 
structure these few notes may be of interest, and may lead 
them to work on the details of various forms. The task is 
huge, and the information desired is harder to procure than 
that relating to the external morphology, but no final 
“natural classification ’’ can be attained without studying 
the male genitalia, and the mechanism and function are an 
important part of that study. 


Mechanism of the Male Genital Tube in Coleoptera. 413 


My thanks are due to Dr. David Sharp, who has been at 
work on these structures for several years and has accumu- 
lated a mass of material and information, both of which 
have been freely placed at my disposal. The material 
used for Rhynchophorus was supplied to him by Prof. 
Bainbrigge Fletcher of Pusa. 


KXPLANATION or Piatt XXI. 


Figures 1-4 are of Rhynchophora; 5-8 of Strangalia (Longicornia). 


fie) le 


Lateral view of skeleton of the male genitalia of Rhyn- 
chophorus ferrugineus. 


la. Tegminal strut. 


2. 
3. Apex of internal sac showing the attachment of muscles. 
4. 

5. Lateral view of skeleton of the aedeagus of Strangalia 


“Ic 


Lateral view of pseudotegmen and muscles of aedeagus. 
Internal sac evaginated. 


armata, with internal sac partly evaginated. 


. Ventral view of ninth abdominal segment of S. armata. 
. Highth and ninth sternites of S. armata, with muscles 


attached. 


. As fig. 5, but with the muscles. 


an, Anus. 

ej). Kjaculatory duct. 

fo. Functional orifice. 

im 1. Membrane between tegmen and body wall. 
im 2. Membrane between tegmen and median lobe. 
Isp. Lesser spiculum. 

ml. Median lobe. 

mo. Median orifice. 

ms. Struts of median lobe. 

plg. Pseudotegmen. 

sp. Spiculum. 

tgs. Tegminal strut. 

tr. Tegminal ring. 

8. Eighth tergite. 

9. Ninth tergite. 

vin. Kighth sternite. 

1x. Ninth sternite. 

a. Retractor and protractor muscles of pseudotegmen, 


414 


Explanation of Plate. 


b. Muscles between the apical edge of pseudotegmen 
and apex of the tegminal strut (fig. 2). Retractor 
of tegmen (figs. 7, 8). 

c. Retractor of the median lobe. 

d. Protractor of the median lobe. 

e. Retractor of the internal sac. 

el, e?, e8. Areas to which retractor muscles of internal 
sac are attached. 

f. Apical edge of pseudotegmen. 

g. Sclerite at base of the internal sac (fig. 4). Pro- 
tractor of tegmen (figs. 7, 8). 

k. Muscles from the lesser spiculum to the walls of 
rectum. 

l. Muscles from lesser spiculum to the walls of rectum. 

m. Muscles from lesser spiculum to connecting mem- 
brane im 1. 

n. Muscles from apex of tegminal strut to apex of 
median struts. 


Trans, Ent, Soc. Lond., 1919, Plate XX. 


MALE GENITALIA. COLEOPTERA. 


Gx 


XIV. A New Family of Lepidoptera, the Anthelidae. By 
A. JEFFERIS TuRNER, M.D., F.E.S. 


[Read October 15th, 1919.] 


Tue Australian moths belonging to the genus Anthela 
and its allies have given some trouble to systematists. 
Usually, I think, they are regarded as a part of the family 
Liparidae (Lymantriidae), and they have been so arranged 
by Sir George Hampson in 
the collection of the British 
Museum. Until recently I 
concurred in this opinion, 
but, recognising that they ~ 
showed certain peculiarities, 
I treated them as a separate 
subfamily, the Anthelinae 
(Trans. Ent. Soc., 1904, p. 
469). For this view there 
appeared to be sufficient 
justification, for they agree 
with the rest of the Ivparidae 
(as generally known) in the 
absence of a proboscis, in 
the neuration of the hind- 
wings, in the fore-wings 
having vein 5 arising from 
near the lower angle of the 
cell, and in the presence of Fia. 1—Laelia obsoleta Fab. 

an areole. The areole is 

present in the more primitive genera of the Liparidae, 
though many have lostit. In the Anthelidae, however, the 
areole is always present, and shows important structural 
pecuharities. 

The accompanying figure shows the neuration of one of 
the more primitive genera of the Liparidae. It will be 
noted that it shows the presence of an areole typically 
formed, from which arise vein 10 by a separate stalk, and 
7, 8, 9 by a common stalk. This structure occurs also in 
other families, such as the Arctiadae, Noctuidae, Notodon- 

TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PaARTS III, IV. (DEC.) 


416 Dr. A Jefferis Turner on 


tidae, and Geometridae. Compare with this the neuration 
of Anthela ferruginosa Wk. (fig. 2). The peculiarities of 


y_? 


Fig. 2.—Anthela ferruginosa W1k. 


the areole are at once apparent. This is very elongate, all 
the veins 7, 8, 9, 10 arise from it separately, and a triangular 


Fig. 3.—Areole, Anihela ferruginosa. 


portion at the apex appears to be cut off by a cross-vein 
(fig. 3). This triangular portion is not always evident. In 
fig. 4 are parts of the fore-wing of two individuals of 
Anthela acuta Wik. In one the triangle is very minute, 


A New Family of Lepidoptera, the Anthelidae 417 


in the other absent, having evidently been lost by the 
coalescence of the cross-vein with the wall of the areole. 
How can this peculiar structure be explained? Some 
light is thrown on it by the fore-wing of Chelepteryx collest 
Gray. In this very large moth—it expands 140 to 170 mm. 
—it is evident that veins 10 and 9 are normally stalked, 
while 9 soon after its origin is connected by a short cross- 
bar with 8, so forming the areole. An oblique cross-vein 
formed by a strong chitinous ridge arises very near 11, runs 
across 10 and 9 after their bifurcation, and ends on the cross- 
bar, which connects 9 and 8. The use of such a structure in 
this large unwieldy insect is evidently to strengthen the 


10 


/) Jo 
i, 
1D 

7 

bs. 8 7 
ra 

4 
6 
Fic. 4.—Areole, Anthela acuta Fia. 5.—Areole, Chelepteryx collesi 
W1k. Gray. 


apical part of the fore-wing. It is an adventitious develop- 
ment, and forms no part of the true areole. 

In an archaic genus from Queensland hitherto unnamed, 
which I name Gephyroneura,* there is a similar bar running 
from 11 across vein 10, but here the original structure has 
been obscured by the partial loss of the areole, by the 
coalescence of 10 with the chorda, so that 7, 8, 9, and 10 are 
long-stalked from the upper angle of the cell. The distal 
extremity of the areole is, however, preserved as a small 
triangle from which the veins 7, 8, 9, and 10 arise separately. 
Extremely similar to Gephyroneura in appearance and closely 
allied to it is Munychryta Wilk. Here the areole is pre- 
served, but the oblique cross-bar from 11 has fused with 

* yepupoveupos, with bridged veins. 
TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PaARTS III, IV., (DEC.) EE 


418 Dr. A. Jefferis Turner on 


its apical wall. Maunychryta is remarkable for the develop- 
ment of a strong spiral proboscis, which is completely absent 
in all the preceding genera. Both Gephyroneura and Muny- 
chryta are of comparatively small size (25 to 35 mm.), and 
possess a strong basal costal expansion of the hind-wing, 
similar to that found in the Lasiocampidae, but with a strong 
frenulum present in the g. In the only Q (Munychryta 
sp.) that I possess the frenulum appears to be absent. 

The Anthelidae are an Australian family. So far as 
known no species occurs outside the Australian region. 
A few species of Anthela are known from New Guinea. 

I interpret these facts as follows. In the primitive 
Lepidoptera Heteroneura all the veins from the areole arose 
separately, the areole being completed by a short cross- 
vein running from 9 to 8, as occurs in the more primitive 


yl 109 & 
rp 
i 
6 eee 
Kia. 6.—Apex of fore-wing, Via. 7.—Apex of fore-wing, 
Gephyroneura sp. Munychryta senicula Wik. 


Cossidae. With more active habits of flight in large- 
winged moths a necessity arose for strengthening the scaf- 
folding of the apex of the fore-wing. This was attempted 
in two ways, by a lengthening of the areole, and by an 
approximation of the veins running from the areole towards 
the apex, with a coalescence of their stalks. Both changes 
may be observed in the neuration of the Cossidae (Trans. 
Ent. Soc., 1918, p. 155). In the more specialised families 
one of these lines of evolution was followed to the exclusion 
of the other. In most asin the Liparidae there was stalking 
of the radial veins, the areole remaining short, and tending 
to dwindle and disappear. In the Anthelidae—and this is 
the justification for regarding them as a distinct family— 
the veins remained separate though approximated as the 
areole grew longer. The ancestral Anthelidae I imagine 
to have been moths of large size, like Chelepteryx or larger, 
and in them this mechanism was not sufficient to give the 
necessary strength. As a consequence a strong oblique 


A New Family of Lepidoptera, the Anthelidae 419 


chitinous bar was developed near the apex, forming a 
cross-vein running obliquely from 11 across 10 to 9. With 
diminution of size, or more sluggish habits, or both, this 
cross-vein has tended to disappear, but in two archaic 
genera Gephyroneura and Munychryta it has been preserved 
in spite of great reduction in size. 

So far as I know, the only other family possessing a 
similar areole, which, however, may not be an homologous 
development, is the Cymatophoridae, and with these the 
Anthelidae cannot be allied, the differences between the 
two families being very great in other respects. 


Note-—In the hind-wing of Anthela ferruginosa (fig. 2) 
the subcostal vein is forked. This is an individual peculi- 
arity of the specimen figured, but important, as it goes to 
prove, what I have previously suspected, that the sub- 
costal is a composite vein. The first radial runs into the 
subcostal in the hind-wing in many genera of many families, 
but this is the first instance I have observed, in which it 
Separates again. 


( 420 ) 


XV. On the Histology of the Scent-organs in the Genus 
Hydroptila, Dal. By H. Errinenam, M.A., 
D.S8e., F.Z.8. 


[Read November 5th, 1919.] 


Pratt XXII. 


My friend Mr. Martin E. Mosely has made a discovery of 
the first importance, which should prove of the greatest 
interest to entomologists. In a paper read before this 
Society on October 15th (p. 393), he described the external 
features of certain organs in the heads of various species 
of the Trichopterid genus Hydroptila. 

Mistrusting his own skill as a microtomist with a lack 
of faith which, judging from some of his excellent prepara- 
tions, I regard as unfounded, he has done me the honour 
to hand over to me a supply of material for the investiga- 
tion of the minute structure of these organs. Just as 
Science generally is indebted to him for his discovery, I 
am personally under an obligation to him for enabling 
me to carry out an examination of unusual interest and 
fascination. ; 

Some time ago I described and illustrated the scent- 
organs in certain male Danaine butterflies (Trans. Ent. 
Soc., 1913, p. 399; 1914, p. 152). 

It will be remembered that these included certain 
eversible brushes located in the extremity of the abdomen. 
These brushes were formed of hairs of varying structure 
set on the inner surface of an eversible membranous bag, 
so that when the latter was everted, doubtless by fluid 
pressure, the hairs projected from its now outer surface. 
In some cases the scent material was obtained from glands 
in the wings, whilst in others the brushes themselves 
exhibited a glandular structure. 

We know from the work of Dr. F. A. Dixey and others 
that certain special scales on the wings of butterflies act 
as scent-organs. In all these cases the scent-scales, brushes, 
glands, etc., are of comparatively considerable size, and 
occur on insects which, even in the case of Lycaenids, are 
large compared with Hydroptila. These little creatures 

TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PARTS II, IV. (DEC.) 


Dr. H. Eltrigham on the Histology of the Scent-organs. 421 


are themselves no larger than the brush of a Danaine 
butterfly, yet, as Mr. Mosely has shown, they possess ever- 
sible brushes, scent-scales, expanding membranes and 
tubercles, of a high degree of complication. Moreover, 
the organs in question are not located in the abdominal 
extremity, but in the back of the head. 

It is a most interesting case of what may be termed 
the independent development of practically homologous 
structures in insects of different orders, since, however 
nearly related the Lepidoptera and Trichoptera may be, it 
cannot be urged that these scent-organs in the two orders 
had a common origin. 


On Descriptive Terms. 


Before describing the organs it may be well to define 
the terms applied to some of the structural details. 

It has been suggested to me on more than one occasion 
that the term hair should be confined to mammalian hairs, 
and that insect hairs should be known by some other 
word. I referred to this matter in a note to my paper on 
the Danaine scent-organs (J.c.), and I am still unable to 
see the necessity for any alteration in terms. 

The Oxford Dictionary defines a hair as “‘ One of the 
cylindrical filaments that grow from the skin or integument 
of animals, especially of most mammals . . . ; applied also 
to similar looking filamentous outgrowths from the bodies 
of insects and other invertebrates, although these are 
generally of different structure.” 

Similarly, we speak of the scales on the wings of Lepi- 
doptera and on other insects, without in any way implying 
that they are of the same nature as the homonymous 
structures in fish. 

There is a greater difficulty which would not be removed 
by the invention of another word for insect hairs, namely, 
that of deciding the precise point at which an insect hair 
becomes an insect scale. Under a low power a Trichop- 
terous insect such as Hydroptila may be regarded as 
covered with hairs on wings arid body, but on examination 
with a higher magnification it is seen that the structures 
in question would be better described as elongated scales. 
Furthermore, we have in insects certain growths known as 
scent-scales or androconia. It is an unsatisfactory term, 
but as its signification is generally understood we may 


422 Dr. H. Eltringham on the 


retain it for the present. Is this term to be applied to 
any modification of insect scales or hairs characteristic 
of the male insect, or is it to be confined to those structures 
that have a direct connection with glandular tissue of 
a sexual character? If the former, the word becomes 
almost too vague to be useful, if the latter, then the brush 
hairs in Hestia are androconia, whilst those in D. chrysippus 
are not, and so before we can use the term at all, we must 
have a knowledge of the histology and perhaps even of the 
embryology of the structures to which we refer. 

It would seem, then, that if we aim at greater precision 
in terms we merely arrive at the position of a person who 
cannot describe a landscape because he has not measured 
the elevations to see whether they are hills or mountains, 
and fears to mention a wood till he has identified the 
species of trees it contains. 

In describing the organs in these small Trichoptera I 
propose, then, to use the word hairs when referring to the 
long, fine bristles which form brushes similar in form to the 
brushes described in the Danainae. In several species 
there are structures which, though of varying form, resemble 
more or less closely the scent-scales already known to occur 
in many Lepidoptera. Though the word is unsatisfactory 
I shall refer to them as androconia, for the reason already 
stated. 

Finally, there are the elongated scales or hairs found so 
plentifully on the wings and body. As the order is known 
as “ hairy winged ”’ as distinguished from “ scale winged ” 
we will call them the cuticle hairs. 

The organs to be described are, of course, only found in 
the male sex. 


Descriptive. 


Hydroptila sparsa Curtis. 


Four eversible tubercles arise from a membrane lying 
across the back of the head, such tissue forming the lightest 
pe protection for the brain situated immediately 

eneath it. Towards the upper and anterior edge of this 
membrane there is on its underside a layer of moderately 
large cells which may be merely hypodermal, but probably 
also have a glandular function. Arising from this mem- 
brane on its upper portion and on either side of the centre 
line is found a small tuft of very remarkable androconia 


Histology of the Scent-organs in the Genus Hydroptila. 423 


(Plate XXII, figs. 1 and 2). They are pyriform with long 
delicate stalks, and the outer expanded portion is clothed 
with filaments apparently similar to those in the scent- 
scales of certain Pierine butterflies. Apart from their 
shape and position they possess a feature which I have been 
unable to find in any other species examined. Hach has 
beneath its socket a large, granular, heavily nucleated cell, 
distinguishable by its size and structure from the other 
cells of the layer in which it lies. There are some twelve 
of these androconia on each side of the centre line. There 
is no trace of hairs or brushes. Structures somewhat 
resembling the “ brush bags ”’ in other species are present, 
but without hairs. These are the four eversible tubercles 
already referred to. There are two of these on each side, 
and when fully expanded they extend to a considerable 
length, as may be seen on reference to Mr. Mosely’s photo- 
graphs. The material of these tubercles is an extremely 
delicate chitin, not of the same nature throughout its 
entire length, since the proximal portion takes a different 
stain from that of the remainder. 

A section through the partly everted tubercle (fig. 3) 
shows a few scattered cells on the inner side. These are 
probably hypodermal cells which have been displaced in 
the process of preparation. The whole tissue of the tubercle 
when not fully extended is thrown into a multiplicity of 
interlocking folds. When retracted it is inverted and not 
merely collapsed, and this remark applies to those eversible 
tubercles in other species, which are lned with hairs and 
form brush bags. A similar inversion takes place in the 
brush bags of the Danaine butterflies, but it can there be 
accounted for by the presence of a muscle attached to the 
apex of the bag, and acting as a retractor when the fluid 
pressure is released. It is a remarkable fact that no such 
muscle can be found in any of the species of Hydroptila. 
This is not due to any fault of the preparation. Muscle 
tissue is amongst the easiest of all to recognise in insect 
sections, and in my preparations other tiny muscles inside 
the head are easily observable. 

So far I am unable to account for the inversion of the 
retracted tubercle, unless it is to be explained by some 
complicated condition of a variable coefficient of elasticity 
in different parts of the membrane. The fact of its differen- 
tial staining already alluded to does not help us, as this 
occurs only in the present species. 


424 Dr. H. Eltrmgham on the 


The lobes which cover the eversible tubercles when 
retracted are somewhat of the shape and appearance of 
half an almond shell, but much thickened towards the base. 
Owing to the peculiar angle of view in fig. 1 their shape 
is not well shown. On the outer surface of the lobes the 
chitin is perforated by a multiplicity of openings, and in 
ordinary preserved material some of these perforations emit 
cuticle hairs of considerable length, whose stalks are deeply 
embedded in the hypodermal epithelium within. This 
epithelium may possibly be glandular, since it presents an 
active appearance (fig. 5). Mr. Mosely informs me that the 
lobes in this and some other species are densely covered 
with these cuticle hairs when the specimen is in fresh 
condition, but that they become detached with great 
facility, so that the lobes, even in life, are often found 
practically naked. We may therefore assume that in fresh 
examples each perforation carries a cuticle hair. We may 
further venture to speculate as to whether when detached 
they may not conceivably act in a manner analogous to 
that of the “‘ dust particles’ which are so marked a feature 
in some of the butterflies already referred to, and of which 
the use has, since their discovery, been actually observed 
and recorded by Carpenter (Proc. Ent. Soc., 1914, p. exi). 

Plate XXII, fig. 1 shows the head of this species with the 
lobes turned back and the tubercles in a condition of partial 
eversion. Fig. 2 shows two of the androconia with their 
special cells. Fig. 3 a highly magnified view of one of the 
tubercles partly everted. Fig. 4 a section through one of 
the lobes. Fig. 5 part of the same more highly magnified 
to show the cells lining the outer cuticle. Fig. 6 a vertical 
longitudinal section through the head and one of the 
tubercles incompletely everted. 


H. simulans Mosely. 


Each lobe in this species may be said to resemble ex- 
ternally half an acorn. The basal portion is thick and 
well rounded, and shows the same perforate structure as 
in H.sparsa. The upper partis smooth and rounded and of 
a somewhat darker colour, whilst the apical part is thin, 
flat, and subtriangular. On its inner surface each lobe 
has a deep oval concavity forming a receptacle for the 
retracted brush. No sign of androconia has been detected 
in this species, but the surface of the concavity of the lobe 


Histology of the Scent-organs in the Genus Hydroptila. 425 


has a peculiar structure as though formed of minute 
chitinous plates, giving it somewhat the appearance of a 
tessellated pavement. The thicker basal portion of the 
lobe shows in section a lining of hypodermal cells probably 
of a glandular nature. Beneath the lobes and directed 
upwards and centrally are two brushes formed of a mass 
of golden yellow hairs arising from small sockets in the 
lining of a brush bag, the whole presenting an arrangement 
and appearance closely resembling that in many Danaine 
butterflies. A section through the head in the plane of 
the long axes of the two brushes is shown at fig. 8. From 
this it will be seen that the hairs arise over nearly the whole 
length of the bag, and hence when the latter is everted the 
appearance is somewhat that of a test-tube brush or pipe 
cleaner. The hairs are slightly thickened towards their 
distal extremities. In the substance of the bag are two 
distinct layers, the inner one being thin chitin thrown 
into a multiplicity of folds and bearing the sockets of the 
hairs. These sockets are of peculiar formation, and 
resemble the structures. known to botanists as bracts. 
Outside this membranous layer is a glandular epithelium 
consisting of granulated and heavily nucleated cells shown 
in fig. 10. 

The hairs themselves are not smooth, but have an 
elaborate structure which I have endeavoured to represent 
in fig. 9. There are whorls of laminate projections having 
irregularly curved distal margins. Also the projections 
are not continuous round the hair, but the rings are inter- 
cepted at irregular intervals by more or less vertical fissures. 
The elaborate structure of the minute brush hairs in this 
and other species is one of the most notable features of the 
scent-organs. 

The general arrangement in H. simulans seems to be 
analogous to that in the butterflies Trepsichrois mulciber 
and Hestia lynceus, in which the brush hairs themselves 
are the direct vehicles of a secretion produced by glands at 
the bases of their sockets. Fig. 7 is a view of the head 
with the lobes closed. 


H. foreipata Katon. 


In this species the lobes are ry small as is the whole 
area of the scent-organs. Fig. 15 is a view of the posterior 
surface of the head “with the lobes turned back. Here we 


426 Dr. H. Eltringham on the 


find a new modification in the fact that the lobes are pro- 
vided on their inner surface with a membrane which can 
be distended, probably by fluid pressure. On this mem- 
brane are a few androconia of not quite circular section, 
having long stalks and a very deeply ribbed surface. The 
androconia are probably porous or very absorbent, as they 
stain rapidly and intensely. The outer surface of the lobe 
is covered with extremely minute black setae having 
widened bases, like rose thorns. A section through the 
lobe, fig. 19, shows that the extensible membrane contains 
at its base a mass of granular, heavily nucleated cells which 
doubtless furnish a volatile secretion. The androconia are 
not provided in this species with special cells at the bases 
of their sockets. Indeed, this is a condition I have found 
only in those of H. sparsa. Fig. 16 shows a highly magnified 
view of the inner face of one of the lobes. The lobe itself 
is seen to the left, whilst the membrane extends all over 
it and some distance to the right. The androconia lie on, 
and arise from, the membrane in an irregular fashion. 
The small bunch of hairs here shown does not in reality 
arise from the membrane of the lobe, but from that on, the 
back of the head between and beneath the lobes, though in 
this dissection they have come away with the lobe itself. 
They take the form of a mere tuft of bristles, and though 
the membrane from which they arise may be slightly 
extensible there is no eversible bag. The hairs are of the 
complicated structure shown in fig. 17 and in transverse 
section at fig. 18. There is a very slight development of 
glandular epithelium at the origin of these hairs. They 
have a very thin cuticle, and in section show a very large 
lumen. 


H. maelachlani Klap. 


The structure in this species bears a close general re- 
semblance to that in H. forcipata. The lobes are smaller and 
very inconspicuous, but their extensible membranes seem 
to be more highly developed. Fig. 23 shows a section 
through one of the lobes and the neighbouring structures. 
The membrane has a dense mass of glandular tissue at its 
base, and bears a number of androconia, one of which is 
represented at fig. 20. These are very deeply ribbed and 
circular in section: On one lobe I have mounted there are 
twenty-one, and on another eighteen. The little pencil of 


Histology of the Scent-organs in the Genus Hydroptila. 427 


hairs is asin H. forcipata, but the hairs themselves appear to 
be longitudinally striated and without the dentate structure 
found in that species. 


H. femoralis Haton. 


In this species the lobes, while distinctive in shape, 
resemble somewhat those of H. simulans, their perforate 
portion thickly clothed with cuticle hairs and containing 
a layer of epithelial cells into which the stalks of these 
cuticle hairs project. Attached to the inner face of the 
lobe there are numerous heavily ribbed androconia, the 
stalks of which pass through the chitin and communicate 
with an epithelial layer beneath. These androconia stain 
very deeply, have an oval section, and a small central 
lumen. The lobes cover two large eversible brushes 
provided with black hairs, the latter being considerably 
expanded at their distal extremities. 

The brush bag appears to have much less glandular 
development than in H. simulans. The hairs‘are quite char- 
acteristic in structure, being very thick walled and covered 
on the outer surface with whorls of regularly arranged 
projections. Figs. 22 and 24. In many of the transverse 
sections of these hairs there is a slight staining of the 
central lumen indicating the presence of some structureless 
material in that position, probably a coagulated secretion. 

Fig. 25 shows a section through the entire head of this 
species. At the lower side of the figure may be seen the 
lobes with part of the cellular material they contain, 
and their perforate external surface. Within the inner 
boundary are a few of the androconia cut across and 
portions of the brushes cut obliquely. Fig. 21 is a view 
of the entire head with brushes partly everted. 


H. occulta Katon, 


The organs in this species are more remarkable than in 
any of the others examined. The lobes are narrow and 
somewhat conical. They bear on the inner surface a mem- 
brane, which towards the upper extremity contains a deep 
tubular pocket lined with long androconia. This pocket 
forms in fact a miniature eversible brush bag and can be 
extended so as to form a small secondary brush, the andro- 
conia then radiating from its surface. Besides this structure 
there are a few small androconia near the apex of the inner 


428 Dr. H. Eltringham on the 


surface of the lobe, and arising from a point near the base 
is a third mass of androconia still more elongated than those 
already referred to, Sections of the lobe show that this 
second mass of androconia also lies in a small pocket and 
can presumably be everted. Both androconia pencils are 
surrounded by glandular tissue. Text fig. 2 shows a 
section through part of a lobe. At this plane the section 
shows chitin on the inner surface of the lobe. Apparently 
the eversible membrane as a whole only covers a part of 
the surface. 

Lying beneath the lobes and arising from a membrane on 


Kia. 1.—Hydroptila occulta. Wead with scent-organs everted. 
sb, Secondary brush. s. Androconia. 1. Lobe. sc. Patch of elongated 
androconia.*, mb. Main brush. ss. Small androconia. 
(Width across eyes ‘64 mm.) 


the back of the head are two small eversible brushes with 
yellow hairs resembling those in H. simulans, but their 
sockets are moreconcentratedtowards the bottom of the bag. 
The hairs themselves appear to have a structure somewhat 
similar to that in H. forcipata, ‘There are also two small 
tufts of androconia arising from the membrane between the 
main brushes and on either side of the centre line. The 
general arrangement of the head with expanded organs 
‘is shown in text fig. 1, herewith. ig. 11 shows one of the 
brushes dissected out. Fig. 13 a view of the lobe, the 
secondary brush being in a retracted condition. Fig. 14 
represents one of the androconia from the secondary brush. 


Histology of the Scent-organs in the Genus Hydroptila, 429 


It is hoped that in the course of time other species than 
those so far examined will be available. Mr, Mosely has 
in his collection two examples of H. pulchricornis Pict., 
but beyond the fact that this species has black brushes 
resembling those in H. femoralis he has not been able to 
examine them more critically. There are other British 
species and several not so far found in Britain, and doubtless 
many new forms still undiscovered, But few collectors 
are interested in these small and inconspicuous insects, 
Now that Mr. Mosely’s discovery has revealed their curious 


Kia, 2.—Hydroptila oceulla. Section of lobe. 


sc». Androconia of second tuft. m,. Membrane of ditto, rt, Retiou- 
lated tissue, sc. Androconia of secondary brush. m. Membrane 
of ditto brush bag. gs. Glandularsubstance. fh, Hairs of primary 
brush. (Length of section 072 mm.) 


and interesting features collectors will have a new in- 
centive to secure examples, 

In case this paper should be read by any one having 
facilities for securing further material, it should be noted 
that dry specimens are useless for observation. They 
should be dropped alive into a strong solution of bichloride 
of mereury in distilled water, to which has been added 
about half its bulk of 96 per cent. alcohol, and about 1 per 
cent. of acetic acid, After a few hours in this they should 
be transferred to clean 96 per cent. alcohol. 

On the page facing the plate I have given the actual 
sizes of the various parts figured. A certain combination 
of objective and eyepiece may give a definite magnification, 
but when a figure has been drawn therefrom the size of the 


430 Dr. H. Eltrmgham on the Histology of the Scent-organs 


figure may not really represent the true magnification, but 
a mere expansion of the view obtained with the objective 
used. A photograph of a section measuring two inches 
across may represent a magnification of a hundred dia- 
meters, but the same photograph projected on a six-foot 
screen is not a magnification of three thousand six hundred 
diameters, but merely an enlarged view of what can be 
seen in the original photograph. 

I have already expressed my thanks to Mr. Mosely for 
having supplied the material for this investigation, and I 
would add that he has further assisted by visiting Oxford 
on several occasions to compare the results with his previous 
knowledge of the species. 


EXPLANATION OF PLATE XXII. 


[See Explanation facing the PLATE. | 


EXPLANATION OF PLATE XXII. 


. Hydroptila sparsa. Head viewed from above showing four 


eversible tubercles partly expanded. Width across eyes 
*6 mm. 


. Two of the androconia with their sockets and glands. 


Length from bottom of socket to apex of scale -03 mm. 


. Enlarged view of one of the tubercles partly expanded. 


Width in narrowest part -015 mm. 


. Section through one of the lobes. Length -15 mm. 
. Part of ditto (not necessarily the same section) showing 


epithelium and parts of cuticle hairs. Greatest width 
-03 mm. 


. Section through head showing one of the tubercles partly 


everted. Length of tubercle -18 mm. 


. Hydroptila simulans. Head with lobes closed. Width 


across eyes -77 mm. 


. Section through same in plane of brushes. Width across 


eyes -6 mm. 


. Part of one of the brush hairs showing structure. Greatest 


width -003 mm. 


. Enlarged view of brush bag showing hair sockets and 


epithelium. Greatest thickness -015 mm. 


. Hydroptila occulta. Part of a brush. Length of hairs 


-22 mm. 


. A small androconium from lobe of same. Length -015 mm. 
. View of inner surface of lobe of same with secondary brush 


retracted, scent-scales, etc. Greatest length -15 mm. 


. One of the scales of the secondary brush. Length -06 mm. 
. Hydroptila forcipata. Back view of head with expanded 


lobe membranes and hair tufts. Width across eyes 
58 mm. 


. One of the lobes viewed from inner side. Length -176 mm. 
. Part of one of the hairs. Diameter of main stalk -003 mm. 
. Transverse section of same. Diameter over projections 


-005 mm. 


. Section through one of the lobes showing gland cells at 


base. Length from end of membrane to upper corner 
of lobe -09 mm, 


Fta. 20. 


21. 


22. 


23. 


24. 


25. 
26. 


Explanation of Plate. 


Hydroptila maclachlani. A scent-scale from lobe. Length 
015 mm. 

Hydroptila femoralis. ead with brushes partly expanded. 
Width across eyes -473 mm. 

Part of a brush hair. Width across points -003 mm. 

Hydroptila maclachlant. Section through lobe, etc., show- 
ing glandular base. Length from point of membrane to 
point of lobe -105 mm. 

Hydroptila femoralis. Transverse section of hair. Diameter 
0015 mm. to -0037 mm. 

Section through head. Width across eyes -55 mm. 

Diagrammatic figure representing about the natural size of 
H. femoralis. 


Explanation of Plate. 


. Hydroptila maclachlani. A scent-scale from lobe. Length 


‘015 mm. 


. Hydroptila femoralis. Head with brushes partly expanded. 


Width across eyes -473 mm. 


. Part of a brush hair. Width across points 003 mm. 
. Hydroptila maclachlani. Section through lobe, ete., show- 


ing glandular base. Length from point of membrane to 
point of lobe -105 mm. 


. Hydroptila femoralis. ‘Transverse section of hair. Diameter 


-0015 mm. to -0037 mm. 


. Section through head. Width across eyes °55 mm. 
. Diagrammatic figure representing about the natural size of 


H. femoralis. 


Westwood Bequest. Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1919. Plate XXII. 


of 


i 


ean 


a 
r= 
S 


H. Eltringham del. 


SCENT ORGANS IN HYDROPTILA. 


* . | 7 , >: a 
. Ak } < ter * 7 
; vy. ea ey” Pe are TAA 
~ a ® ae a 
< » . { i” Se bee 


Westwood Bequest. 


H. Eltringham del. 


Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1919. Plate XXII 


Half-Tone Eng. Co., Ltd. 


SCENT ORGANS IN HYDROPTILA. 


( 431 ) 


XVI. New Moths collected by Mons. A. Av‘noff in W. 
Turkestan and Kashmir during his journeys in 
1909-1912. By Sr Grorce F. Hampson, Bart. 
Communicated by J. Harrtey Durrant. 


[Read November 5th, 1919.] 


A sHoRT paper giving a list of the moths collected by 
Mons. Avinoff was sent to the Entomological Society in 
1913. It was intended to be supplementary to a paper 
written by him giving a full itinerary of his journey and 
an account of the butterflies he collected; the MSS. of 
this paper was, however, lost in the post. Owing to the 
outbreak of war he has been unable to supply a copy of 
the missing MSS. It is therefore desirable to publish 
descriptions of the few new moths he collected of which 
the descriptions have not already appeared. The types 
are in the British Museum, and the numbers before the 
species refer to my catalogue of moths and papers on 
the classification of the Pyralidae. 


NOCTUIDAE. 
AGROTINAE. 


315a. Euxoa dimorpha, n. sp. 


¢. Head and thorax grey faintly tinged with brown and mixed 
with blackish; tegulae with black medial line; patagia with some 
black scales near upper edge; tarsi black with pale rings; abdo- 
men grey with an ocherous tinge and irrorated with fuscous. Fore 
wing grey faintly tinged with brown and irrorated with blackish, 
the veins with pale streaks; subbasal line double, black, waved, 
from costa to submedian fold; antemedial line double, black, 
oblique, waved; claviform moderate, slightly defined by black; 
orbicular and reniform whitish irrorated with fuscous and defined 
by black, the former round; an indistinct, sinuous dark medial 
line; postmedial line blackish defined on outer side by grey, double 
at costa, bent outwards below costa, then slightly dentate and 
produced to black and white points on the veins, oblique below 
vein 4, some whitish points beyond it on costa; subterminal] line 

TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PARTS III, IV. (DEC.) 


432 Sir G. F. Hampson on New Moths collected by 


whitish defined on inner side by fuscous, excurved at vein 7 and 
angled outwards at veins 4,3; a somewhat lunulate black terminal 
line and white line at base of cilia. Hind wing white tinged with 
reddish brown, the veins and terminal area brown; a slight dark 
terminal line; cilia white with a dark line through them from 
apex to vein 2; the underside whiter, the costal area irrorated 
with fuscous, a slight black discoidal lunule and terminal series of 
lunules from apex to vein 2. 

2. Thorax purple-red irrorated with white; fore-wing suffused 
with purple-red. 


Hab. Kasumir, Stagmo, 12,000 ft. 2g, 19 type. 
Exp. 40-44 mill. 


624a. Feltia fuscifusa, n. sp. 


§. Head and thorax pale olive-brown; palpi black except at 
tips; tegulze with black medial band; patagia edged with black 
scales above; abdomen brownish white, the terminal half suffused 
with fuscous; pectus, legs and ventral surface of abdomen suffused 
with blackish, the tibiae at extremities and tarsi ringed with white. 
Fore wing olive-grey. thickly irrorated with fuscous; subbasal 
line represented by dark striae from costa and cell, the former 
defined on outer side by white; antemedial line blackish defined 
on inner side by whitish, sinuous, excurved above inner margin; 
claviform defined by black, long and narrow; orbicular and reniform 
defined by black except above, the former round, the latter filled 
in with blackish; postmedial line blackish defined on outer side 
by whitish, bent outwards below costa, then minutely dentate 
and produced to points on the veins, excurved to vein 4, then in- 
curved; subterminal line whitish with blackish suffusion before it 
and beyond it except at apex, angled outwards at veins 7, 4, 3; 
cilia olive ochreous with two slight blackish lines through them. 
Hind wing pure white, the costa and veins slightly tinged with 
brown, the hair on inner margin with an ochreous tinge; a fine 
brown terminal line from apex to vein 2; the underside with the 
costal area thinly irrorated with brown, a small discoidal spot. 


Hab. Kasumir, Khordong, 16,500 ft. 1 type. Hap. 
26 mill. 


HADENINAE. 


1461la. Triehoclea elaeochroa, n. sp. 


Q. Head and thorax olive-brown mixed with grey; pectus, 


Mons. A. Avinoff in W. Turkestan and Kashmir. 433 


legs and abdomen grey-brown. Fore wing grey-brown irrorated 
- with white and with some olive-yellow suffusion in the interspaces 
especially the cell and submedian interspace; an indistinct sinuous 
blackish subbasal line from costa to submedian fold; antemedial 
line blackish, waved; traces of a diffused medial line, oblique to 
vein 2, then erect; orbicular and reniform faintly defined by olive- 
yellow, the former round, the latter with its lower part filled in 
with fuscous, a white point at its inner lower extremity and two at 
outer extremity; postmedial line blackish, bent outwards below 
costa, then dentate, oblique below vein 4; subterminal line in- 
distinct, olive-yellow, slightly waved, somewhat excurved at vein 7; 
cilia with a dark line through them. Hind wing fuscous tinged 
with grey; cilia ochreous white with a dark line through them; 
the underside with diffused curved postmedial line. 


Hab. Kasumir, Khalsi, 10,000 ft. 12 type. Hap. 
44 mill. 


ZYGAENIDAE. 
ZYGAENINAE. 


Zygaena avinofii, n. sp. 


3G. Head, thorax and abdomen black, the tegulae crimson; 
legs streaked with ochreous yellow. Fore wing black suffused 
with metallic blue; an elongate orange-yellow subbasal spot on 
costa and a patch from median nervure to above inner margin; a 
streak of orange-yellow scales below middle of costa; a rounded 
orange-yellow spot from below middle of costa to just below the 
cell where it is almost confluent with a larger round spot below end 
of cell; an elliptical spot beyond the cell, and a curved subterminal 
band from above vein 6 to below 3; cilia ochreous suffused with 
brown. Hind wing crimson, the base, inner margin and termen 
purple-black; cilia ochreous brown. 


Hab. W. Turkestan, Pamirs, Koitesck, 13,100 ft. 
1g type. Hxp. 28 mill. 

This species was taken on M. Avinoft’s 1909 journey, and 
is nearest to Z. coeandica Krsch. 


Procris pamirensis, n. sp. 


6g. Head and thorax golden-green with a slight cupreous tinge 
and some blackish hairs mixed; antennae, with the branches 
blackish; tibiae and tarsi blackish; abdomen blackish tinged with 
TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND, 1919.—PaRTS Il, IV, (DEC.) FF 


434 Sir G. F. Hampson on New Moths. 


cupreous purple and green at extremity and with purple on ventral 
surface. Fore wing uniform golden green, the cilia fuscous brown. 
Hind wing uniform fuscous brown, rather thinly scaled. Underside 
uniform fuscous brown without any green. 


Hab. W. Turkestan, Pamirs, Alitshur, 12,500 ft. 24 
type. zp. 20 mill. 

This species also was taken by M. Avinoff on his 1909 
journey; it is closely allied to P. dolosa Stand., and has 
similar antennal characters, but has no green on the 
underside of the wings. 


PYRALIDAE. 
AGROTERINAE. 


118a. Pyrausta rubritinetalis, n. sp. 


9. Head whitish tinged with rufous; thorax black mixed with 
rufous; abdomen black irrorated with white; pectus, legs and 
ventral surface of abdomen white. Fore wing rufous irrorated 
with black; a black fascia above inner margin from base to beyond 
middle with a white fascia above it in submedian interspace; a 
black streak on extremity of median nervure with a white fascia 
above it in the cell; an oblique white band from below costa just 
before apex to inner margin, defined on each side by black, the 
black on inner side interrupted at submedian fold; a slight black 
terminal line. Hind wing fuscous, the cilia whitish with a fuscous 
line near base. Underside white irrorated with fuscous; fore wing 
with fuscous subterminal band; both wings with fine black terminal 
line. 


Hab. Kasumir, Nubra Valley, Panomite. 19 type. 
Exp. 20 mill. 


( 435) 


XVII. Cocoon Softening in some Agrotids (Noctuae). By 
T. A. Coapman, M.D., F.R.S. 


[Read November 5th, 1919.] 


In making some further observations on the resting posi- 
tions of Lepidoptera immediately after the expansion of 
the wings and before the resting attitude normal to the 
species is assumed, I met with a circumstance in con- 
nection with the emergence from the pupa of certain Agrotid 
Noctuae that was new to me, and has not so far as I know 
been reported as to that group. The species observed all 
pupate underground, and make a cocoon which usually 
contains a good deal of silk. What I saw seemed unmis- 
takably to indicate that this silk is softened by a special 
secretion by the moth during emergence, so as to facilitate 
its breaking through. 

In order to see the moths immediately after the expan- 
sion of the wings, the accident of coming across a moth 
just at that stage, in the breeding cage, is rather uncer- 
tain and very disappointing. It is only too often the case 
that one finds the moth some little time after the critical 
period one wished to see had passed. 

To obviate this difficulty I had the pupae out of their 
cocoons and laid them on the bottom of the jar. Like most 
others, these moths emerge at a particular time of day— 
often, however, spread over several hours. When emer- 
gence is imminent, the pupa, which has been darkening for 
a few days from the brown chitinous colour to nearly black, 
displays the feature that I have called “‘ Inflation.” * Air 
is secreted into the alimentary canal, distending the 
abdomen, so that the segments are stretched apart, exposing 
the intersegmental membrane (between the movable seg- 
ments) and lengthening the abdomen, making a marked 
change in the appearance of the pupa. 

When this extension is complete, emergence takes place 
very soon, generally within an hour. By watching for this 
indication, the emergence can be observed, without unduly 
prolonged watching, or futile watching when no emergence 
is due to take place. 

Whilst inflation is taking place, the pupa frequently 


* Proceedings South London Entomological Society, 1902, p. 22 
TRANS. ENT. SOC, LOND. 1919,—PARTS II, IV. (DEC.) 


436 Dr. T. A. Chapman on 


moves the abdominal segments, in some cases possibly to 
assist the abdominal contents to accommodate themselves 
to the expansion that is taking place. In others the pupa 
is throughout quiescent. 

Emergence begins by the rupture of the pupa case, and 
the gradual emergence of the moth seems to involve 
strenuous exertion, and the abdomen is obviously making 
the same vermicular movements that a larva does when 
walking. When the moth has emerged a certain distance, 
about 8 mm. in the case of Triphaena fimbria and about 
5 mm. with Agrotis comes, it becomes suddenly absolutely 
still, in what I may call the triangular or akimbo attitude, 
because the first two pairs of legs “have so far left the pupa 
case that the femur and tibia with the body of the insect 
make a triangle, the tibio-femoral articulation being held 
away from the side of the insect; each of these four legs 
therefore forms a triangle, with a somewhat grotesque 
effect. Almost at the same time, a globule of fluid begins 
to appear at the mouth at the base of the labial palpi, 
which are completely deflexed. As the proper use of this 
fluid is impossible under the conditions of the observation, 
it gradually accumulates till a considerable drop is formed, 
the pupa lying on its back, so that in almost every case the 
drop could no longer maintain its position and rolled off, 
and a second one begins to form; in one or two cases a 
third and even a fourth drop appeared. It seemed that 
the surface of the moth could not be wetted by the fluid, 
which consequently appeared as a spherical drop, a sphere 
broken only, of course, at the point at which it was being 
added to by the mouth. Such a drop, of course, easily fell 
off, later or earlier, according to whether the pupa was 
exactly on its back or leant a little to one side. 

The emergence to the angular position occupies a little 
over a minute. The angular position is maintained usually 
for something over a minute; in a specimen of 7. fimbria 
it was seventy seconds, in one of A. comes it extended to 
six and a half minutes—these are about the extreme values. 
During this period, in normal circumstances, no doubt the 
fluid is soaking into and softening the front of the cocoon. 
At the end of the period, in my examples, the moths sud- 
denly completed their emergence with a rush and quickly 
made for a position for expansion; it was obvious that all 
the effort for getting out of the pupa case had taken place 
in the first period, though the moth was still three-fourths 


Cocoon Softening in some Agrotids. 437 


within it, and that all its efforts were now available for 
breaking through the cocoon—a labour that my examples 
had not to undertake. It is to be regretted that I con- 
centrated my attention so much on the mechanical part 
of the process and neglected to make any chemical examina- 
tion of the fluid, which must, however, have been very 
perfunctory. No doubt a considerable amount of the fluid 
might be collected, if preparations were made for doing so, 
the material being a good supply of pupae of, say, 7’. fimbria 
and Agrotis pronuba, which can easily be obtained in 
quantity. 

We have long known of the cocoon-softening fluids of 
Saturnids and Cerurids, and I have reported a similar fluid 
as used by sawflies (Trichiosoma tibiale); there are prob- 
ably other records, so that no doubt if observations were 
made it would prove to be a very frequent circumstance. 
I have not, however, been able to find any observations 
reported except those on Saturniids and Cerurids, and 
certain Lasiocampids and Limacodids mentioned by Mr. 
Latter. I may say that in many specimens of Hriogaster 
lanestris and Limacodes testudo 1 have reared, I have seen no 
indication of a softening fluid, the lid of the cocoon being 
broken off by pressure from within at a specially provided 
brittle line, and started in Limacodes by a sharp pupal es 

In 1868 Trouvelot, in the American Naturalist, vol. 
p. 34, recorded that the softening of the cocoon by the 
secretion of a fluid by the moth about to emerge was, in the 
case of Telea polyphemus, marked by a distinct. pause in the 
movements of the moth between the breaking of the 
chrysahs and the rupture of the cocoon for emergence, a 
pause during which the softening fluid has time to act on 
the adhesive material of the cocoon. 

In the case of Actias luna, Packard (American Natural- 
ist, vol. xu, p. 379,1879), described the “ cocoon-breaker,”’ 
which, it would appear, was in active use by the moth 
from the moment of rupturing the pupa case, till the moth 
broke through the cocoon, no pause occurring. 

Kettlewell recorded precisely similar observations in 1907 
(Journal Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., xvu, p. 541) on Actias 
selene, and on Antheraea roylet and Caligula simla. 

In Mr. Latter’s papers in our Transactions for 1892 and 
1895, on the emergence of D. vinula from its cocoon, the 
only definite reference to this point is in 1895, p. 400, 
where it appears that the insect is active during the whole 


438 Dr. T. A. Chapman on 


process of emergence; there is no resting period, the move- 
ments being with two objects, to “ compress the contents 
of the body and expel drops of potassium hydroxide from 
the mouth” and “constitute the strokes made by the 
labial prongs against the cocoon wall.” 

In looking through Mr. Latter’s papers and my own on 
Hybocampa milhausert (Entomologist, 1890, p. 91) and 
on Cerura (Entomologist, 1892, p. 302), I conclude that 
there really is no resting stage in Cerura. 

In Hybocampa the moth is active all the time in cutting 
out the lid with its “sardine opener,” the cutting being 
facilitated by the softening fluid that is guided into the 
track by the opener. 

In Cerura the moth is active in smearing the fluid over 
the proper area of the cocoon. 

There is one fact in the emergence of Cerura, though 
this is hardly relevant to the present paper, that convinces 
me that the moth does not produce any effect on the cocoon 
with the labial prongs that Mr. Latter so carefully describes 
and figures, and that is that the opening by which Cerura 
emerges from its cocoon is a very irregular fracture, often 
in several pieces, and not alike in any two instances. Were 
the prongs in any way cutting or disruptive implements the 
hid would be of regular form and uniform in all cases, as, 
in fact, the id in Hybocampa is. 

The prongs are, as Mr. Latter recognises, to keep the 
“shield ”’ in position during the movements of the moth— 
a function that would be in danger of failing were they also 
used in tearing the cocoon. 

The movements of the moth are, I think, entirely 
directed to distributing the fluid properly; any assistance 
they give to the expression of it is, so to speak, accidental. 
I have reared a good many Cerura in the last few years, 
and my observations on them quite confirm this view of 
the mechanics of the escape from the cocoon. 

So far as I have been able to find any published notes on 
the subject, the only observation of a rest being taken 
between breaking the pupa shell and quitting the cocoon is 
that by Trouvelot on T'elea polyphemus, but one supposes it 
must also take place in such cases as in species of Saturnia 
like S. pyri, 8. carpini, etc., that have a specially prepared 
exit ; which, indeed, also exists in such species as Antheraea 
pernyt and A. yamamai, although the undisturbed cocoon 
shows no indication of it. 


Cocoon Softening in some Agrotids. 439 


The interval, then, that occurs in these Noctuids during 
which the moth lies absolutely inert, is rather unusual than 
otherwise. The triangular or akimbo attitude has not been 
noticed in other cases of cocoon softening. 

The elbows (or knees) must press against the sides of 
the cocoon, and so maintain the head of the moth against 
the end of the cocoon, so that the fluid at once comes in 
contact with it. On the softening having taken place and 
the moth resuming its efforts to escape, these angular pro- 
jections must give effective points d’appur for the necessary 
forward efforts. 

I add some notes of the actual observations : 

Agrotis comes, June 14, 1919, at 8 p.m. (G.M.T.). Found 
a pupa lying, as it happened, on its back, with the imago 
so far emerged that the top of the front piece of the pupa 
reached only to the base of the femur of the first pair of 
legs, the femora and tibiae of the first and second pair of 
legs projecting angularly, the tarsi being still covered within 
the pupa case, giving, from the tibio-femoral joints standing 
away from the pupa, a rather unusual aspect. On the 
face of the moth was a globule of clear fluid. In a few 
minutes this fell off, then a rather larger globule appeared 
during a few minutes; this also fell off, and the insect still 
lay motionless. A trace of fluid again appeared. Then, 
suddenly, by a few active movements the pupal case was 
left and a rapid rush was made, but brought to a standstill 
almost at once, a place suitable for expanding the wings 
being found; this occurred about 8.15. 

A. comes spins a loose cocoon underground; it seems a 
reasonable hypothesis to suppose, that at the stage of 
emergence observed the cocoon would make some impedi- 
ment to further advance, and the fluid was intended to 
soften the cocoon or the earth in which it laid. The fluid 
appeared to come from somewhere close to the bases of the 
labial palpi; certainly it had nothing to do with the pro- 
boscis, which still lay, as in the pupa, straight down in 
front, its extremity still in the pupa case; the labial palpi 
were also deflexed, so as to be, as in the pupa, straight 
down in front (¢. e. along the venter). 


Triphaena fimbria, June 15, 1919. 


9.10. pm. (G.M.T.). A pupa that was normal 20 
minutes ago has the abdominal segments 
stretched. 


440 Dr. T. A. Chapman on 


10.3. Emerged to “triangular”’ position in about 20 
seconds, is about 8 mm. out of the pupa case, 
pupa and moth on dorsum. Fluid at once began 
to appear. 

6.. Globule of fluid is about 2°5 mm. in diameter, 
point of origin above bases of labial palpi, which 
are deflexed, pointing directly backward (to- 
wards posterior extremity). 

10.7. Having been quite motionless, emergence is 
almost suddenly completed, taking only a few 
seconds, the drop of fluid falls off, and the moth 
rushes, almost wildly at first, to find a resting- 
place for expansion. Naturally, of course, the 
fluid would have been absorbed by the cocoon, 
and the moth would have had a further consider- 
able effort to get through the cocoon and any 
superincumbent material. 


I may abbreviate several other records. 


T. fimbria, June 17. 


10.5.20 p.m. (G.M.T.). Breaks pupa shell. 

10.6.20. Fluid appears. 

10.7.0. Reaches angular position, fluid rapidly in- 
creasing. 

10.8.0. Very large globule of fluid. 

10.8.10. Globule falls as moth rushes out. 


T. fimbria, June 18. 


9.11.0 p.m. (G.M.T.). Begins emergence. 
9.12.30. Fluid 1 mm. in diameter. 

9.14.0. Fluid 2.5 mm. in diameter. 

9.14.15. Moves forward a little and then stops. 
9.15.0. Fluid drops. 


9.15.30. Completes emergence. 


T. fimbria, June 13. 


10.28.0 p.m. Has burst pupa and protrudes about 
10mm. The moth les quiet, with all tarsi 
still within pupa. A globule of fluid appears 
on face. 

10.31.0. Moth completes emergence. 


Cocoon Softening in some Agrotids. 44] 


T. fimbria, June 17. 


7.30 (G.M.T.). Found a pupa with abdominal seoments 
extended. 
12. Began to emerge, and in 80 seconds (1.20) 
15.20, it reached angular stage and became quite 
quiescent, fluid exuding from base of labial 

alpl. 

8.16.40. Globule large, moth became active and left 
pupa case in a few seconds. 


8. 
8. 


Agrotis comes, June 25, 1919. 


9.10. p.m. (G.M.T.). A pupa has abdominal segments 

extended. 

9.50. In the course of about 30 seconds, forced itself 
out of the pupa about 5 mm. with tibio- 
femoral joints of first and second pairs of legs 
projecting in triangular manner, and at once 
a globule of fluid began to exude from mouth, 
the moth being absolutely quiescent, and was 
of some size at the end of two minutes. 

9.54. The globule is about 4.5 mm. in diameter, in 
another half-minute, the moth became sud- 
denly active and rapidly completed emergence, 
the drop falling away at 9.54.30. 


A. comes, June 17. 


10.20.20. p.m. (G.M.T.). Breaks pupa. 

10.21.20. Reaches angular position, and fluid appearing. 

10.22. Considerable globule. 

10.23.50. Globule falls off. 

10.24.40. Small drop of fluid. 

10.25.5.. Rushes out, palpi adpressed backwards, 
antennae beneath wings. 


A. comes, June 17. 


9.46.5, p.m. (G.M.T.). Breaks pupa. 
9.47.5. Fluid appears. 

9.47.20. Reaches resting position. 
9.49.0. Rushes out. 


442 Dr. Chapman on Cocoon Softening in some Agrotids. 


A. comes, June 17. . 
9.59.50. p.m. (G.M.T.). Begins to move. 


10.0.40. 
10.1.30. 
10.2.30. 
10.2.50. 
10.3.40. 
10.4.20. 
10.5.10. 


In angular attitude with fluid. 
Large globule. 

Globule falls. 

Small globule appears. 
Considerable globule. 

Large globule. 

Rushes out. 


A. comes, June 18. 
8.21. p.m. (G.M.T.). Pupa breaks. 


8.22.10. 


8.23.0. 
8.24.0. 


8.25.20. 
8.26.30. 
8.28.20. 


8.28.50. 


Angular position attained and fluid begins to 
appear. 

Considerable globule. 

Large globule. 

Globule falls off when quite 2 mm. in diameter. 

Fresh globule forming. 

Globule falls off when nearly 2 mm. in 
diameter. 

Small fresh globule (3rd) falls off as the moth 
makes the usual rush. The wild rush is more 
impressive after the first slow laborious 
emergence, and then the prolonged 
quiescence. 


I made some observations also on Triphaena jyanthina. 


( 443 ) 


XVIIT. Notes on Lycaena alcon F., as reared in 1918-1919. 
By T. A. CHAPMAN, M_D., F.RS. 


[Read November 5th, 1919.] 


Prates XXITI-X XVIII. 


My observations on the early stages of Lycaena alcon F., 
in 1917-1918, ending with the emergence of a g imago on 
Aug. 2, 1918, are reported by Monsieur Oberthiir, in the 


16th re of the “Atudes de Lépidoptérologie Comparée,” 
and referred to in the Proceedings of the Entomological 
Society of London, 1918, p. clv. 

Monsieur Oberthiir sent me larvae of LZ. alcon again in 
the autumn of 1918, and my observations on these are 
similar to those of the preceding year, but I have added 
an item or two. I have especially secured figures by Mr. 
EK. C. Knight of the full-grown larva and pupa (P]. XXIII). 
Mr. Knight’s figures are remarkably good, though those of 
the larva do not: suggest so strongly, as a close examination of 
the living larva does, that the fat-bodies are really the basis 
of the appearance of the larva and lead to the dorsal vessel 
appearing as a dark line down the back, a line in which 
really nothing is to be seen but the darkness due to its 
being overshadowed by the tissues beside it, making it 
an unoccupied chasm. It varies in width with the regular 
pulsations, and the figure shows a spot where it is rather 
wider as the pulsation passes along. I also succeeded in 
obtaining the larval skins cast on pupation, and one of 
these, obtained immediately it was cast, is not altogether 
a failure in mounting; the others were less successful. I 
was very glad to obtain these, as it enables me to show 
photographs proving that the head and prothoracic plate 
of the full-grown larva are identical with those of the small 
third instar larva that is carried into the ants’ nests. 
However much any one may be willing to accept my word 
for this most remarkable circumstance in the life-history 
of a Lepidopteron, it is much more satisfactory to have 
actual demonstration submitted. 

I had six nests of Myrmica, four of which were M. 

TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PARTS III, IV. (DEC.) 


444 Dr. T. A. Chapman’s Notes on 


scabrinodis and two M. laevinodis. Several of these were 
poor in quantity of brood and in other respects, but all 
accepted the larvae of L. alcon given them in September. 
On Sept. 13 they are noted as all grown and looking well. 

On Oct. 13 No. 1 nest (JZ. scabrinodis) had practically no 
brood, but four L. alcon larvae. One of these was removed 
to nest 2, anewly taken nest of M. scabrinodis, with plenty of 
-brood, this transferred larva soon disappeared, and the 
nest was used to supply No. 1 with ant brood, and in the 
result two L. alcon in No. 1 reached maturity. 

No. 3 nest, M. laevinodis, had four L. alcon, one was given 
to nest 4 (also M. laevinodis), but disappeared. No. 4 nest 
was afterwards used to supply No. 3 with ant brood, and 
one L. alcon larva matured in No. 3. 

Nos. 5 and 6 were small nests without much brood, each 
contained L. alcon larvae. So late as Dec. 16 No. 5 had one 
L. aleon and No. 6 had four. On Jan. 18, 1919, No. 6 had 
three L. alcon but hardly any brood, and No.5 had by some 
oversight been allowed to get too dry and contained neither 
L. alcon nor ant brood, and the ants crowded round water as 
soon as supplied to them. It was a small nest, both as to 
the nest itself and the ants contained in it, and probably 
dried up too easily. 

On Feb. 23 a larva in nest 6 was found dead, and later 
the others disappeared, probably from insufficiency of ant 
brood, though some was supplied from nest 2. 


In the autumn the L. alcon larvae appear to suck the 
juices of the ant larvae, and the collapsed remains are 
found on the middens. The L. alcon increase in size and 
become several millimetres longer, but during the winter 
they dwindle again to nearly the size at which they entered 
the nest, and the larva in nest 3 that finally pupated, but 
not satisfactorily, was so small at the end of winter that 
I thought it could not come round. 

In the spring the ZL. alcon eat the ant larvae, holding them 
between the head and the front of the forward abdominal 
segments, the necessary curvature being in the thoracic 
segments. 

In the spring no collapsed ant larvae are found, nor did 
I find any frass containing ant remains, but my search 
was probably defective, as the middens (the glasses on 
which I gave them honey) were always very wet from 
deliquescence of honey, and full of remains of flies, earwigs 


Lycaena alcon F., as reared in 1918-1919. 445 


and other food provided, presenting a great difficulty to 
effective examination, that I failed adequately to face. 

May 5.—There survive to-day three L. alcon larvae, two in 
nest 1 (M. scabrinodis) and one in nest 3 (M. laevinodis). 
Those in nest | are a larva (1) now about 7 mm. long and the 
other (2) still to all appearance of only wintering size. The 
one (5) in nest 3 looks rather starveling, but is always 
picked up and carried off by the ants when daylight is let 
into the nest. 

May 19.—-The ZL. alcon have grown.. In nest 1 No. 1 is 
now fully 9 mm. Jong and stout in proportion, much paler 
in colour, ight rose or flesh colour. No. 2. is onlv 5 mm., 
but looks stouter and paler and is to all appearance doing 
well. No. 3 (in nest 3) is about 6 mm. long and looks 
thriving, and contrasts with the starveling it was some 
two or three weeks ago. Since this month came in, it 
has been possible to cet varied food for the ants, flies, 
small Tipulids, ete., but the increased activity of the ants, 
their larvae, and the whole nest, is probably seasonal 
rather than dietetic, though the latter is no doubt essential 
in view of the spring awakening. The ant larvae grow 
verv markedly, and eggs are more or less plentitul in nests 
with queens. 

May 25.—No. 1 is now very fat, all but 10 mm. long. 
No. 2 is growing well, about 6°5 mm. long. No. 3 has 
erown very well, nearly 7 mm. long. There are in nest 1 
some worker ant pupae. 

May 30.—-No. | is 10 mm. long and about 2°5 thick. 
No. 2, 8 mm. and 2 mm. thick. No. 1 is very pale, not 
whitish, but very whitey pink. No. 2 is darker, about a 
flesh-colour. No. 1 is therefore about twice the bulk of 
No. 2. An ant is about 4 mm. long and averages perhaps 
0-6 mm. thick. The respective bulks would be: No. A 
62 cmm.; No. 2, 32 cmm.; an ant 15 cmm. Yet the 
ants manage to move the larvae about. No. 3 is 9 mm. 
long by about 2°3 across, not of quite so pale a tone as 
No. 1. 

The ant larvae in nest 3 have been dwindling in numbers 
of late, and yesterday I gave them more from another 
nest; there can be little doubt that the L. alcon larva must 
actually eat them. 

June 9.—No. 1 L. alcon very pale, 11 mm. long. No. 2 
seen on examining nest to have half a larva (or vather as) 
held between its head and forward abdominal segments, 


446 Dr. T. A. Chapman’s Notes on 


the head being depressed by bending of thorax. In a few 
minutes, no doubt owing to disturbance, the larva straight- 
ened itself and the small size of the remains of ant larva 
was evident; the nest contained only full-grown larvae and 
pupae. 

June 12.—No. 3 L. alcon, figured x 4 by Mr. Knight 

(Pl. XXIII). It looked 11 or 12 mm. in nest, but is 14mm. 
when out ot nest and measure can be put against it. It has 
a black patch beneath mesothorax, so it is supposed all is not 
well with it. The nest is now a rather dirty one. Whilst 
having his portrait taken the larva showed an activity 
much “beyond what one expected from its quiet sedentary 
attitude in the nest, and whilst out of the nest, must have 
walked a good many feet. 
June 12.—Looking into nest 1 at 6 p.m. (G.M.T.) this 
evening, larva No. 2 was seen resting on the floor of the 
nest, with his head and two first segments raised and his 
head advanced forwards (sphinx attitude), and an ant, 
also with her front raised, had her mouth and that of the 
L. aleon in contact. Luckily I had a lens in hand and 
was able to scrutinise them for ten or twelve seconds, 
when the process ended, the ant going off and the larva 
dropping his front segments to the floor of the nest. I 
directed attention specially to the adjacent mouths, and 
so failed to note precisely the altitude by which the ‘head 
of the ant was raised. I was looking down on the tops 
of both the heads, and the movements of the mouth parts 
touching each other were unquestionably those of food 
being passed from the ant to the larva, viz. sight to and 
fro movements from one to the other, with adjuvant 
movements, or aspects of the same movement, of the 
maxillae, etc. It is difficult to describe this simply or at 
all, considering how short a time for observation was 
allowed, but the heads being in a plane on which one 
looked down at right angles, and the two heads being 
just far enough apart to show the mouth parts of both 
projected between them, their movements as observed 
could clearly only be those of food passing from one 
to the other. I feel, however, that the more I try to 
elaborate the account of what I saw, the less I shall probably 
convey to any one else the certainty that I immediately 
felt that the ant was feeding the L. alcon larva. 

June 15.—L. alcon No. 3 shows a slight enlargement of 
prothorax, whether as first preparation for pupation or 


Lycaena alcon F., as reared in 1918-1919. = 4.47 


in connection with black patch uncertain. JL. alcon No. | 
shows very markedly about and below spiracular region 
the “‘fat-bodies ’ with their rounded convolutions and 
sulci between, filled with clear fluid, not at all unlike 
cerebral convolutions. 

June 16.—No. 2 can hardly be called smaller than No. 1. 
Yet in colour No. 1 is almost yellow, a pale sandy colour, 
whilst No. 2 is still pink, a warm flesh colour. 

Shortly after last entrv, on looking into the nests, No. 2 
was seen to have the remains of an ant larva in the usual 
position, the front segments curled ventrally so as to 
bring them round the small remains of the ant larva, held 
by this curvature and between the prothorax (and head) 
and the 3rd and 4th abdominal segments. In no case has ° 
the larva gone on eating when exposed to the light. 

No. 3 seems to have mesothorax rather swollen. 

June 16.—Third note, later, 4.30 p.m. (G.M.T.). No. 3 
L. alcon is found to be lethargic and motionless, the thoracic 
_ segments are enlarged, more in length than thickness, 
there is a shght waist at lst abl. The abdominal segments 
are still thicker than the thoracic. The black marks 
remain as noted, 7.¢. not extending in any way. The 
larva is obviously near pupation, so is placed alone in a 
separate vessel to try to secure cast skin. Whether the 
black marks will prevent due pupation remains to be seen. 

June 18.—No. 3 found this morning to have pupated, 
the skin is cast, but the black mark seems to have been 
removed only by some tearing (of Ist leg probably), and 
some bleeding had occurred, and the pupa looks shrunk, 
so will probably not mature. 

No. 1 was last night away from brood, with a few ants 
in attendance, and prothorax looked swollen. This 
morning, lengthening of thorax and appearance of waist 
shows preparation of pupal moult. 

June 19.—No. 1 is laid up for pupation, quite lethargic. 

No. 2 is measured to-day, over 14 mm., not quite 15; 
moving too much to be quite precise; is still pink, though 
pale, not yellowish like Nos. | and 3 when full grown. 

June 20.—7 a.m. No. | has just pupated. No. 3 pupa 
apparently alive, but discoloured in places. 

No. 2 seems larger and fatter and rather paler; is a little 
away from brood. 

June 22.—No. 2 lies away from brood, lethargic, meso- 
thorax a little enlarged, Ist and 2nd abl, form a slight 


448 Dr. T.A.Chapman’s Noles on Lycaena alcon F. 


waist, several ants keep running over it, pale, hardly to 
be called pink. 

June 25.—12.1 p.m. (G.M.T.). No. 2 has just pupated. 

July 4.—No. 2 pupa figured by Mr. Knight. 

Mr. Powell tells me that he has succeeded in finding three 
larvae of L. alcon in nests of Myrmica scabrinodis, but not 
in the nests of other ants that he explored. One found on 
June 12 was about 7 mm. long. Two found on June 30 
were 13 mm. 

These larvae were clearly not so advanced as mine kept 
indoors, which are, however, three weeks in advance of 
the previous year—a difference to be attributed to the 
fact that the clerk.of the weather sent us July and August 
instead of May and June. This, of course, affected the 
temperature of my room, though probably not that of the 
ants’ nests in the wild, brood and larvae being carried by 
the ants to shallower or deeper apartments as might be 
necessary to secure a desired temperature. 

July 19.—No. 1 L. alcon has quite matured in pupa, and 
seems to have been ready to emerge for the last two days, 
certain dark marks on the pupa that appeared shortly 
after change probably cause some adhesions preventing 
emergence. 

No. 2 has black eyes and thickened wings, but as yet 
no coloration. 

July 21—9 a.m. (G.M.T.). No.2, a9 ZL. alcon emerged. 


EXPLANATION oF Piates XXIJI-XXVIII. 


Lycaena alcon ¥. 


Plate XXIII, fig. 1. Lateral view of full-grown larva x 4. 

Fig. 2. Dorsal view of full-grown larva x 4. 

If these are compared with the figures on Pl. DI of the 16th vol. 
of the “ Etudes de Lépidoptérologie Comparée,”’ which show the larva 
at a much younger stage, practically that at which it leaves the 
gentian, the great difference in colour due to the extension of the 
skin, in or immediately beneath which the colour resides, is obvious. 
In the full-grown larva the skin is so stretched and the colour diluted 
by covering the larger area, that it retains only a faint pink tinge 


Trans. Ent. Soc.Lond, 1919, Pl. XXIII. 


E.C.Knight delet chromo. Huth imp. 


LARVA AND PUPA OF LYCAENA ALCON L. 


Coy, wd? + 
: 


As ce A 
* , 5 J 2 it 
ee aie, i ~ | ' iy d ; 


j ‘yee 6 Vi 
ees U a” r] 
Torn a wy ey at 9. Ouse soe) 


Trans, Et. Soc.,Lond., 7919. Plate XXIV. 


Half-Toue Eng. Co,, Ltd. 


THIRD SKINS OF LYCAENA ALCON FEF. 


7 | 


| ences 


= a 
pa 


fips 


a ee = 


Le 


=! 


= a 


g 


Trans. Ent. Soc., Lond.,1919. Plate XXV. 


| ~ iil © 


Half-Tone Eng. Co., Ltd. 


HONEY GRAND OF LYCAENA ALCON TF: 


Trans. Ent. Soc., Lond., 1979. Plate XXVI. 


Half-Tone Eng. Co., Ltd, 


THIRD STAGE OF LYCAENA ALCON F. 


Trans. Ent. Soc.,Lond.,1979. Plate XXVIII. 


Half-Tone Eng. Co., Ltd, 


THIRD STAGE OF LYCAENA ALCON F. 


Plate XNVITI, 


ME SOG. LON d.e NOLO: 


. 
fe) 
4 


Trans. I 


Ltd. 


Half-Tone Eng. Co., 


EYCAENA ALCON 


OF 


4 


STAGE 


FOURTH 


ABERRANT 


--<.. 
wo 4 
ae = 


- 


~~ 
Li 


4 


Explanation of Plates. 449 


over the underlying fat-bodies, or the colour may be practically 
evanescent. : 

Figs. 3, 4, 5. Lateral, dorsal and ventral views of pupa x 4. 

Plate XXIV, fig. 1. Skin cast at pupation (of No. 2 larva) x 6. 

Fig. 2. Skin of larva on entry to ants’ nests x 6, i.e. same 
magnification as fig. 1. 

Plate XXV. Honey-gland in skin shown in Plate XXIV, fig. 1 
x 240. The hair-bases and lenticles that crowd round it in fig. 2 
are here seen well spread. Various details of the gland itself are 
well seen; the four circles, seen in all honey-glands of Lycaenids 
examined, are very evident; whatever their precise function in the 
gland, they seem to represent the four dorsal hairs of each abdo- 
minal segment (Ist to 7th), here replaced by the honey-gland. 
Other smaller circles are also shown. 

Plate XXVI, fig. 1. Head and prothoracic plate of skin in 
Plate XXIV, fig. 1 x 35. 

Fig. 2. Head and plate of skin shown on Plate XXIV, fig. 2 x 35- 

Plate XXVII. Head and prothoracic plate of another skin cast 
at pupation. 

The object of these photographs is to show that the full-grown 
larva is in the same instar as the small third instar larva that enters 
the ants’ nest. Though the skin is stretched and the hairs and 
lenticles are more widely apart they are of the same size in the 
large and in the small larva, but the demonstration depends more 
particularly on the head and prothoracic plate being of the same 
size and structure in the large as in the small larva. 

Plate XXVIII, fig. 1. Skin of 4th stage larva figured Plate C, 
Fase. XVI, “Etudes de Lépidoptérologie Comparée” x 20. This 
rare and aberrant specimen is referred to in the following paper on 
L. ewphemus (p. 455). In order to show the small clubbed hairs 
there referred to, I remounted the specimen in Canada balsam, 
not too successfully, but the hairs noted are shown in fig. 2 x 190. 
The arrow pointing towards head is in middle dorsal line of first 
abdominal segment, and the cross in centre of spiracle of same 


segment. 


TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PARTS Il, lV. (DEC.) GG 


( 450 ) 


XIX. Contributions to the Infe History of Lycaena euphemus 
Hb. By T. A. Cuapman, M.D., F.R.S. 


[Read November-5th, 1919.] 
. Prates XXIX-XXXVI. 


MONSIEUR OBERTHUR has continued to pursue the investiga- 
tion of the Myrmicicole species of Lycaena with the ardour 
and enthusiasm which we all admire, but which in no way 
surprises us, since they are always forthcoming for any 
Lepidopterological research. In 1918 the observations on 
L. aleon were followed up, and in 1919, L. ewphemus has 
taken the front place in the work in hand. In both species 
Mr. Powell has been most active and successful, especially 
this summer in the case of L. ewphemus; by a combination 
of hard work, and a genius for understanding and following 
up the details of the life histories of Lepidoptera, we have 
a complete view of the economy of L. ewphemus; though, 
of course, there is still room for further observations. 
Mr. Powell began the campaign by finding a newly emerged 
L. ewphemus over an ants’ nest, and on examining the 
upper portion of the nest found an empty pupa case. 
This case is obviously one of a Lycaena, and as L. arion and 
L. alcon are practically ruled out, it must be the case of 
L.euphemus. For all practical purposes, the proof is almost 
complete that it is that of the imago found. The ants’ 
nest was that of Myrmica ruginodis. Thereafter, in face 
of various practical difficulties, he obtained eggs and larvae 
in four different stages. I have to thank M. Oberthiir and 
Mr. Powell most heartily for sending me material by which 
I have been able to follow up the history of the larva 
during the period of its pre-ant existence, and further to 
place larvae in the nests of ants and observe their life 
therein. I will relate my own observations as though they 
were original, as simplifying the narrative; but almost 
everything I observed was at the same time or earlier 
noted by Mr. Powell. Mr. Powell made one observation, 
viz. that of the ants carrying in the larva of L. ewphemus 
to the nest with the same ceremonial that obtains in the 
case of L. arion. My specimens failed to afford me this 
TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PaRTS IN, IV. (DEC.) 


Dr. Chapman’s Contributions to Life History of Lycaena. 451 


pleasure, though I devoted some time to detecting it. 
Probably it occurs less easily in the case of ants in small 
artificial nests, and the ants and the larva of L. ewphemus 
are certainly much more apathetic towards each other 
than is the case with either L. arion or L. alcon, and L. 
euphemus is decidedly more active than either of the others, 
and not improbably finds its own way into the ants’ nest 
in Many Cases. 

The ege of L. ewphemus is laid on one of the bracts 
at the base of the flower in the flower-head of Sanguisorba 
officinalis; the side of the egg is towards the axis of the 
flower-head, and the vertical axis of the egg is often at right 
angles to that of the flower-head. Oviposition takes place 
whilst the flower-buds have still some growing to do, so 
that the butterfly can push between them into the flower- 
head to reach the bracts inside. Later, the flower-buds 
grow, and the egg, and after, the larva, is quite imprisoned 
until it prepares a way out, for finally leaving the plant. 

The ege is almost of the usual Lycaena shape, much 
that of a cheese, but at first glance seems very different. 
This is due to the top, which in typical Lycaenas is nearly 
flat and has an elaborate network of adventitious white 
material, but is, here, without the white material and is raised 
in a slight arch. The sides have the usual white network, 
and the top has a network without the adventitious white 
material. It is 0°6 mm. wide and 0°35 mm. high. 

The larva lives inside the solid flower-head in its Ist, 
2nd and 3rd instars. In the 3rd instar it completes the 
eating out of a space, very usually by scooping out one 
side of the axis of the flower-head rather above the middle, 
but not unfrequently without invading the central stem 
and even at various angles to it. In doing this it cuts 
several flowers (or fruits) free from the stem, so that one 
at least is easily pushed out when the larva wants to 
escape. The larva, full-grown in its 3rd instar and pretty 
well 4:0 mm. long, fills this excavated space, and there 
undergoes its third moult. This takes place in an extra- 
ordinary manner, one to which I know no parallel, either 
in Lycaenids, or in any other Lepidopteron whose moult- 
ings I have observed. Opened at the right moment, the 
cavity contains the larva of a very curious pallid aspect, 
and it is seen that the larva has loosened itself from the 
skin to be cast, and that the tracheae can be seen through 
it, drawn out for about a third of the width of a segment, 


452 Dr. T. A. Chapman’s Contributions to 


and that the pallid appearance is due to air between the 
effete and the new skin. 

When I first saw such a larva, I said this larva tried to 
moult, but failed and died before it had made much pro- 
gress. Some twenty-four hours after—and I believe, 
usually, after a longer period, but the point could not be 
tested with the amount of material I had, whose destruction 
I feared to risk—the moult is completed, the larva creeps 
out, hardly disturbing the seedpod pushed aside to allow 
of its escape. It is now ready to leave the plant in order 
to meet with ants. On examining the head that is left, 
the cavity is seen to be lined with the cast skin, which 
can, with some care, be removed in the form of a complete 
skin fully distended; not quite complete, however, as the 
larva escaped from it by pushing off the head and a portion 
of the prothorax, which are apt to be lost in looking for 
the cavity containing the skin. 

A good many Lycaenidae leave their first cast skins 
fully distended, and some even a later one, but the process 
of freeing itself from the skin, and to a slight degree begin- 
ning the moult and then resting for a day or two, as L. 
euphenus does, is a puzzling novelty. 

Is it a rest in order to await suitable weather for adven- 
turing on a new world? Is it foregone, if conditions are 
quite suitable when the process is begun? Possibly Mr. 
Powell may have some details throwing light on the 
meaning of this most unusual habit. 

In the 2nd, 3rd and 4th instars the larva is of red or 
red-brown colour closely matching the colour of the flower- 
heads of the Sangwsorba. In the 2nd and 3rd instars the 
armature is of simple hairs with some lenticles. In the 
4th stage the hairs are reduced to a series on each side of 
the dorsum and a lateral series below the spiracles, one or 
two to a segment; these hairs are 0°6 mm. long, below the 
lateral flange there are more numerous and shorter hairs. 
The hairs that were (comparatively) so numerous in the 
previous instars are replaced by stellate hair-bases set, 
one might say, as closely together as there is room for; 
some of these seem to be mere bases, some lenticles, but 
some carry short thick processes, about as long as they 
are wide and that are, of course, morphologically, hairs. 
This larva is, of course, no larger than it was in the 3rd 
instar; it is about 45 mm., though they vary a little in 
size; they do no eating till in the ants’ nest. Seen from 


the Iafe History of Lycaena euphemus. 453 


above they have a curious square aspect, the eight middle 
sepments form a parallelogram divided into eight segments, 
and the prothorax in front and the 7th to 10th abdominal 
segments behind, form two nearly semicircular ends of 
about equal dimensions. 

Once established in the ants’ nests they grow rapidly. 
In a week the 4°5 mm. larva becomes about 7 mm. long, 
and looks a little more when stretched ; but a week or ten 
days later it is no larger, looks even smaller as though 
ceasing feeding with a view to hibernation. 

IT saw a larva eating an ant grub, which it did very 
rapidly; the larva maintained its stiff, straight attitude ; 
it had the ant erub beneath the thorax, held it, and moved 
it forward with its true legs, and finished it by pressing it 
against the glass, through which J was observing it. The 
head was all the time retracted within the prothorax 
with the jaws pointing downwards; the hollow in the 
prothorax was large enough to give the head much free- 
dom of movement, and when the meal was finished it might 
be said to lick its chops, as it passed its mouth rapidly 
with licking-like movements over the whole interior sur- 
face of the prothoracic hood, as though cleaning off any 
fluids from the eaten ant grub, and I could not resist the 
conclusion that that was what it was actually doing. This 
process of eating was very different from that of L. alcon. 

I have: never seen a larva actually amongst the ant 
brood, as was so usual with L. alcon, nor have I seen an ant 
take any notice whatever of a larva—-they run over them 
and past them as if they were merely portions of the nests. 
The larvae are fairly active, may often be seen moving 
about, but are usually resting on the side of the nest a 
short way from the ant brood. 

I have seen no ant milking a larva, except when I was 
watching for a larva to be carried into the nest; in this 
case the larva offered a fluid at the honey-gland, which 
was taken by a passing ant, who took no further notice. 
Further fluid was secreted and accepted by other ants 
three or four times in one case, but the ants made no 
further overtures. 

On Sept. 17 a larva was taken from nest 3 and sent to 
be figured ; it came back on the 21st and looked well; it 
was returned to the nest. The ants paid a little more 
attention to it than they usually do to the larvae of L. 
euphemus, which is, indeed, practically none at all. They 


454 Dr. T. A. Chapman’s Contributions to 


came up to it, rested a fraction of a second, tapped it 
with their antennae, a few waited a second or two, but all 
then passed on satisfied; their questioning may have been 
as to the arrival being a possible stranger and enemy, 
but equally looked like a welcome home and inquiry as 
to well-being. The next morning, 22nd, the four larvae 
are resting in the sides of the nest away from the brood 
as usual, and it is impossible to say which was the one 
returned. 

A comparison of the larvae of L. arion, L. alcon and 
L. ewphemus in their several instars up to the time of 
entering the ants’ nests, brings into strong relief the extra- 
ordinary peculiarity of ZL. aleon in having only two 
moults and three larval instars. In the first instars they 
are very much alike. The most obvious differences are 
that in L. euphemus the spiracles are of very large size, 
nearly twice the diameter of the others. The lenticles 
are fewer. The prothoracic plate has, in L. alcon, the 
usual pair of lenticles large, and on the front margin; in 
I. arion they are small and a little way from the front, 
and in L. ewphemus it is doubtful whether they can be 
said to be present. 

In the 2nd instar, L. alcon has several pairs of lenticles 
on the prothoracic plate, the others fewer. L. alcon also 
has more lenticles than L. ewphemus. L. arion has a 
stronger panoply on the general surface, more lenticles, 
and the ‘‘skin-points”’ are especially large and dark. 
The size of spiracles in L. ewphemus is now little different 
from the others. 

In the 3rd instar L. ewphemus has the least elaborated 
armature, the skin-points are well developed, but there 
are very few lenticles, except on the last segments, and 
no stellate hair-bases; on the abdominal segments are 
about twenty black, not long, hairs, to be counted between 
the dorsal line and the spiracle. In L. arion there is an 
abundant armature, far short, of course, of that in the 
next instar, but with very numerous lenticles and hair- 
bases, not easily distinguished from each other, and here 
and there slightly stellate. In L. alcon the hairs are about 
as numerous as in L. ewphemus, but are longer and there 
are a great many lenticles (and hair-bases ?), but these carry 
no abortive hairs, and show no stellation. The armature 
is, in fact, less simple than in L. ewphemus, hardly so full 
and developed as in L. arion, very definitely therefore a 


the Life History of Lycaena ewphemus. 455 


3rd instar panoply. This is the last instar in L. alcon. 
The 4th instar is reached by L. arion and L. ewphemus, 
and they are very much alike at this stage. They have a 
dense coat of stellate hair-bases; they have on the dorsum 
a long hair on each side and a long one below the spiracle. 
L. euphemus has a second smaller dorsal hair on 4th, 5th 
and 6th abdominal, and has the first abdominal seement 
narrowed and without dorsal hairs. The prothoracic plate 
in L. ewphemus has much the form of a boy’s kite—--a rather 
broad one. In ZL. arion it is more rounded and shield- 
shaped. In both, on the margins of the segments the 
hair-bases carry minute. hairs, most obvious on the fronts 
of the 3rd to the 6th abdominal. These are more usually 
hairlike in L. arion, in L. euphemus more frequently thick 
and clubbed. 

In the remarkable solitary instance in which I obtained 
a 4th instar specimen of L. alcon, the hairs and lenticles 
are much. as in the 3rd instar; the lenticles (or hair-bases ?) 
are circular, none stellate, but there are certain minute 
clubbed hairs very like those in the fourth stage of ZL. 
euphemus and L. arion, and of which there is no trace 
in the third stage of L. alcon. There is a double row of 
these in the incision between the metathorax and the first 
abdominal segment, numbering about forty altogether, 
perhaps a single row along the border of each segment, 
a few others may be found on the mesothorax and on the 
6th and 7th abdominal segments. The bases of these are 
smaller than the lenticles, receding from, rather than ap- 
proaching, the stellate form. There may be other points 
that escape me, the specimen being a little immature, 
but these hairs fully indicate that the larva of L. alcon 
retains a memory, weak and indistinct, of a 4th instar, 
probably with an armature not unlike that of L. arion and 
L. ewphemus. 

It may be noted that the enlarged meso- and metathoracic 
segments dorsally in L. ewphemus, together with the smaller 
and weaker lst abdominal, present a resemblance to the 
curious attitude we saw in LZ. arion, and which Mr. Powell 
has seen in L. ewphemus, which the larva assumes when 
being carried in by the ants. There is no corresponding 
weak Ist abdominal in L. arion, but in L. alcon this seg- 
ment is faintly narrower than the following segment and 
has only about half the number of hairs, about ten instead 
of twenty, across the dorsum between the spiracles. The 


456 Dr. T. A. Chapman’s Contributions to 


primary hairs that are so strong in L. ewphemus compared 
with the other species, obviously might interfere with the 
ant getting a proper hold of the larva by the 1st abdominal 
segment, which seems to be the correct position at which 
to grasp it, were they equally strong here as elsewhere. 
The disappearance of the dorsal hair gets over this difficulty. 

The long hairs in L. ewphemus would be inconvenient if 
the larva lived amongst the brood, as that of L. alcon 
does ; but it always rests on the wall of the nest, its own 
length and often much more away from the brood; these 
two facts are no doubt therefore correlated, but precisely 
how this is brought about is less evident. 

There is ground for much speculation, but, so far as my 
present knowledge goes, for little else, as to how English 
Myrmica of two (and possibly all) species can satisfactorily 
entertain the larvae of L. alcon and of L. ewphemus. 

There is sufficient room for astonishment that these 
Myrmica (M. scabrinodis and M. laevinodis), natives of 
Reigate, are excellent hosts for L. arion, which their 
ancestors can only have known a considerable number of 
generations back, and any crossing with species of Myrmica 
familiar with LZ. arion must have been exceptional and very 
indirect. Still, one may explain in that way that L. arion 
is not altogether strange to them. But when we come to 
L. alcon and L. ewphemus, we are dealing with species 
that Reigate ants cannot have known during some un- 
counted generations. It is to be observed that we cannot 
say they know all about L. arion and the same instinct 
serves them with these other species. The habits of the 
three species of Lycaena in the ants’ nests differ distinctly 
in each species, and their treatment by their hosts equally 
differ in each case. The attitudes of M. scabrinodis and of 
M. laevinodis are identical with each Lycaena. Each treats 
LL. arion with a certain amount of care, but has an extreme 
solicitude in the case of L. alcon, whilst as to L. ewphemus, 
they may be said, comparatively, to pay no attention to 
them. 

One definite conclusion seems forced upon us, and that 
is, that the relations between Myrmica and Lycaena 
originated with the ancestors of the two genera, when 
possibly each was represented by a single species; that 
as Myrmica developed into a number of species, Lycaena 
maintained relations with all (? or most) of them; that 
as Lycaena subdivided into separate species, each form 


the Life History of Lycaena euphemus. 457 


trained all the species of Myrmica involved, in its special 
habits, and that all this took place at so distant a date, 
and through so long a period, that the necessary instincts 
are deeply and firmly impressed on the several species of 
Myrmica, so that they remain ready to act on demand, 
though they may not have been exercised for what in 
human chronology we might call ages. 

I may give a rather fuller description of the egg and 
Ist imstar, but a very detailed description of the three 
following instars seems unnecessary in view of the figures 
by Mr. Knight (Pl. XXX) and the photographs of the 
mounted skins (Pl. XXXI-XXXYV), especially as I have 
mentioned various points concerning them in other 
connections. 

Tadd also my notes from day to day to illustrate various 
items in the habits of the larvae. A possible redundancy 
here and there may be useful, as giving the facts from a 
slightly different point of view. 

July 31.—The egg regarded as of the usual cheese shape 
of Lycaenid eggs has the top raised as a slight dome, and 
the bottom is also raised, 7. e. not quite flat. The egg is 
green above and below and the side stands out as a white 
zone, the sides having some of the white material usual 
on Lycaenid eggs, the top and bottom being without it. 
The sides are nearly vertical, perhaps shghtly narrower 
above than below. The egg is 0°6 mm. wide, 0°35 high. 
The lateral zone is 0°23 wide (or high), the difference between 
0°23 and 0°35, viz. 0°12, marks the fullness of the upper 
and lower portions, say 0°08 for the top, 0°04 for the bottom. 
The cells of the white sculpturing of the sides are shallow, 
square rather than hexagonal, but of various forms, and 
about 0°02 in diameter. The top also has a network, 
tending to be more hexagonal, without any adventitious 
white material, and towards the margin at least with cells 
larger than those of the sides, the transition being at a 
very marked and definite line, as is the lower margin of 
the lateral zone also. The actual measurement shows 
these cells to be very slightly larger than those of the 
zone, but the want of the white coat makes them look 
larger comparatively. 

When hatched the larva is about 1 mm. long, of a light 
greyish tint, due to its interior structures, the skin seeming 
to be transparent and colourless. I have not seen it when 
grown, but suppose it acquires something of the ruddy 


458 Dr, T. A. Chapman’s Contributions to 


colour of the later instars. The head is dark, 0°23 mm. 
across, the jaws brown, with five sharp teeth and a short 
one on the lower margin, Ocelli, five in a curve and one 
rather larger at centre of curve. The prothoracic plate is 
pointed at each side, and produced to a blunt angle pos- 
teriorly, but only somewhat curved in front; it is about 
0°18 mm. across; it has no lenticles, a pair of short hairs 
near the front and a slightly longer pair further back 
and wider apart. 

There are several hairs in front of the plate and a pair 
behind it, and three or four in front of the spiracle and a 
little group of five almost in a vertical row behind it. 
On the mesothorax dorsally are, on each side, an anterior 
and two posterior hairs, the latter close together, the 
outer the shorter, On the metathorax there are a longer 
inner and shorter outer hair on each side of the dorsum, 
a minute hair behind these at posterior margin, and a 
lateral hair ranging with abdominal supra-spiracular hairs. 
On the abdominal segments there is a long dorsal hair 
(about 0°07 mm. long), a shorter one a little outside this, 
and a minute one at posterior margin. Above the spiracle 
is a hair about 0°03 mm. long, and a shorter one behind and a 
little above it. The 9th abdominal segment has no dorsal 
hairs but an anal plate; the 10th has about ten marginal 
hairs. 

Below the spiracles are the usual three hairs (four in 
2nd and 3rd thoracic). There is a lenticle below the first 
spiracle ; there is also one just below the dorsal hairs on the 
3rd (sometimes 2nd) to 8th abdominal segments. The 
spiracles are exceedingly large and the first is at the top of 
a chitinous tube deeper than the width of the spiracle; the 
spiracle seems to be level with the cutaneous surface, and 
not, as the tube suggests at first glance, at the top of an 
exterior column, 7. e. the tube is the first portion of the 
trachea. The true legs are tinted, but much paler than the 
head. The prolegs have each an anterior and posterior 
set of hooks, each set consists of a larger and a smaller 
hook, of which the smaller is sometimes wanting. The 
claspers in one specimen had one hook in each set on one 
side, on the other side one set had one, the other two hooks. 

In the 2nd instar the larva is about 3 mm. long and has 
acquired the red (or red-brown) colour, but it is hardly as 
dark as in the two following instars. The primary setae 
(dorsal and lateral) that exist in the first and in the last 


the Life History of Lycaena ewphemus. 459 


instars, are not here obvious by differentiation from the 
other hairs, It is, of course, only an assumption, quite 
reasonable, but also quite open to doubt, that the long hairs 
of the last stage are primary setae. The hairs over the 
dorsum (spiracle to spiracle) of an abdominal segment are 
fourteen to sixteen, but vary in number and disposition 
from segment to segment, and vary in length from about 
0-2 to 0°3 mm.; some on the prothorax are a little longer. 
The skin-points are conspicuous and somewhat regularly 
arranged. The head, legs, and prothoracic plate are dark 
(black till magnified). The lenticles show something of 
the same irregularity of disposition as the hairs. The 
prothoracic plate has two pairs, and also a minute pair that 
seem to represent the special angular hair. In the specimen 
noted, there are two lenticles in front of the right half of 
the prothoracic plate, and one near the left angle; there 
are none on 2nd and 3rd thoracics. The Ist abdominal 
has a lenticle above spiracle on left side only, none on right, 
all the other abdominal spiracles have such a lenticle above 
them, and 4th and 5th abdominal on right side only have a 
second, just above and in front of the first. The 5th and 
following segments have a lenticle on each side of dorsum 
near front margin. On the 7th the spiracular lenticle is a 
good way above the spiracle; on the 8th it is close to the 
spiracle and in front of it, and on the right side only another 
rather behind though above ; the two dorsal ones are rather 
close together and just in front of four rather long hairs 
placed trapezoidally as does not occur on any other segment. 
The 9th has the two dorsal lenticles only; the 10th has 
them also and a pair behind them perhaps representing the 
anal plate, that is otherwise absent. 

The honey-gland is represented by a smooth oval area, 
about 0°2 mm. from angle to angle, with the skin-points 
arranged in condensed lines closer together and smaller 
in size as they approach the smooth area. Very remarkably 
the centre of this area carries a small hair about 0°1 mm. long. 

The spiracles do not differ materially in size from those 
of L. alcon at the same stage. In L. alcon the spiracles are 
each on a low chitinous cone, and its lenticles have a similar 
appearance; it has no trace of honey-gland, and lenticles 
are very numerous on the prothoracic plate. On the prolegs 
in this instar there are to each set (anterior and posterior 
of each proleg) one long hook and two, and occasionally 
three, short ones; on their bases are only two or three quite 


460 Dr. T. A. Chapman’s Contributions io 


small hairs. In the 3rd instar each set has two large and 
three small hooks, but with a little variation. The claspers 
have three hooks; one or two may be large. 

In the last instar there is considerable variation in the 
hooks of the prolegs—a usual formula is two long, two 
medium, and five short; there may be four long, and it 
may be difficult as to several hooks to say whether they are 
long or short; eleven seems a usual total number, The 
column of the proleg has a covering of very short hairs with 
conical bases. The marginal group above this has twelve 
to fifteen similar short hairs, as well as stellate lenticles or 

bases. 

The 4th stage larva has the first six abdominal segments 
with a dorsal surface, raised a little at each side, but with 
a deep recess in the middle line at its anterior margin, This 
recess has stellate hair-bases at the bottom of the hollow, 
but the sides are nearly free from them. In the 3rd instar 
there is no trace of this, but at the posterior margin of the 
segment there is a small shining point as of a chitinous 
plate; this is almost hidden in the incision; the mounted 
skin, however, shows no such structure. 

In 4th stage the hollows in the dorsal line on the 2nd and 
3rd thoracic segments are in the middle of the segment and 
not at the anterior margin as on the abdominal. On these 
the saddle behind the depression is lower than on each side, 
giving a dorsal depressed line, sinking much lower at the 
depressions and incisions. 

The following are some of the detailed notes made from 
day to day. 

July 16.—Mr. Powell found a 3 L. ewphemus drying its 
wings and, searching below, found a pupa case just over 
a nest of Myrmica ruginodis. The pupa case (sent to me) 
is obviously that of a Lycaena. 

July 30.—Received from Mr. Powell six heads of Sanguis- 
orba with eges of L. ewphemus. The egg is inserted almost 
close to the central stem, betweenthe bracteolesand pedicels ; 
the flower-buds would appear to have grown larger since 
the laying, and are packed together so tightly that it seems 
impossible that the egg could have been placed beneath 
them and got into place except when they were smaller. 
The egg appears to be lightly attached to the base of the 
bracteole by both surfaces, or by one to the pedicel. The 
side of the egg is towards the main stem. 

Aug. 22,—Received from Mr. Powell five larvae of 


the Life History of Lycaena euphemus. 461 


L. euphemus, said to be in five heads of Sanguisorba; when 
they arrived all the larvae were on the paper containing 
the heads, the latter fairly fresh (had been posted 20th). The 
largest of the larvae was lethargic, seemed dead, but had a 
firm tone that suggested .it was stunned by travelling or 
more likely sickening for moult. The larvae were reported 
by Mr. Powell to be in 3rd instar, and that they 
underwent another moult. The other four larvae were 
replaced on heads of Sangwisorba and were, so far as 
appeared, all right. 

Aug. 23.—The largest larva (about 4 mm.) had clearly 
been laid up for moult, as this morning the old skin had 
been moved a little, some air under it and tracheas slightly 
withdrawn, the larva stillimmovable, slightly curved. Two 
of the other larvae were still wandering and two invisible, 
supposed buried in heads. One of the wandering larvae 
was offered heads of Potervwm, this was not accepted. 

Aug. 24.—This morning the large larva, which had made 
no move last evening, had cast its skin, which remained 
fully distended; the larva itself had spun a few threads 
to form a resting-place. Shortly after it was found on the 
move with a fluid globule on the honey-gland. It was 
placed in nest of M. scabrinodis; the ants paid little atten- 
tion to it. It was moved to a small collection of ants and 
brood, but a quarter of an hour later the ants had removed 
the brood and left the larva stranded alone. Later they 
frequently examined it, apparently sometimes biting it, 
but without injury. It secreted various supplies of honey, 
which was lapped up by passing ants, but never sought for 
and not found by the ants actually examining it. 

Aug. 25.—This larva was found dead, a little shrunk, 
amongst débris; it had been bitten as evidenced by marks, 
but the skin did not appear to have been pierced. 

Of the four smaller larvae, two were dead, one was 
crawling on the glass, and one was half buried in a head of 
Sanguisorba with some frass behind it. The wandering 
one was offered the best remaining Sanguisorba and heads of 
Poterium. Later its head was buried in the Poterium; but 
there was no definite indication that it was eating. 

The larvae are dark red, almost identical with the colour 
of the Sanguisorba heads when just past flowering. The 
smaller ones are about 3 to 3°5 mm. long; the larger were 
about 4 mm., but would probably have been a little more 
stretched. When it had moulted, the dorsal hairs were 


462 Dr. T. A. Chapman’s Contributions to 


seated each on a rounded boss, occupying nearly the width 
of the segment beside the middle line; the lateral hairs 
were like the dorsal, long and conspicuous. The hair-bases 
are very closely packed together. 

Aug. 28.—Third and fourth stage larvae. 

The 3rd stage larva (hardly full grown) is nearly or quite 
4 mm. long when stretched, and 0°7 mm. wide; the 4th 
stage 4°5 to 5 mm. long and 1°5 mm. wide. 

The 3rd stage tapers a little backwards; the 4th stage 
remarkably square, the two sides being parallel, only the 
ends rounded. 

The most notable difference between the two is in the 
hairs in 3rd stage being distinctly hairs and sparsely dis- 
tributed, and in 4th being largely hair-bases closely packed. 
Both are of a deep dark pink-red, almost the same as the 
colour of the head of Sanguisorba when flowering is over, 
but before it begins to get very dark. In the 3rd stage the 
incisions are well marked, but the margins on dorsal view 
show each segment rounded and projecting and not so 
distinctly a rather separate square projection as in the 4th. 
The head and legs are dark, but not quite black; the pro- 
thoracic plate is also very dark. 

In the 4th instar the square outline when the larva is 
at rest is notable; when actively moving there is a little 
tapering towards the tail; but when at rest the prothorax 
in front and the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th segments behind 
form semicircles, which are almost identical in size and 
outline; the eight intermediate segments are also all very 
similar, the mesothorax and the 4th, 5th and 6th abl. being 
a little wider than the others, the Ist abdominal smaller. 

On Aug. 28 various larvae are noted as looking well in 
ants’ nests (Myrmica scabrinodis and M. laevinodis), but 
nest 1 was without a larva, and a new larva was placed in it. 

On Aug. 30 this larva was found dead. Another larva 
was given and was finally accepted. Larvae in other nests 
well, all near the brood, but not in it. 

Sept. 2.—Yesterday I hunted for Myrnuca to obtain 
some brood to supplement some of my nests; I obtained, 
however, only a small quantity of brood, which I left in a 
tube, putting in with them three larvae of L.ewphemus. At 
about 1°45 p.m. (G.M.T.), having previously frequently 
looked at the tube without result, I found one of the L. 
euphemus larvae eating an ant grub. The latter was already 
about three-parts eaten, so that what size it was is 


the Life History of Lycaena euphemus. 463 


doubtful, but the width of segments on the portion remain- 
ing suggested a half-grown one. The L. ewphemus was on 
the side of the tube, so that its under surface was easily 
examined. It was straight, in its usual resting attitude, 
and the remaining portion of ant grub stretched from the 
front of the L. ewphemus to the end of its thorax; it had a 
pulsating movement, showing that the jaws of the Lycaena 
were at work. Almost at once it was seen that the legs of 
the Lycaena were appearing round the edge of the ant grub 
remains, and very soon they had it between them and were 
actively manipulating it to bring it more directly to the 
head of the larva. In a few minutes the ant grub was so 
reduced that the head of the larva could be seen, with the 
jaws actively at work; the whole observation did not last 
more than a few minutes, and it may be understood that 
the eating was rapidly done. 

The next immediate stage was that only a bit of skin of 
the ant remained, and this was then eaten, almost rather 
swallowed than eaten, as it seemed to be drawn in bit by 
bit, without the bits being separated. During this last 
stage, the portion of ant grub was too small to be touched 
by the legs, and lay as it were in the hollow beneath the 
prothorax, possibly held there against the side of the tube. 
So soon as it had disappeared, it was evident that the head 
of the ZL. ewphemus was retracted within the hood of the 
prothorax, so that the margin of the cavity formed by the 
hood seemed to be against the glass and the head freely 
moved within. It continued a sort of eating movement, but 
quickly changed to moving round, almost rapidly, licking 
the inside of the hood, which may well have been moistened 
by the fluids of the half-eaten grub which must have touched 
it; this continued till the surface all round had been gone 
over several times and the first pair of legs were also licked. 
Though the larva has no tongue, I say licked, as the move- 
ments had all the aspect, and I should say for practical 
purposes, all the effects of licking. It then settled down in 
its ordinary resting position, and was in the same place and 
attitude half an hour later. 

Sept. 6.—Four larvae in nest 3 (M. laevinodis) are 6 to 
7mm. long, they rest on the side of the nest, all four head 
downwards. The small bosses on each side of the dorsum 
are marked, and especially on the 2nd and 3rd thoracic they 
are very large, a fact that is accentuated by the lowness 
and narrowness of the Ist abdominal. The prothorax 


464 Dr. T. A. Chapman’s Contributions to 


has a depressed central dorsal area, with the prothoracic 
plate in the middle. The margin round this area is swollen 
into a roll continuing round the whole front of the larva; 
one connects this structure with the method of eating the 
ant grubs already described, when this thickened roll falls 
down to form the “hood” mentioned. When advanced 
a little so that other parts of the prothorax are not just 
behind it, it is seen to be devoid of the ruddy colour of the 
rest of the larva. 

Sept. 16.—Nest 5 contains eight larvae, some 6:0 or 7°0 
mm. long; they don’t seem to have grown appreciably 
during the last ten days. The same remark applies to 
the larvae in nest 2, one in nest 1 and four in nest 3. In- 
deed, some of the larvae seem to be hardly as large or thick 
as some days ago, as though they might be ceasing feeding 
with a view to hibernation. 

The ants themselves seem to be doing well, and eggs 
and young grubs are present; their present food is honey 
and earwigs. The amount of brood, however, seems 
hardly sufficient to feed the L. ewphemus in the spring, if 
all goes well with them. Some brood is obtained and added 
to the nests, but unfortunately Myrnuca nests are rare with- 
in reasonable distance, and those found are almost without 
brood. Possibly the dry season restricted their food sup- 
plies, so that all had to go to completing rearing of the gg 
and 99° against swarming. 

Oct. 8.—The larvae appear to be about the same size 
though apparently still eating, at least the ant brood seems 
less in the nests with little brood, where a slight loss makes a 
difference ; but a remarkable circumstance has been noticed 
in the last week or ten days, and that is that the long hairs 
of the L. ewphemus larvae are being lost. Several were 
noticed with the hairs very short, about one-fourth of their 
proper length; one at least still had the hairs long. Now 
one or two seems to have none of the long hairs left. One 
suspects that the ants bite them off, but of course they may 
be thus shed naturally, nothing has been noticed to decide 
between these possibilities. 

Oct. 9.—Examined all the larvae of L. ewphemus that 
were within reach of a lens, actually all of them, but some 
of them were so placed as to prevent their being fully seen. 
One larva only had about half the long hairs present, three 
seemed to have no long hairs at all, the remainder were in 
various intermediate conditions—several with two or three 


Trans. Ent. Soc., Lond., 19719. . Plate XX1X. 


Half-Tone Eng. Co., Ltd. 


kGG-SHELLS OF LYCAENA EUPHEMUS HB. 


os ie 
acintin ts «eo naa ast 


Fea f wl AM ee Os, 


Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond.1919, Pl. XXX. 


E.C. Knight del.et chromo. Huth imp 


LARVAE (OF LYCABNA BUPHEMUS HB. 


Trans. lint. 


Westwood Bequest. 


hh Yee 
gp ; ; 


_ Ns e? 


FIRST STAGE 


Ol LYCAENA 


Soc., Lond., 7979. 


EOUPHEMUS 


6 CMM in, 
> ag 
‘ 2 "ak die N 


3 


Half-Tote Eng, Co., Ltd 


Plate XXXI, 


Westwood Bequest. trons se tin Soc, Lond. 1979. Plate xXeci lL. 


Half-Tone Eng. Co., Ltd. 


SECOND STAGE OF LYCAENA EUPHEMUS HB. 


Westwood Bequest. rans, Brits Sac. Lond., 1919. Plate XX XTi. 


Half-Tone Eng. Co., Ltd. 


THIRD STAGE OF LYCAENA EUPHEMUS HB. 


Pare. 


Reb ei hs gists: ay rr “7 oe i ly 


. 
A 


Westwood Bequest. Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond.,7919. PlateXXXIV. 


FOURTH STAGE OF 


Half-Tone Eng. Co., Ltd. 


LYCAENA EUPHEMUS HB. 


verre 


td 
aD uae 


Pie 


oN. Te 


Westwood Bequest. Trans. Ent. Soc., Lond. 1979. Plate XXXV. 


Half-Tone Eng. Co., Ltd. 


FOURTH STAGE OF LYCAENA EUPHEMUS HB. 


— - 
= 
. 

. 


= 


=— 


j 
5 


<a 


Pe Sate ee. 


Westwood Bequest. Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1919. Plate XXXVI. 


Half-Tone Eng. Co., Ltd, 


PROTHORACIC PLATE OF LYCAENA EUPHEMUS HB. 


ry 
vier oa a 4 
*\ fi, 


the Life History of Lycaena euphemus. 465 


long hairs, the others being either quite absent or represented 
by stumps of various lengths, but generally very short. 
This seemed to prove that the hairs were not shed naturally 
by the larvae, but that they must be bitten off by the ants, 
equally by M. laevinodis as by M. scabrinodis. 


EXPLANATION OF PLates XXIX—XXXVI. 


Plate XXIX. LEggshells of L. ewphemus. Fig. | x 32. 

Fig. 2. x 52. 

Plate XXX. Larvae of L. ewphemus. 

Figs. 1, 2. Third instar x 8. 

Figs. 3, 4. Fourth instar, at entry to ants’ nest, x 8. 

Figs. 5, 6, 7. Fourth instar, after 14 days in nest, magnified 
about x 7. 

Plate XX XI. Skin of first stage larva x 41. 

Fig. 1. Lateral view of larva in which the tracheae remain 
conspicuous. ; 

Fig. 2. Ventral view of skin, but transparent enough to show 
dorsal armature. 

Fig. 3. A badly prepared skin; it shows, at least, the very large 
size of spiracles. 

Plate XXXII. Skin of second stage larva x 36. 

Plate XX XIII. Skin of third stage larva x 31. 

Plate XXXIV. Skin of fourth stage larva x 22. 

Plate XX XV. Skin of fourth stage larva, another specimen 23. 

Plate XXXVI. Prothoracic plate of fourth stage larva x 170. 


TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PARTS III, Iv. (JAN.’20) HH 


( 466 ) 


[The following Addendum to Dr. Chester Crampton’s 
paper, on page 93, has been received.—Kd. | 


SINCE sending the foregoing paper I have been able to 
make an anatomical study of the interesting Zorapteron, 
Zorotypus hubbardi, recently described by Mr. A. N. Caudell, 
and this has convinced me that the Zoraptera, which 
are anatomically intermediate between the Isoptera and 
the Plecoptera (with their strongest affinities on the side 
of the Isoptera), occupy a position at the base of the lines 


NEUROPTERA 
PSOCIDS COLEOPTERA 
ZORAPTERA DERMAPTERA 
ISOPTERA EMBIIDS 


PLECOPTERA 


of descent leading to the development of the Psocid type 
of insect. The Psocidae and Zoraptera are thus ultimately 
related to the Isoptera on the one side, and to the Embiid- 
Plecopteron “coterie” on the other, and their lines of 
descent originated in forms occupying a position inter- 
mediate between the two, as may be seen from the ap- 
pended diagram, which represents a little more acurately 
than the foregoing one (p. 97), the relative positions of the 
lines of descent of the more primitive relatives of the 
Neuroptera and Psocidae. 

The statement that Plectrotarsus gravenhorsti has a 
coiled proboscis (p. 113) is incorrect. I have just received 
a specimen from Dr. Tillyard and find that it is merely bent 
at an angle, not coiled, so I hasten to correct my previous 
statement. 


TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PARTS Il, IV. | (JAN. ’20) 


( 467 ) 


[The following Addendum to Mr. H. E. Andrewes’ Note 
on Bonelli’s “* Tableau Synoptique,’ pp. 89-92, has been 
received.—Kd. | 


As a result of the publication of this note, my friend 
Mr. G. de Lapouge, of the University of Poitiers, kindly 
sent me for examination an original separate of Bonelli’s 
“ Observations Entomologiques-Premiére partie,’ in which 
the “ Tableau ”’ (printed) is inserted between pp. 12 and 
13. Mr. Sherborn has compared the MS. copy of the 
Natural History Museum Library with this, and corrected 
one or two copyist’s errors. The chief one is the omission 
of the star against Agonum and Anchomenus, and these 
genera must therefore rank with those referred to in the 
note “ Genus novum aut cujus caracteres elaborantur.” 

The reference to the genus Diplochila will not, I fear, 
have been understood, for the line containing the char- 
acters attributed to Carabus impressus ¥., and following 
the genus Amara, was inserted in MS. by Bonelli in his 
own copy and is not to be found in the copy now before me. 


1) thee 


JANUARY 15, 1920. 


TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1919.—PaARTS III, Iv. (JAN. ’20) 


ae 


s. 7 ie dan iseds (AIRY ica (ia O37 r | Ty AN é 


rau Aint Sea anit, wreath Rie i a 


ube ue 
ties (4 SEY eye ise Hears: se at (boda 


Ag a ¥ m ij un : ee: r ¥ a 
‘kia 9 Arar Vii wit . hl M2 
MY hid iy i hig jv paws ee sie j 

bi 3 i A" yy his “hie a, ie d Vege gh ‘ Uniaa a 

MRS Ape ara Win ni Lad ah ae hat Sl Me di 


\ Atte “dete nS Win hg ah eee my. ry re bi, 
Wail) a be ’ vi hy! 1h ‘ med? Ny ORE ‘it ‘ aa 


" 


ini DES) Ao os Umea | Hyasertyoahee, sah Lay 


*, 
Pine 
‘ B. he ry ad, 
} hh Pett a iF | 


if i 
RORY Vay” ates Hy Lib 4h right a MASHAIADs paneA Spars 73 hae 
PHNOTAG OE TA ruta yin od Pla PUey r 4) ai je m 
Asem, ‘ UGE AE Reger ite ma AAA it sa 

yh Liat Uh cee a ui we ‘Hane pak piahtare , Oe a 
Phe COL bi wy. en 


Om hy wane BIA aay. Bey site Jor = 
ea Op TEs) fi I ar ih te a) ot ig Te luifanley fsa 
giles tates ot? Ub Gta: Rath aa Hurts 9 ‘evan aw le ip 
Re laras AR Sth sane ve tate iE Eh ea 
aL, HO OF: Vali tern SANS Me cia Aaa hind Re ae 
BA HAL i) ila astea tao uh fin Sills MALIN GE ie ative’ Hor li 
tied } one Efpay Pty est, Ta ei ae iin? Th whit Atybayy oe We 
Poti day Mi AT INO ont wh 26% ty pe eTTIT net oa) 
SNM hoy ERTL SAL seid P aeetinty rhe" Laver “ie a i’ 
Pr Ge ay vel AFUE Te ORAR hie Ah: i ) . 
SEG ROL IG OY vq fil fi Bis ah id me. ied 


ix evi Fut) ¢ ti enters ab 
a ted ty : vey Pe ‘4 piel de) wie? 
‘ eats : (ot. Sra a 
‘ ; \ j 4 ny ‘ % te | ne wey o + 
OMSL i BA aby fhe ELL eee One 
) s " es ’ wat Ta a 
val, tS, ft ' , : ( a 
Nis aes j y Ale Gore vi 5 ie * 
7 Pe wh, oF ’ a UAT Toe) 4 cyan es 
feta A Pee oh an iv VM fh a + 
Aenea: LAU iby ae i aie ‘yO ti aR ai 
a ty eal aed « a de ’ 
Wi Bi Orbs Ws ari ie. 6 my = 2 hdl een ade it tH 


we veo ia 1 


Caen 7 sh ce fl suite ser 


THE 


PROCEEDINGS 


OF THE 


ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY 


OF 


LONDON 


Uwe 


LONDON: 
PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY AND SOLD AT ITS ROOMS, 
11, CHANDOS STREET, CAVENDISH SQUARE, W. 


1919-1920. 


' 7 Poe 3 


“ ' ih a 
i" : = a 
x : ‘Womatk mS <i 
2 a : 


ete er TA Oe TP Ret PD eae ui 
ee Pa ATA: TEE Re Sa LOC AOS 
malts ? - digit! 2 


Ta aie 


4, . 
vil 
n od 
ae 
ri ib 
i. 4 
hots. | 4 
es hag | 7 
Vso aR Pa 
fattest pan ety” fe Lae, 


ree tes Ny] At, hie se res | 


THE 


PROCEEDINGS 
EN'TOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY 


LONDON 


Por THE Yrar 1979. 


Wednesday, February 5th, 1919. 


Nomination of Vice-Presidents. 


In the absence of the PresipenT through illness, the 
SECRETARY, at his request, announced that he had appointed 
Dr. C. J. Ganan, Dr. G. A. K. MarsHa.t, and the Rev. F. D. 
Morice as Vice-Presidents for the ensuing session. 


The Rev. F. D. Morics, M.A., F.Z.S., then took the Chair. 


Election of Fellows. 


Dr. Recrnanp Heser Prowpe Hick, Eaglescliffe, co. 
Durham, and Messrs. J. H. Jurrtaanse, Schickade, 75, 
Rotterdam, and F. G. Wuirrie, 7, Marine Avenue, Southend- 
on-Sea, were elected Fellows of the Society. 

Owing to a combination of snow and a strike on the Tube 
and District Railways, the attendance was small and there 
were no exhibits, 


Paper. 
The following paper was read :— 


‘““ The Synonymy and Types of certain Genera of Hymeno- 


ptera, especially of those discussed by the Rev. F. D. Morice 
PROC, ENT. SOC. LOND., I, 11, 1919 A 


il 


and Mr. J. Hartley Durrant in connection with the long- 
forgotten ‘“‘ Erlangen List” of Panzer and Jurine, by J. 
Curster Brapiey, M.Sc., Ph.D., Assistant Professor of 
Systematic Entomology in Cornell University, Ithaca, New 
York; communicated by Prof. Gorpon Hewitt, F.E.S. 

The Chairman explained that this paper was to some extent 
a criticism of the paper referred to in the title, accepting the 
List as valid, but taking exception to some of the principles 
on which the resulting conclusions were drawn. 

Mr. Bernune-Baker pointed out that the points at issue 
were covered by the International Nomenclature Code, but 
Mr. Morice remarked that the interpretation of the code 
was not so clear as was generally supposed, and that certain 
American Entomologists did not understand it in the generally 
accepted way. 


Discussion on Flight of Male Butterflies. 

Dr. Lonasrarr asked whether Dr. Neave had ever seen 
butterflies flying as it were in patterns, one behind another, 
independently of sex, as he had himself seen male butterflies 
doing in Ceylon. 

Dr, Nave replied that he had seen certain common African 
Papilios doing so. Col. JeRMyN added that he had seen 
Pierids doing so in Assam. * 

Mr. Beroune-Baker suggested that they might have been 
following the scent of a virgin female, but it was pointed out 
that this was not likely as they went over the same ground 
in a somewhat complicated pattern, over and over again. 

The CHAIRMAN instanced the dashing backwards and 
forwards of the males of an Anthophora, and of certain humble- 
bees, but in these cases the cause was a female, and they did 
not come in orderly succession. 

Mr. Sueipon referred to the Processionary Caterpillars 
which were, however, guided by a thread, and Dr. NeAvE said 
that the leading instinct in certain African species, which were 
not guided by a thread, seemed to be individual rather than 
specific, as he had frequently broken the line experimentally, 
and found that the then leading caterpillar was at a loss how 
to proceed, 


11 


Wednesday, March 5th, 1919. 


Comm. J. J. Watxer, M.A., R.N., F.L.S., President, in 
the Chair. 


Election of Fellows. 


Mr. H, H. Corserr, 3 Thorne Road, Doneaster, and Major 
W. J; Parron, I.M.S., Stoke St. Gregory, nr. Taunton, were 
elected Fellows of the Society. 


Death of a former President. 


» The Prestpent’ announced the death of Mr. F. Ducane 
Gopman, D.C.L., F.R.S., formerly President of the Society, 
and read the following appreciation written by Lord 
WALSINGHAM :— 

The death of Frederick Du Cane Godman, D.C.L., F.R.S., 
has deprived the Entomological Society of the unique per- 
sonality of one of its oldest and most distinguished Fellows, 
who was its President in 1891 and 1892. 

It would not be too much to say that no single individual 
in the lifetime of the present generation has rendered greater 
service to the systematic study of Natural History, or contri- 
buted more generously to promote scientific work in the various 
branches of zoology, especially of ornithology and entomology, 
in which he himself took so great an interest. The pre- 
eminent labours of a Darwin or a Hooker are rendered possible 
only by the patient study of accumulated material, together 
with the recorded observations of intelligent collectors. No 
one recognised more clearly than Mr. Godman, from the days 
when he travelled widely in early life, that if a thorough 
knowledge of species and of the geographical distribution of 
species was ever to be obtained this could be accomplished | 
only by patient and extensive collecting, and by bringing the 
results together to enable students to draw conclusions by the 
arrangement of specimens in systematic order, He desired 
at the same time to render all information widely available 
by means of scientific descriptions and illustration. It was 
evident to him that no exotic fauna had yet been completely 


iv 


studied as a whole, and he proceeded by example to convey 
the idea of how this should be done. 

Such was the origin of the great work in which his dear 
and intimate friend Osbert Salvin, another distinguished and 
popular President of the Entomological Society, was so long 
associated with him. 

The publication of the fifty-eight large quarto volumes of 
the ‘“ Biologia Centrali-Americana,” for which Mr. Godman 
bore the whole expense, including the employment of the 
necessary staff of collectors, occupied some thirty-five years, 
and was completed in 1915. Botany and archaeology formed 
important parts of this great enterprise, the predominant 
features being zoology and entomology. Moreover, the type- 
specimens and series of many thousands of new species 
described and illustrated in its pages have been generously 
presented to the National Museum. His contributions in 
Lepidoptera alone amounted to 107,000—without counting 
sundry entire collections separately purchased. How impor- 
tant the aid thus given to any author competent to correlate 
the information derivable from this mass of valuable material, 
and to draw from it sound scientific conclusions, could have 
been best estimated by Darwin or Hooker themselves had 
they been still with us. 

Great as must be our appreciation of the magnificent 
services rendered by our former President to the aims of the 
Entomological Society, it is not by any means on this account 

only that we shall miss his kindly presence among us. He was 
a very constant attendant at our meetings, and to those who 
knew him intimately his loss is the loss of a really valued 
friend. There was a peculiar charm of personality which 
pervaded his whole nature; a generous sympathy with all 
those whose tastes, pursuits, or studies were kindred to his 
own; a genuine desire to help, encourage and enlighten their 
efforts, and to contribute to the objects for which they were 
striving. 

The serious and practical side of zoological study was ever 
kept in view, but without impairing the genial warmth of an 
earnest good-will accorded to the humblest workers in the 
field he was so keen to cultivate. As a Trustee of the British 


iV 


Museum he knew personally what every one was doing or not 
doing in the Natural History departments, and was ever ready 
‘with useful suggestions and advice. Even up to some few 
days before his death, when unable to attend the meetings, 
he did not neglect to make his views known to his colleagues, 
who valued his opinions as those of one whose whole heart and 
soul was centred in the welfare of the great national institution 
he had long helped to administer and to enrich. His memory 
will be cherished and beloved alike by observers and students 
of nature in field and laboratory, and by his fellow-sportsmen 
in whose pursuits he was no mean companion. In short, it has 
been well said of him that “ his many talents added to his fine 
nature made a combination which inspired a marvellously 
affectionate admiration.” 

A vote of condolence with Dame Alice Godman was unani- 
mously passed, the Fellows present rising in their places. 


Exhibitions. 


ABERRATION OF BRENTHIS SELENE.—Mr. O. EH. JANSON ex- 
hibited, on behalf of Mr. C. E. Stott, an aberration of Brenthis 
selene, taken near Denny Bog, New Forest, on June 28th, 1918, 
and having the black markings of the fore-wings blurred and 
extended, and the hind-wings entirely black with the exception 
of the marginal spots and a few scales in the central area. 

Move anp Mimic rrom THE MurMAN Coast.—Dr. E. A. 
CockaYne exhibited specimens of the bee Bombus lapponicus, 
and its mimic Oedimagena tarandi, a parasite of the Reindeer, 
from Yukanski on the Murman coast of Russian Lapland, 
near the entrance to the White Sea. One specimen of Oe. 
tarandi was taken on July 7th, and another on August Ist, 
1918, at the same time and place as one of the bees, and two 
more at the same time and place as the other four bees. The 
latter are quite common, the fly much scarcer, only six having 
been seen. 

PIERIS RAPAE, L., AB. NOVANGLIAE, Scpr., [Can. Ent. 4, 
p. 79 (1872)|—Mr. J. H. Durrant exhibited a specimen of 
P. rapae, ab. novangliae, a very scarce American form with 
yellow coloration, described from the Eastern States and 
Canada, which at one time, it was supposed, would be the 


vi 


American form of this common European species, but which 
was now quite rare in collections, and the British Museum 
was: much indebted to Mr. Winn for presenting this fine 
specimen through Mr. Lachlan Gibb. His 
OccURRENCE OF A CALIFORNIAN “ PLUME,” PLATYPTILIA 
(AMBLYPTILIA) Pica, Wis. (VAR. AN SP. ?), IN SCOTLAND.— 
Mr. Durrant also exhibited a Pterophorid which had been 
submitted to. him by Prof. Poulton. This specimen was 
‘beaten from Juniper at Aviemore (Inverness), in September 
1918, by Mr. P. C. Reid, when searching for larvae of 
Eupithecia helveticata. Among British species this could only 
be regarded as a variety of Platyptilia (Amblyptilia) punceti- 
dactyla, Hw. (= cosmodactyla, Hb.) with black markings on a 
white ground-colour—thus exactly similar to Amblyptilus pica, 
Wlsm. (California), and also a 9, like the only two specimens in 
the British Museum (Wlsm. Coll.). The occurrence of a single 
specimen in Scotland, of a Californian species founded on 
three specimens, taken in 1872, and not smce met with in 
America, would seem to indicate that pica, Wlsm., was an 
extreme variety of punctidactyla, Hw., rather than a distinct 
species, but this could not be determined with certainty until 
we were acquainted with the g. Mr. Durrant asked Lord 
Walsingham to examine the specimen and had received the 
following notes :— 
_“-The Pterophorid, collected at Aviemore by Mr. Reid, is 
precisely similar to two specimens out of three (I gave one 
away) collected by me in the Redwood forests not far from 
Crescent City, in northern California, in June 1872. I named 
the species Amblyptilus pica [Pterophoridae of California and 
Oregon 21-3 Pf. 2°1 (1880)] from its black and white markings 
reminding me of a magpie. Crescent City is about 26° south of 
the Scotch locality, and, having regard to the improbability 
of a distinct Californian species occurring in Scotland, it has 
been suggested that this is a mere variety of Platyptilia 
(Amblyptilia) punctidactyla, Hw. (= cosmodactyla, Hb.). In 
a very long series of this, and of acanthodactyla, Hb., I can 
find no specimen with distinct black and white markings, 
indeed, a true black spot is not to be seen on any other Ameri- 
can, or on any European specimen that I have examined. 


Vii 


The typical form of our English species did not occur where 
I took my three ‘ pica,’ for, although travelling at the time, 
I worked for‘an hour or more, without success, to take a 
better series of what I saw was a species unknown to me. 
The place was in a slight opening in a very thick and dark 
forest of Redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens), and if darkness 
with moisture has a tendency, as has been supposed, to produce 
melanic coloration, it is possible that further search in the 
Scotch locality may disclose intermediate varieties and connect 
pica with punctidactyla. So far as I know the four examples 
mentioned are the only known specimens of this species, which 
T'cannot regard as a mere variety until a series including males 
can be examined. Fernald was unacquainted with it when 
studying the genitalia of the North American Pterophoridae.” 

Notes on Natat ButTrerruies By Cecit N. Barker.—Prof. 
PouLton said that the following interesting notes had been 
copied from letters written to him by Mr. C. N. Barker of the 
Durban Museum :— 

The sudden rapid increase in the numbers of the Nymphaline 
Hamanumida daedalus, F. 

Aug. 3, 1918.—‘ In Proc. Ent. Soc., 1915, p- lxi, you com- 
mented upon the recent introduction of Hypolimnas bolina, L.., 
into Madagascar and its extraordinarily rapid increase. Your 
remarks on the subject, recalled to my mind a somewhat 
similar occurrence ; 7. e. the suddenly rapid increase in Hama- 
numada daedalus, F., in our coastal areas. Up to about the 
year 1891 it was, with us, a decided rarity, much as Acraea 
satis, Ward, is to-day. It appeared to increase very rapidly 
about that year, and has since maintained itself as a decidedly 
common insect about roads and. paths. It is not so 
plentiful in Durban and the coastal flats as upon hill-side 
roads and paths behind. 

“Col. Bowker, as Trimen mentions in ‘South African 
Butterflies,’ p. 310, had only sent him a single example, dated 
February 1883. Previous to November 1890 (when I started 
on a wagon trip into Swaziland, returning at end of March 1891, 
and where I came across the species plentifully, between the 
Umkwempisi and Usutu Rivers and elsewhere) my notes of 
its capture are—Ilst capture, Dec. 22nd, ’88; observed one, 


vill 
Augt., 89; capture, Dec. 19th, ’89; capture, Mch. 30, °90; 
observed, Apl. 22, 90; capture, Nov. 22,’90. These notes show 
that it had already made some headway but was still a rarity. 
On my return from the Swaziland trip I at once noticed the 
increased frequency of its appearance, and soon after dropped 
noting its capture or occurrence. 

“In Mr. Morant’s time (1872) it was evidently a rare species 
about Pretoria, as he only records the capture of two examples, 
g and 2. It would be interesting to trace, if only we had 
some reliable data, its migration in a south-westerly direction ; 
for its introduction to this part of the world, except as an 
occasional visitor, is certainly very recent. Its larva is 
almost identical with that of Huphaedra, a tropical group, 
only one of which, neophron, Hopfi., has got so far south as 
Delagoa Bay.” 

The carpenteri, Poult., mimetic form of the Nymphaline 
Pseudacraea pogget, Dew.—The following note supplies addi- 
tional data concerning the distribution of this interesting 
mimic (Proc. Ent. Soc., 1918, p. v.) of the dorippus, Klug, 
form of Danaida chrysippus, L. :— 

Oct. 29, 1918.—‘ In a collection made by a German in the 
neighbourhood of Morogoro, late German East Africa, and 
presented to the Durban Museum by Col. Molyneux, there is 
a single example of this variety of poggei. It is the only 
Pseudacraea in the collection, which is a large one. There 
are a few D. chrysippus, type, but none of the dorippus form. 
I thought you would like to know of its occurrence in this 
locality. It is labelled ‘ Fima (12/13),’ which I am told is 
the name of the place close to Morogoro, where this German 
naturalist was residing. The collection had been contimued 
from 1910 to July 1916, and the localities all appear to be 
stations along the Central Railway line.” 

Possible origin of the pollen on the wings of P. lyaeus, Doubl., 
described. in Proc. Ent. Soc., 1918, p. Ixxxv :— 

Aug. 20, 1918.—‘ As regards the pollen covering the Papilio 
lyaeus that I sent you, I am wondering whether it might be 
that of the Arum lily. The lilies are common about the flats 
below the Stella bush, where I caught the butterfly, and it 
is quite possible that he had got caught up by his haustellum. 


ix 
The weather for some days before had been very wet, which 
would help to make the pollen adhere.” 

Notes on Papilio dardanus, Brown :— 

Aug. 20, 1918.—‘ This month has already produced several 
inches (between 4 and 5) of cold rain, and the ordinary dry- 
season forms seem unafiected by it, either on their upper or 
undersides. For instance, I took P. dardanus of the usual 
merope, Cr., form and a second example as lightly marked as 
that of antinorii, Oberth., g. On the other hand, the excessive 
wet of our last summer (December, January, and February) did 
produce more heavily marked forms. P. dardanus tibullus, 
Kirby, were quite common. I will send you dated specimens 
later. I must say I had hoped to procure some extreme forms 
of melanism under the abnormal weather conditions, and so 
far I am disappointed.’ After referring to the two leighi 9 
forms of dardanus Mr. Barker continued : “* Hippocoon, F., 2 
has remained throughout last summer and even till now as 
numerous or more so than cenea, Stoll, 9. Trophonius, Westw., 
2 has also been unusually common.” 

Oct. 28, 1918.—‘ The only thing I can recall at present 
(I am writing this at home) of interest to tell you, is the 
capture on October 18th of a Papilio dardanus of the female 
form leighi, Poult., with rich orange ochreous markings on 
the upper and lighter on the lower wings. Last season I 
saw two of this form within a few weeks of one another, but 
failed to capture them. These are the only occasions I have 
‘come across the lezght female in life, and all three of them were 
observed by me within a radius of about a quarter of a mile. 
It seems like a case of a single family breeding true to this 
very rare coloration.” 

Mr. Barker had also figured two examples of the leigh 
form in “ Annals Durban Museum,” vol. ii, Pl. vii, figs. 13, 14 
(1917). No. 13 bore the date May 3, 1900; No. 14 was bred 
by Mr. G. F. Leigh on Oct. 19,1910. Both were in the Durban 
Museum. Prof. Poulton said that he could not believe that 
climatic influences provided the stimuli for the production of 
the heavily or lightly marked males of dardanus. Thus, the 
moist equatorial belt of Uganda, in which only the wet forms 
of certain Precis occurred all the year round, produced lightly 


x 

marked males like those of the W. coast dardanus, whereas the 
same zone of British East Africa with marked wet and dry 
seasons, where both seasonal forms of the Precis occurred, 
produced the heavily marked males of the tibullus subspecies, 
although hippocoon females with larger white markings than 
those of the corresponding form in Uganda. In fact, if 
moisture or heat with moisture be the efficient cause, it pro- 
duced opposite effects in the two sexes of dardanus—less black 
in the male, more black in the female. 

FURTHER NOTES ON HESPERIDAE OF THE GENUS SARANGESA 
RESTING IN HOLES IN THE Nusa Mountains PROVINCE OF 
THE SuDAN.—Prof. PouLton read the following note, written 
Jan. 26, 1919, at Talodi, by Lt.-Col. R. S. Wilson, in con- 
tinuation of his former observations recorded in Proc. Ent. 
Soc., 1917, p. lxvii :— 

“ Whilst at Talodi I had a couple of Fridays out, one at 
Tereida and one at Sallamat. The black skipper Sarangesa 
daelius, Mab., is about in enormous numbers both in hollow 
trees and in well mouths, native underground grain stores 
and any other similar places just now. With it is associated 
a species with yellow on the under surface—S. eliminata, Holl., 
or pertusa, Mab., which occurs in the proportion of about one 
to a hundred of the black ones. The skippers, in this pro- 
portion, were present in incredible numbers at Goghran, 
between Talodi and Torga, in the mouth of a well and inside 
some iron tanks—dry but intended for storing water.”” Among 
the specimens-in the accompanying box was an example, ex- 
hibited to the meeting, of each of the above Hesperidae, bearing 
the label ““10.1.19. Tereida. In hollow Gomeiza Tree.” 

THE POVERTY OF THE BUTTERFLY FAUNA OF MESOPOTAMIA.— 
Prof. Poutron said he had received the following note on the 
butterflies observed by Capt. P. A. Buxton, R.A.M.C. His 
letter was dated April 30, 1918, from the Central Laboratory, 
Amara. 

“The spring in this country isn’t much better than the 
autumn, and that’s pretty bad. Total list of butterfly species 
so far: P. rapae, C. edusa, P. daplidice, * Teracolus sp. (eats 
Caper), Danaida chrysippus, a common Junonia, 3 Blues, 
1 Skipper. I really believe that’s the lot.”’ 


Xi 


.. ‘THE ECCENTRIC MOVEMENTS OF THE HIND-WINGS IN CYANITRIS 
ARGIOLUS; L.—Prof. PouLToN said that he had received the 
following note from Dr. R. C. L. Perkins :— 


** Park Hill House, 
“© Paignton, 
“* Aug. 6, 1918. 

““ Tt became very bright and sunny at 12 (noon) to-day after 
heavy rain, and just outside my door at 1 p.m. I sawa 9 Holly 
Blue (C. argiolus) settle in a sheltered place on a foreign myrtle. 
-I watched it for ten minutes exactly. At first it made slight 
up and down movements of the hind-wings—hardly per- 
ceptible, but after two or three minutes it made, in the most 
' pronounced manner, the characteristic movement of the hind- 
wings seen in tailed species. When the right-hand wing was 
elevated the left was depressed; they were not moved alter- 
nately. The movements only lasted for at most thirty seconds. 
Except that it opened and shut its wings—opened at most to 
‘about one-third—at various times no further movement was 
made till just ten minutes after I first observed it. It then 
again performed the up and down movements very vigorously. 
These movements were continued for fully a minute, but with 
two slight pauses of a few seconds. The raising of the hind- 
wing -was sufficient to hide about one-third of the exposed 
surface of the front one, and therefore very conspicuous. 
The movement in tailed and untailed Lycaenids alike is 
interesting, and it would be worth while to get observations 
on many species. I have often observed the movements in 
L. boetica, L. (tailed), and many exotic Lycaenidae (Australian 
and others), but have no notes of details.” 

Prof. Poulton said that ‘he too had observed on the same 
day (Aug. 6) the movements of a 9 of the same species at rest 
in the garden of St. Helens Cottage, St. Helens, Isle of Wight. 
In this individual. the vestigial character of the movements 
was suggested by their feebleness. They took place when 
the wings were partly open as well as when they were closed, 
and were renewed after long intervals of motionlessness. 

Prof. Poulton said that he had received a note from Dr. 
Mortensen, commenting on the suggestions in Proc. Ent. Soc., 
1918, p. xlvi :-— 


xil 

“T beg to recall that my observations on Th. w-album, 
Knoch., were exactly under the conditions described—short 
rests on flowers between flights in hot sun—and there were no 
movements. The Panama species always showed the eccentric 
movements during rests.” 

THE USE OF THE “ PALISADES”? OF LYGAEONEMATUS COM- 
PRESSICORNIS, F.—The Rev. F. D. Morice called attention to 
a paper by Mr. J. J. Ward, F.E.S., in the Christmas number 
of the Strand Magazine, which appeared to explain the object 
of the so-called “ palisades ” (erect columns of piled-up froth- 
bubbles) with which the young larva of the Sawfly Lygaeone- 
matus compressicornis, F. (= vallator, v. Vollenh.) surrounds 
itself while feeding on a leaf of poplar. (Cf. Proc. Ent. Soc., 
Oct. 1917, and “‘ Zoologist,” xx, 1862, p. 7855—the latter 
being an English translation of Vollenhoven’s “ Mém. d’ entom. 
soc. entom. Pays-Bas,” 1, 1858.) 

Mr. Ward found that ants placed on such leaves invariably 
ran about till they collided with one of the columns. The 
latter instantly collapsed, sticking to the ant’s head, evidently 
causing it not only alarm, but extraordinary discomfort, as 
shown by the strange convulsions into which the insect im- 
mediately fell, and from which it did not recover for a consider- 
able time. Afterwards the mere sight of even a fragment of 
such a column made it recoil in utter horror: so that it would 
seem that the palisades, in spite of their extreme fragility, are 
really an efficient obstacle, preventing certain kinds of enemies 
from approaching the feeding larva. 


Papers. 


The following papers were read :— 

‘““ Notes on the Ancestry of the Diptera, Hemiptera, and 
other Insects related to the Hymenoptera,” by G. CHESTER 
Crampton, Ph.D., communicated by G. T. BerHunE-BAKER, 
F.L.S., F.E.S. 

‘‘ Note on Bonelli’s Tableau synoptique,’ by H. E. 
ANDREWES, F.E.S. 

‘On a Migration of Yellow Butterflies (Catopsilia statira) 
in Trinidad,” by C. B. WitutaMs, M.A., F.E.S. , 


xi 


Wednesday, March 19th, 1919. 


The Rev. F. D. Morice, MA., F.ZS., Vice-President, in 
the Chair. 
Election of Fellows. 


Lieut. L. A. Box, 80, Northampton Road, Croydon; Prof. 
J. CHesteR Brapiey, M.Sc., Assistant Professor of Systematic 
Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York; Messrs. 
E. J. Burnert, M.A., 9, London Road, Forest Hill, 8.H. 23; 
BERNARD Doveias Cummine, Royal Exchange Assurance, 
Royal Exchange, E.C. 3; Capt. TickKNER Epwarpss, R.A.M.C., 
The Red Cottage, Burpham, Arundel, Sussex ; Lt.-Col. WILLIAM 
Henry Evans, D.S.O., R.E., c/o Messrs. Cox & Co., 16, Charing 
Cross, W.C. 2; Mme. Fournier, 90, Boulvarde Malesherbes, 
Paris; Messrs. H. C. Haywarp, M.A., Repton, Derby; N. 
Marumo, Zoological Institute, Agricultural College, Imperial 
University, Komaba, Tokyo, Japan; Louis Nex, Imperial 
Bureau of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), 
S. Kensington, S.W. 7; Wuitt1am Grorce Fraser NELson, 
6, Craven Hill, W. 2; Joun Pret, Whittlesey, Cambs. ; 
Capt. Leste Rawpon Sransrrevp, R.G.A., c/o Army and 
Navy Club, Pall Mall, S.W. 1; Major Watkin Temp ze, Kast 
Mersea, Essex; and M. P. Wytsman, Quatre Bras, Tervueren, 
Brussels, were elected Fellows of the Society. 


Letter from M. Charles Oberthiir. 


Mr. H. Rowtanp-Brown communicated the following 
extract from a letter addressed to him in reference to the death 
of the late Dr. Godman. 

‘* Je vous demande de vouloir bien faire part a la Société 
entomologique de Londres, de mes sentiments de la plus cordiale 
et sincere condoléance, a l’occasion de la mort de M. Godman. 

‘* Je vous serai reconnaissant de faire connaitre a yos 
honorables collégues de la Société entomologique de Londres 
toute la respectueuse affection que je portais 4 M. Godman, 
Je conserverai de lui le souvenir le meilleur. Il était, comme 
vous le dites si exactement et si justement, ‘ the kindest and 
courtliest of men, encouraging, sympathetic, and generous.’ ” 


XIV 


OccURRENCE OF ARENIPHES SABELLA, Hmsn. (GALLERIADAE), 
in Lonpon.—Mr. J. H. Durrant exhibited a 2 of Areniphes 
sabella, Hmsn., which he had bred (July 23rd, 1917) froma larva 
found feeding in dates (May 3rd), purchased in London. The 
larva was not carefully described, but it was noted as being 
an inch long, of a dull pinkish brownish colour with the spots 
darker, the head and pronotal plates being darker brownish. 
This species, which may prove to be of economic importance 
as attacking dates, was described by Sir G. F. Hampson [Rmf. 
Mém. Lp. 8. 501 sp. 63 Pf. 241 (1901) : Nov. Zool. 24°36 (1917)] 
from Persia, and is now known to occur also in Arabia and 
Algeria, while a 2 was captured at Canterbury (Joannis), 
probably also bred from imported dates. When the larva 
was found it was thought to be that of Myelois phoenicis, Drnt. 
(Phycitidae), another date-feeding species which has also been 
bred in this country, and the emergence of the fine Galleriad 
was indeed a surprise—there may be still ee awaiting us 
in imported dates. 

Nore ON A REMARKABLE PupaL Strucrure.—Dr. H. 
ELrTRINGHAM exhibited specimens of the pupa and imago of 
Cryptophaga rubescens, and read the following notes :— 

Some time ago my friend Prof. Poulton called my attention 
to a remarkable pupa, which had been shown to him by Mr. 
J. H. Durrant, F.E.S., specimens of which are now in the 
British Museum (Walsingham Collection), having been col- 
lected by Mr. F. P. Dodd, F.E.8. The species is Cryptophaga 
rubescens, McLeay, of the Tineid family Xyloryctidae. 

The larva burrows in the stems of species of Acacia, and is 
found at Toowong in Queensland. The female moth resembles 
in size and colour one of the paler varieties of our common 
Tryphaena pronuba, but without the black hind-marginal 
band. The male is much smaller and usually has some dark 
purple-brown markings on the fore-wing. 

When the larva is about to pupate it takes up a position 
close to the entrance of its burrow, and closes the opening 
with a plug of silky material. These habits appear to be 
common to other related species, but the pupa differs from 
them in having a special chitinous growth on its anterior end, 
of such a shape as to resemble very closely the head of a wasp, 


—— 
= 
7% 

2 


a“ 


2 


* 
te 


We" 


Proc. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1919, Pl. A. 


H. Eltringham, del. (Oxford University Press.) 


PUPA OF CRYPTOPHAGA RUBESCENS, MclL. 


sr 


ee 


a 


xv 


I have made drawings of the pupa which are reproduced on 
Plate A. It will be seen that there is at the anterior end a 
large more or less rounded mass of somewhat nodular struc- 
ture, from which project two curved and bluntly pointed 
processes suggestive of mandibles. But perhaps the most 
curious development is that of a double ridge of chitin, the 
significance of which is only realised from a frontal view, when 
it is seen to give the appearance of two backwardly directed 
antennae. The extreme “ waspishness”’ of the general effect 
is doubtless much enhanced when the structure is viewed in 
its natural position at the entrance to the burrow. It willbe 
observed that the formation is so arranged that when the 
pupa is lying on its dorsal surface the wasp head is in the 
natural position, 7. e. with the mandibles pointing downwards. 
It would be interesting to know if the pupa always lies in 
this position in the hole. Moreover, the roughened surface 
of the head gives a remarkable resemblance to compound 
eyes. 

It may be remarked that since the burrow is plugged with 
silk the wasp-like mask cannot be seen in any case. This is 
true, but it would be of service to the pupa at the critical 
moment between forcing off the silk plug and the emergence 
of the moth. Also many pupae of this habit protrude slightly 
from the burrow for an appreciable period before the imago 
emerges, and this probably happens in the present case. 
It should be noted, however, that a certain wasp makes use 
of the deserted burrows of these and allied wood-boring 
larvae, whilst there is a tree cricket which preys upon the 
pupae, and thus the species is probably protected from the 
ericket by its resemblance to the wasp.- The other allied 
species all have a roughened cap to the pupa, probably used 
in pushing out the silk plug, but none exhibits even an ap- 
proximation to this wasp-like formation. It is one of those 
structures for which it seems impossible to account on any 
theory of mutation. It is hoped that further observations 
will be made, especially on the habits of the wasps which use 
these burrows, and the predaceous crickets. It should not be 
difficult to discover whether the pupae are in reality protected 
by their disguise. 


Xvi 

I am grateful to my friend Mr. J. H. Durrant for assistance 
in making these notes. | 

REAPPEARANCE OF A SAWFLY IN Britain. The Rev. F. D. 
Morice exhibited 2 gg and a 2 of Tenthredella flavicornis, F. 
(Tenthredo flava, auct., nec L.), taken with many other speci- 
mens of the same at Lichfield in 1917. The only other British 
specimens are those recorded by J. F. Stephens, said to be 
from Plymouth. 

EXTERMINATION OF Mosquitors.—Mr. Bacot exhibited, 
on behalf of Mr. Main, a card setting forth the habits, de- 
scription, and rules for mosquito extermination, with illus- 
trations of Culicine and Anopheles mosquitoes and their 
larvae. The card in question was issued by the Health 
Department of the city of Stamford, Connecticut, U.S.A. 
He remarked that, although the specialist did not agree at 
all points with the writer, the information conveyed was 
both sound and clearly put; while this system of instructing 
the general public on the evils of mosquitoes and the methods 
of destroying them was simple and convenient. 

Earwics IN Fuicut.—With reference to a question recently 
asked at a meeting of the Zoological Society, the CHAIRMAN 
inquired whether any of the Fellows had ever actually seen 
the common earwig (Forficula auricularia) flymg. Mr. DURRANT 
replied that he had seen and captured one flying round a lamp. 
Mr. E. E. GREEN said that though he had not seen them flying 
he had several times found them floating dead on water in 
tanks, with the wings spread fully out as in flight. They 
appear to fly only at night. 


Wednesday, April 2nd, 1919. 


Comm. J. J. Watker, M.A., R.N., F.L.S., President, in 
the Chair. 
Election of Fellows. 
Dr. Seymour Hapwen, D.Vet.Sci., Biological Central 
Experimental Farm, Ottawa, Canada; and Messrs. LLEWELLYN 
Luoyp, Chief Entomologist in N. Rhodesia, Cartref, Slingsby, 


XVil 
nr. Malton, Yorks.; and Austin Augustus TuLLETT, The 
Hill Museum, Witley, Surrey, were elected Fellows of the 
Society. 
Exhibitions. 

VARIETY oF Panorpa communis, L—Mr. W. J. Lucas 
exhibited three specimens, | g and 2 9 9 of the var. unifasciata, 
Luc., of the common Scorpion Fly, from the Marlborough 
district, taken by Mr. H. A. C. Stowell, B.A., in 1917. A pair 
of the typical form were exhibited with them for comparison. 

A SAWFLY NEW TO Brirain.—The Rev. F. D. Morice ex- 
hibited specimens (3 3g and 2 29) of a sawfly hitherto recorded 
only from Germany and Holland, Lygaeonematus wesmaelr, 
Tischb. (= solea v. Vollenh.), and stated to be attached in both 
countries to the Larch (Larix decidua), but not to be generally 
common in either, so that it is scarcely reckoned as a serious 
pest by Continental foresters. 

The larvae, however, from which these specimens were bred. 

in the Pathological Laboratory at Kew Gardens by Mr. Fryer, 
F.HE.S., of the Board of Agriculture, appeared last year on an 
estate in Yorkshire in such numbers as to do considerable 
damage to a fourteen-year-old plantation of Larches. They 
were supposed, at first, to belong to the better known species 
of the same genus, L. laricis, Hartig; but the imagines reared 
from them differ from those of laricis both in structure and 
colour, the underside of the whole body being entirely pale, 
whereas in laricis it is practically black throughout. (For 
this reason v. Vollenhoven called the species solea, fancifully 
comparing its style of coloration with that of the fish so named.) 
In this respect, and also in the form of the 2 saw-sheath, 
L. wesmaeli more resembles certain of its congeners which 
feed on Pinus (e.g. L. saxeseni), but it differs from these in 
several points of structure, the saw being shorter and some- 
what less abruptly truncate, and the abdomen much less 
compressed laterally towards its apex. Viewed from above 
-the insect has so much the appearance of laricis, that it 
might easily be mistaken for it, and it is quite possible that 
collectors may find the two forms mixed under the latter 
name in their collections. 


Mr. Fryer has kindly given a pair of his specimens to the 
PROC. ENT. SOC. LOND., Il,e1v. 1919. B 


XVill 


exhibitor, and another to the Natural History Museum, in 
which the species was previously represented neither by 
British nor Continental specimens. 


Wicken Fen. 

The Treasurer announced that subscriptions were needed 
for the upkeep of Wicken Fen; observing that permits would 
be given preferentially to subscribers. He stated that two 
acres in the middle of the fen had been offered for sale at a 


very reasonable price, and had been acquired by the National 
Trust. 


Date of Dr. Ris’ Names in Odonata. 

Dr. GAHAN said that M. Severin had written to him asking 
whether it would be possible to give to Dr. Ris’ names in 
Odonata the date at which they were ready for publication, 
the actual publication having been made impossible by the war. 

Several Fellows joined in the ensuing discussion, but it was 
universally held that such a course would be impossible. 


A Judge on Entomology. 

Mr. Betoune-BakeEr called the attention of the Society to 
the disparaging remarks made in a recent case by Mr. Justice 
Darling with reference to Entomology, and asked whether it 
would be possible and wise to take official notice of the matter. 
Tt seemed, however, to be generally felt that it was not worth 
while, Dr. Longstaff remarking that even though the “ learned 
Judge’ had displayed a want of knowledge, the Society was 
not a finishing school for Judges. 


Wednesday, May 7th, 1919. 


Commander J. J. Waker, M.A., R.N., F.L.S., President, in 
the Chair. 
Exhibitions. 
A Gigantic ScaraB.—Mr. O. E. Janson exhibited a speci- 
men of the extraordinary and gigantic ball-rolling beetle, 


of the family Scarabaeidae, described by Mr. G. J. Arrow 


p-abc 

in last month’s number of the Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., under 
the name of Mnematium cancer. The type specimen in 
the British Museum is a male, and that exhibited a female, 
in which the intermediate legs are of more normal size. Both 
specimens were contained in a collection made in various parts 
of South-West Africa, and the precise locality in which these 
were taken was not indicated. 

CoccINELLA DISTINCTA, FALD., AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH 
Formica RuFA, L.—Mr. DonistnHorre exhibited this 
Coccinellid and contributed the following observations :— 

Synonymy.—l do not propose to spend much time on this 
point, as my chief problem is its association with ants. 

Faldermann described and figured the species in 1837, 
but with only five spots. Although this has to be the type 
form I believe it is exceedingly rare, and is only a case where 
an individual has lost a spot, and is really an aberration. 
I have only seen a single specimen with five spots, taken by 
Mr. Ashdown in Switzerland with a number of other examples 
all possessing seven spots. I have never seen a British 
specimen, but exhibit the nearest form to it I have taken, 
in which the Ist spot is very small. Redtenbacher in 1844 
again described the species under the name of magnifica; 
also with only five spots. 

Mulsant in 1846 described the usual form with seven spots 
under the name of labilis. I may mention that there is an 
aberration with nine spots (ab. domiduca, Weise, 1879) which 
occurs in Britain, and which I exhibit. 

Distribution.—C. distincta appears to be widely distributed 
in Europe and occurs in the Caucasus. 

British Distribution.—In Britain it has been found in 
Hants, Sussex, Kent, Surrey, Essex, Berks and Worcester. 
Edward Newman first recorded it as British in 1847; but 
Stephens stated that he had placed British specimens in the 
Museum Collection in 1816. 

Association with Ants—The first time in literature that 
this Lady-bird was mentioned as actually being connected 
with ants, was in 1888, when C. H. Morris recorded it from 
near Lewes, and stated it was attached to the nests of 
Fornuca rufa. Tt is, of course, most probable that the single 


xx 


example of C. 7-punctata recorded from Finland in 1843 
as being taken with F. rufa, by Mannerheim, was really 
C. distincta. 

In 1895 I recorded it with Formica rufa, and pointed out 
it was a myrmecophilous species. 

As a matter of fact, it is only to be found in the immediate 
neighbourhood of ants’ nests, and in this country with 
Fornaca rufa. My problem, which I have been working at 
for over twenty years now, is to try and account for its 
association with ants. 

I have taken it, in every month in the year, on and about 
the nests of F. rufa. In 1900 I proved by experiment that 
this species was more protected against the attacks of its 
host than is the nearly related C. 7-punctata, and that the 
ants were far less aggressive to it than they were to the latter. 
This point I was able to demonstrate to Mr. Blair in the field 
last year, when he was with me at Weybridge. 

I may here mention that Dr. Sharp has kindly dissected 
the ¢ genitalia of C. distincta and C. 7-punctata for me (which 
I exhibit), and he found they differ greatly; those of C. 
distincta being very highly specialised. 

In 1900 I suggested that the larvae of the beetle fed upon 
the Aphidae and Coccidae dwelling with the ants. This 
point was seized on by Wasmann in a paper published in 
1912 (the first and only real record of the Lady-bird with 
ants on the Continent). He writes: ‘“‘ The larvae of this 
Coccinella lives from analogy with the other Coccinellid larvae 
without doubt, as Donisthorpe already in 1900 has remarked 
on the Aphidae and Coccidae dwelling with ants.” He then 
goes on to say that the ant species with which it occurs do 
not keep any Aphidae or Coccidae in their nests, and that 
this is a Darwinian paradox. In this he is not quite correct, 
as F. rufa does keep a few species of both in the nests; but 
not, of course, in anything like sufficient numbers to serve 
as food for the Lady-bird’s larvae. However, on July 3rd, 
1918, I found a large number of the larvae feeding on Aphids, 
attended by the ants, on fir-trees over rufa nests. I brought 
a number home, with fir-boughs covered with Aphids, and 
introduced them into my large rufa observation nest. They 


Xxl 


all pupated and hatched by July 20th; eight to nine days 
only being spent in the pupal state. I exhibit larvae and 
pupae and bred insects and the ‘pupal skin. 

Both the larva and pupa differ in various ways from 
those of OC. 7-punctata, but we. need not go into that 
here. 

In 1908 I wrote: “ My present view is that these beetles 
seek the nests of Formica rufa for hibernation, and leave in 
the spring or early summer.” J endeavoured to settle this 
point this winter. I brought a number of the beetles home 
on August 27th and established them on the small fir-tree 
planted in my large rufa observation nest. Of course, my 
Aphids died off, but I found the beetles would feed with the 
ants on the honey supplied for the latter. I may mention 
that a number of them passed the whole winter on the fir- 
tree, and sides of the nest (I exhibit two of them taken off 
the small fir-tree to-day), but a number disappeared. On 
Feb. 29th this year I dug up the whole nest, all the ants being 
down below, but only found one Lady-bird right beneath 
the débris with the ants. 

On Feb. 28th I had been down to Weybridge and dug up 
a rufa nest in nature there. The ants were right below the 
hillock in earth chambers some 24 feet down, and I found 
one Lady-bird with them; dormant, but quite alive. There 
were others as usual on the fir-trees above the nests. 

I fear this is not sufficient evidence to prove my point, 
and one must still ask why is C. distincta only found with 
F. rufa, when it could as easily find plenty of its food away 
from ants’ nests @ 

Another point which may be a factor in the problem is the 
fact that Coccinella distincta is often found in company with 
Clythra 4-punctata, the latter beetle passing its earlier stages 
in the rufa nests. I stated as long ago as 1900 that I con- 
sidered the Clythra to be a mimic of the Coccinella [Ent. 
Ree. xu, p. 174 (1900)]. This is a case of Millerian mimicry 
as I suggested might be the case in 1901 [Trans. Ent. Soc. 
Lond., 1901, 367]. Experiments with Clythra at the Zoo- 
logical Gardens proved it to be distasteful to various birds and 
insectivora [Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1902, p. 17]. It might 


XXil 


be that the Coccinella was a mimic of the Clythra in the first 
place, as the latter always lives in rufa nests in its early 
stages. C. distincta has larger spots than C. 7-punctata, and 
this may have been brought about by ‘ape as the spots on 
the Clythra are still larger. 

Prof. PouttTon suggested that this was possibly the be- 
ginning of an association which might gradually develop. 

The PRESIDENT observed that he had seen a number of 
Coccinellids emerging from ants’ nests in Blean Woods at 
the end of April 1914, all immature. 

Mr. CHAMPION suggested that the instinct of the Coccinellid 
to lay its eggs might be stimulated by the presence of the 
Aphids, and have no relation to the ants, with reference to 
which Prof. Poutton said that he understood from Mr, 
Donisthorpe that the Coccinellid larvae were not found indis- 
criminately on colonies of the Aphis, but only on those in 
the neighbourhood of the ants’ nests. 

FEMALE FORMS OF PAPILIO POLYTES, L., BRED AT Honc- 
Kone.—Prof. Poutton exhibited 4 females bred in 1914 
by Mr. R. W. Barney of St. Stephen’s College, Hong-Kong. 
Accompanying these was a stichius, Hiibn., form of female 
(without white in the hind-wing cell), captured Aug. 1, 1914, 
and described by Mr. Barney as closely resembling the female 
parent. Of the 4 bred specimens one (bred Nov. 27) was a 
stichius form with a minute vestige of the white mark in the 
hind-wing cell, one (Nov. 23) a polytes form but with a very 
small white patch in the same position, two (Nov. 24 and 26), 
the 3-like form mandane, Rothsch., corresponding to the 
cyrus, Hiibn., Q f. of the more western subspecies, polytes 
romulus, Cram. The three first-named specimens afforded 
some slight evidence that the amount of white in the hind- 
wing cell was a hereditary feature, but further investigations 
on a large scale were greatly needed. 

Tue EraropraN HESsPERID RHOPALOCAMPTA ANCHISES, 
GERST., ATTRACTED BY LIGHT.—Prof. PouLTon exhibited a 
male and female of R. anchises captured by the President 
under the circumstances described in the following note from 
his diary of June 18> 1893 :-— 

“Tn the evening I caught two specimens of a fine large 


XXili 


slaty-black Skipper, with broad white bar on the under- 
side of the hind-wings (? Ismene sp.), which were attracted 
to the light of the lamps in the saloon (of H.M.S. 
* Tyne ’).” 

The “ Tyne ” was lying about 4 of a mile off the shore at 
Aden, and the time was, Commander Walker believed, be- 
tween 9 and 10 p.m. The Rev. K. St. Aubyn Rogers had 
called attention to the crepuscular habits of the genus in 
Proc. Ent. Soc., 1918, p. xxvu. The species is well known 
at Aden as well as from many parts of Africa. It is certainly 
usually on the wing by day, and an account of its resting 
habits at night, at Aden, was published by Col. J. W. Yerbury 
in the Bombay Natural History Society, vol. vii, 1892, p. 217. 
Col. Yerbury found it not uncommon in June and July 1883 
on the Aden coast, but only once met with it inland. Three 
specimens taken by bim at Aden on July 8, 1884, are in the 
collection of the British Museum. 

OBSERVATIONS ON NEOTROPICAL {NSECTS.—Prof. POULTON 
gave an account of the following observations by Mr. C. B. 
Williams, and exhibited the specimens referred to. The notes 
were contained in two letters written from Trinidad on Oct. 12, 
1918, and Feb. 11, 1919. Prof. Poulton had been kindly 
helped in the determinations by his friends, Mr. G. J. Arrow, 
Major EK. E. Austen, Mr. J. H. Durrant, Sir George Hampson, 
Dr. G. A. K. Marshall and Mr. N. D. Riley. 

(1) ““ Two specimens of a Skipper butterfly which went 
through some curious migration-like movements on the 
border line of Panama and Costa Rica. On certain evenings 
they would fly past in thousands, from about 4.30 p.m. 
onwards, at full speed in a 8.E. direction, only to return (but 
in much smaller numbers) later the same evening. I will 
give all the particulars in another paper I am preparing on 
Butterfly migrations. I find the species is quite common 
in Trinidad; in fact, it is one of our commonest Skippers. 
Yet no one has ever seen it migrating in the way I saw it in 
Panama. They are almost impossible to catch.” 

The Hesperid butterfly was Calpodes ethlius, Cram.—two 
labelled Panama, Guabito, Bocas del Toro, Apr. 3, 1917, 
three Guabito, May 24, 1917. All were females. [This fact 


XXiv 


and the observations on the habits of Hesperidae recorded by 
C. O. Farquharson, J. C. Kershaw, Dr. 8. A. Neave and 
others (Proc. Ent. Soc. 1917, p. [xxvii and references there 
quoted) seem to offer strong support to Mr. G. C. Champion’s 
suggestion (p. xxviii) that the flight of Calpodes ethlius was in 
search of water. | 

(2) “I enclose two dark slightly metallic Microlepidoptera 
(marked ‘ gyrans’ on the label), which, with their relatives, 
are not uncommon in this part of the world. Their remark- 
able characteristic is the inability to move any distance in 

straight line (by walking). If a specimen wishes to get 
from a point A to B, usually on the upperside of a leaf of some 
low plant, the track is as follows [a drawing was here given], 
including a large number of complete turns as if waltzing. 
At first I thought that the turns were always in the same 
direction, but J found that this was not so, and that the 
same individual turned indiscriminately to right or to 
left. I feel sure that the group must be well known, but 
they are new to me. I have dubbed them—for want of 
a better name —-Inebriatidae, which really sounds quite 
scientific |” 

The two species belonged to the Strobisia group of Gele- 
chiadae (Tinewna): (1) Holophysis sp. ur. stagmatophora, 
Wlsm., from Rio Claro, Trinidad,. Apr. 27, 1916, (2) Systasiota 
sp. nr. leucura, Wlsm., from Issororo, British Guiana, June 
1916. Mr. J. H. Durrant, who had kindly examined the 
specimens, has drawn my attention to B. Clemens’ description 
of the habits of the species of Strobisia, in Stainton’s “ Tineina 
of North America,” 1872, pp. 117, 118 :— 

“The perfect insects are most commonly found in shaded 
places, on the surfaces of leaves. They are active and rest- 
less in their motions, and turn i circles on their resting-places, 
especially after short flights; withal they are disposed to be 
quarrelsome and drive away from the leaves on which they 
may happen to be enjoying themselves, other ‘ little people ’ 
of the shaded wood.” 

(3) “ A remarkable moth that I found in St. Vincent with 
two protrusible tails. These tails are apparently hollow and 
can be straightened out (? by pressure from within), when 


xXXV 


they are almost as long as the body of the moth, or curled 
up as you see them in the dead specimen. I have never seen 
anything similar before or since.” 

Harrisina coracina, Clem., 3 (Zygaeninae), from St. Vincent, 
Dec. 11, 1917. The structures described are male secondary 
sexual characters, and are doubtless of epigamic significance. 
Their eversion is almost certain to be effected as Mr. Williams 
suggests, and introversion by an axial muscle attached to 
the inside of each apex. Observations on their use in courtship 
would be extremely interesting. 

(4) ““ When in Panama last year, I got 20 or so small 
Lepidoptera from the fur of a Three Toed Sloth just shot. 
As soon as the body fell to the ground they started flying from 
it like Hippoboscids from a large bird. I think quite as many 
again escaped, so that there must have been 40 or 50 on the 
one animal. J made a very close search over the skin the 
same day, but could find no trace whatever of caterpillars, 
nor did the fur seem in any way damaged. I was assured 
by a local hunter that every sloth that he has shot has these 
moths upon it. 

““T see there is a mention of a moth living on a sloth in 
the ‘Cambridge Natural History,’ but without reference or 
identification. In the hopes that they may be of interest I 
am sending specimens by this mail and should be glad of their 
name or any information about them.” 

The moths were 8 g and 3 2 of Cryptoses cholaepi, Dyar 
(Pyralidae, Semnianae), from Chiriquicito, Panama, March 12, 
1917. Mr. Williams obtained altogether 13 gand 59. The 
females are larger, with rounder wings and duller markings, 
but otherwise similar in appearance to the males. The larvae 
are believed to feed on the symbiotic alga to which the sloth 
owes its greenish colour. The sloth-haunting moth mentioned 
in the “‘ Cambridge Naturai History,’ Insecta, Ii, p. 430, is 
spoken of as a Tinea, but the only three species known to 
have these habits are Pyrales, belonging to the Semnianae 
(Chrysauginae). Sir George Hampson has kindly given the 
names and references : : 

“ Bradypodicola hahneli, Spiiler, Biol. Centralbl., xxvi, pp. 
690-7 (1906). Amazons. 


XXV1 


“ Cryptoses cholaepi, Dyar, Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash., ix, p. 
148 (1908). Costa Rica; Panama; Colombia. 

“ Bradypophila garbei, Ihering. Rev. Mus. Paulista, ix, p. 
124, Pl. III, f. 4 (1913). S. Brazil. 

(5) “ Two beetles, with, in life, the most disgusting odour. 
At the time I was smelling everything I caught, and these 
nearly made me sick.” 

Canthon triangularis, Drury (Copridae), 3 9, from Yarikita 
Portage, N.W.D., British Guiana, July 28, 1916. It would 
be interesting to determine whether the smell is due to a 
special secretion, to the dung frequented by the beetle, or 
to the dung acted on in the body so as to become more 
powerfully offensive. 


The three remaining observations refer to the mimicry of 
Aculeate Hymenoptera by insects belonging respectively to 
the Lepidoptera, Diptera, and Hemiptera. 

(6) ‘“‘ A wasp-like moth from Panama that has even managed 
to fold its wings longitudinally in its efforts to deceive.” 

Tinthia sp. 9, nr. tabogana, Druce (Aegeriadae), San San, 
Bocas del Toro, Panama, Mch. 22, 1917. 

(7) ‘‘ A large dipteron which very closely resembles a bee, 
even to the thickened hind tibiae which it replaces with 
hairs—for the moment I was quite deceived—but the an- 
tennae give it away. It hasn’t managed to imitate these 
—yet!” 

A female of Mallophora craverti, Bellardi (Asilinae), from 
Surelka, Costa Rica, Apr. 6, 1917. It was especially interest- 
ing that these Asilinae mimicking hairy bees should incident- 
ally have come to resemble mimetic Asilids of a different 
sub-family, the Laphrinae. 

(8) ‘“‘ A Reduviid which closely resembles one of the fossorial 
wasp types. Iam sorry I can give you no notes on it alive. 
It would be interesting to know if it has developed the habit 
of shaking its wings at intervals, or wagging its antennae, 
that one sees in the model.” 

Spiniger spinidorsis, Gray, 2, Talamanca, Costa Rica, at 
light, Apr. 21, 1917. The apical section of the antenna, 
rather over 4 of its length, is dark, of hair-like fineness and 


XXvVil 


would be invisible at a little distance. The short basal joint, 
also dark, is followed by. the most conspicuous element. This, 
made up of a long single joint, is yellow and thus resembles 
the antenna of many of the large Fossors, although the like- 
ness is here brought about by colour alone, and not, as in 
the Locustid described in Proc. Ent. Soc., 1913, p. li, by a 
change of form. The most striking feature of the resemblance 
is provided by the reddish orange brown colour of the wings 
which, seen in sharp contrast against the black body, are 
wonderfully like those of several well-known Neotropical 
Fossors. There could be no doubt that the movements in 
life were consistent with the mimetic resemblance; for Thomas 
Belt wrote of a Nicaraguan species which is evidently 
spinidorsis (luteccornis is non-existent in the genus, but 
lutescens, Walk., is a synonym of spinidorsis): “I one day 
observed what appeared to be a hornet, with brown semi- 
transparent wings and yellow antennae. It ran along the 
ground vibrating its wings and antennae exactly like a 
hornet, and I caught it in my net, believing it to be one. 
On examining it, however, I found it to belong to a widely 
different order. It was one of the Hemiptera, Spiniger 
luteicornis (Walk.), and had every part coloured like the 
hornet (Priocnemis) that it resembled. In its vibrating, 
coloured wing-cases it departed greatly from the normal 
character of the Hemiptera, and assumed that of the hornets.”’ 
See “‘ Naturalist in Nicaragua,’ 2nd Ed., Lond., p. 319, also 
the illustrative woodcut. 

Dr. Seitz had observed the mimetic movements in the 
Brazilian species Spiniger ater, Lep. and Serv. (Proc. Ent. 
Soc., 1913, p. li), and had also published a description of similar 
movements in probably the same species of Reduviid from 
the Corcovado, which “‘ exactly resembles one of the dark 
stinging-wasps of the genus Pepsis, and the bug makes the 
same sort of movements as the wasp does, though these are 
of a kind quite different from those of ordinary bugs.” (Ent. 
Zeit. Stettin, li, 1890, p. 281, quoted by: Dr. David Sharp in 
“The Cambridge Natural History,’”’ Insecta, II, p. 558.) 

Mr. Durrant observed that several moths have been 
recorded as being found on sloths. 


XXViil 

Referring to the crepuscular “Skippers” Dr. NEAVE 
remarked that in Africa the flight was not a long one, but 
took place before settling down. 

Mr. GREEN said that in Ceylon allied “ Skippers’ were 
day-fliers, but took shelter in culverts from which bend ae 
be disturbed. 

Referring to the migration-like flight of Calpodes ethlius 
Mr. G. C. CHAMPION said that the dates given by Mr. Williams 
fell into the dry season, and that his experience in Central 
America led him to believe that the insects were seeking 
water in damp spots in some nearly dry river bed. 


29 


Papers. 

The following papers were read :— 

“On the Types of Oriental Carabidae in the British Museum, 
and in the Hope Collection in the University Museum at 
Oxford,” by H. E. Anprewes, F.E.S. 

“The British Species of Genera Andrena and Nomada,”’ 
by R. C. L. Perkins, M.A., D.Sc., F.Z.S., F.E.S. 


Wednesday, June 4th, 1919. 
Comm. J. J. Waker, M.A., R.N., F.L.S., President, in the 
Chair. 
Death of a Fellow. 


The sudden death of Mr. W. E. Suarp, a former member 
of the Council was announced. 


Election of Fellows. 


Messrs. CHRISTOPHER Howarp ANDREWES, 1, North Grove, 
Highgate, N. 6, and J. WinTERScALE, Sungei Klah Estate, 
Sungkai, Perak, were elected Fellows of the Society. 


Exhibitions. 
A BRED SPECIMEN OF LOBESIA PERMIXTANA.—Mr. SHELDON 
exhibited a specimen of L. permixtana, Hb., bred from the egg, 
nd reared on oak, its supposed usual food-plant. 


XXIX 


PuPATION OF CHATTENDENIA w-ALBuM.—The Rev. G. 
WHEELER exhibited, on behalf of Mr. Pripzaux, some larvae 
(full grown, and after the colour-change) and pupae of this 
species, which were found in the open on twigs of Wych-Elm, 
near Brasted, on June 1. The larvae seem fond of choosing 
the deserted domicile of some other leaf-spinning larva, such 
as Cheimatobia brumaia or a Tortriz. 

SpripeR AND Butrperriy Prey.—Mr. WHEELER also ex- 
hibited for Mr. PrrpEaux a specimen of Hesperia alveolus, 
seen on May 28 near Brasted, on a spike of bugle, with wings 
outspread, and which refused to move on being approached. 
It was found to be dead, though still limp, with a spider (also 
exhibited) with its fangs embedded in the back of the thorax. 
The spider allowed itself to be boxed, without relinquishing its 
hold on its victim, and retained this position for several hours. 
Subsequently a live specimen of Cabera pusaria was offered to 
the spider, which it treated in the same way as the Skipper. 
A specimen of Hadena dentina, however, was differently 
approached, the fangs being inserted beneath the thorax, 
between the 2nd and 3rd pair of legs. 

Ova oF COcCINELLA DISTINCTA.—Mr. DONISTHORPE ex- 
hibited eggs of Coccinella distincta, found at Weybridge on May 
30, on oak, fir, and birch over rufa nests; the empty egg-cases 
of eggs laid on 21. v. 19, which hatched on 25th; young larva 
hatched on 25th, Ist moult.on May 30; also a live 9 C. dis- 
tincta, which was observed at Weybridge laying eggs on an 
oak-leaf, together with the eggs in question. 

The life-history appears to be briefly as follows :—Copula- 
tion takes place in May (I observed it on May 14 and 21 this 
year; the ¢ sits far back on the 9, and his front tarsi rest on 
the large black central spots on the elytra of the 9). The 
eggs are laid in May; a few were laid in captivity on May 17, 
but were subsequently eaten by the Lady-Birds themselves. 
One bunch of some twenty eggs was found on the underside of 
a pine-needle on May 21, at Weybridge, but as no more could 
be found it was probably early. On May 30, however, bunches 
of eggs were found on pine-needles, oak, and birch over rufa 
nests, and a 2 was observed laying eggs on the underside of an 
oak-leaf. When she had finished she walked quickly away. 


XXX 


The eggs are long and of a bright yellow colour, and are laid in 
rows like a lot of little barrels placed close together. When 
the young larvae hatch in about five days they feed on the 
Aphidae on the trees. Judging from my experience last year 
they become full fed by the beginning of July, pupate on the 
trees and remain in the pupal state for eight and nie days. 
The perfect insect then remains on the trees and near the rufa 
nests for the rest of the year, hibernating on the trees and 
sparingly in the nests. 

Many Fellows, including Dr. Marsuatt, Prof. Poutron and 
Messrs. CHAMPION, CorBETT, RowLaNnp-Brown, Buiair and 
CRAWLEY, discussed Mr. Donisthorpe’s observations. 

PUPARIA UNIDENTIFIED.— Mr. HE. E. Green exhibited some 
puparia found on decayed wood, at the margin of a lake near 
Shrewsbury, in the month of September. The puparia are of 
the shape of a limpet-shell, open below, with a sub-acute apex ; 
of a dense structure and pitchy black colour; the outer surface 
rugose. The material of which they are composed is probably 
excrementitious. The pupa of the insect occupies the con- 
cavity of this cover and is exposed below. 

Mr. Green asked whether any Fellows present were ac- 
quainted with these puparia, which he thought might be those 
of a Coleopteron. Mr. Cotitn suggested that they might be 
those of a mycetophilous Dipteron, Mr. Green then remarking 
that he had seen somewhat similar Mycetophiled cases in 
Ceylon. 

EvIDENCE oF MENDELIAN HEREDITY IN PAPILIO DARDANUS, 
Brown.—Prof. Pounton said that he had received, on May 
27, a letter from Mr. C. F. M. Swynnerton, giving an account 
of some interesting breeding experiments on P. dardanus :— 

** Chirinda, S.E. Rhodesia, 
“« April 13, 1919. 

“JT have a little news for you at last, not about ethalion 
this time but about dardanus. Mr. H. H. Platt sent me last 
year 2 families of cenea pupae. The first got here just in time, 
the second just too late (emerged and dead). Each had a 
slight hippocoon taint, shown by 2 or 3 of the 92 in each being 
hippocoon. There were no dardanus obtamable here then, 
though I searched myself and put on my good native collector 


XXxXi 


and offered a big reward. So I got 3 pairings of the cenea inter se 
and a few pupae from each, to try again later (= Families 1, 
2 and 3). These started emerging on Jan. 24, and between 
some of the 29 and local 33, now present, I secured pairings. 
The evidence already suggested strongly that in Fam. 1 a pure 
cenea strain had been secured. Fam. 3 showed the hippocoon 
element again. It was from 5 99 of these two families that I 
secured further eggs, now pupae and emerging. The emer- 
gences so far are most interesting, and if those yet to come 
don’t upset things, they seem already to amount to a proof 
of Mendelian inheritance. 

“ Here is a summary of the whole experiment so far. 

**P = cenea 92 and go ex Platt’s pupae. 

“ C = subsequent complete cenea 99 (defined below). 

vial ie o incomplete ,, __,, A Se 

““h = hippocoon 99, [h]=captured gg (presumably 
hippocoon) 

“ The figures are brought up to April 19. 


EQ Pek SG (ol) PQ xP¢ (‘3’) 
| | | : | 
Cs x sg O Sy? x fhy$5” O60" (nya Haig o3< Jibei] CAE O’ ‘gp’ x [hy‘ 4’ 
Noneyet 10040,1¢ 10°+2¢ 6h 3h,20',3¢ 
(April 13) 
So that from— 


complete cenea x hippocoon I have in F.1 cenea only 
(incomplete and other). 

cenea-mothered hippocoon x hippocoon I have in F. 1 
hippocoon only. 

cenea out of a mixed family x hippocoon I have in F.1 
hippocoon and cenea. 


“So far as I have gone (and it was the same in my 1915 
experiments which got no farther than F. 1) Iam able, I think, 
to recognise complete cenea by the presence of dark shading 
at the base of the h.-w. under-surface ; incomplete cenea by the 
absence, complete or nearly, of this shading and by the presence, 
usually, of pale scales (whitish or yellow) below the main f.-w. 
spot—corresponding, that is, to the extension in hippocoon of the 
big h.-w. patch into the f.-w. The underside difference is the 


XXXil 


constant one, or nearly so. The upperside approach to hippo- 
coon in my first experiments (1915) varied much from family 
to family being great in at least one of them (and involving 
the whole f.-w. pattern); while, in one, some individuals were 
actually hippocoon. There may of course have been a little 
hippocoon in the mother’s ancestry, though it didn’t show in 
the emergences of her generation. It will be interesting to see 
if the segregation will be complete in F. 2—into hippocoon, 
complete cenea and incomplete cenea. I shall attempt F. 2, 
but do not expect success because I am due to go on 
another. tsetse expedition (this time for the Rhodesian 
Govt.) as soon as a bad foot is better, and because of 
another journey which cannot be avoided. My plan (already 
begun) is to pair the ‘ y’ females with their own and ‘ @’ males 
and to pair these same 3g a second time with the ‘a’ (hippocoon) 
29, to ascertain the $g’s composition. But, as I have just 
said, the chances of being able to carry the experiment through 
are, unfortunately, almost nl. 

‘* Pairing now offers little difficulty. I have made it com- 

-pulsory! The genitalia are brought into correct juxtaposition, 
very slight pressure is exercised on the sides of the two abdo- 
mens with finger and‘thumb of each hand and, as soon as 
the 3 is seen (by abdominal movements) to take on, he is 
allowed to hang, and both are placed in a box, better dark. 
Some gg refuse. The pairings of which I am now seeing 
the results were obtained in this way. The only infertile 
pairings were some obtained with cenea 3g that I had had 
to keep some weeks to await the emergence of a hippocoon 
family. It was doubtless a matter of senile decay, hastened 
by captivity! Even cripples are usable by this method : 
2 8 (v. above) from which I obtained the continuation of 
my pure cenea strain (a few eggs only, it is true) was a bad 
cripple. Some cripples, of course, couldn't lay. 

“ April 19.—I have added to the table emergences to date, 
all corroborative. 

“My first cenea paired and put out to lay was killed by 
driver ants, which also destroyed all the larvae of a lot of 
local hippocoon families I had in hand (for your inheritance of 
small variations work), I have three more (all y) paired, 


XXXII 


two with 6 33, one with own, and a hippocoon x y 3 is laying. 
Now that a wet spell is over [ll try and make a start before 
leaving home, but unluckily my foot is better and I can’t 
postpone long! 

“Tt is unlucky for further breeding that the 3 emergences 
have been so few. Only one y or @ 3 until the day before 
yesterday.” 

Prof. Poulton said it was very interesting that Mr. Swyn- 
nerton had now confirmed—although larger numbers were 
very desirable—the conclusions set forth in Proc. Ent. Soc., 
1914, p. Ixvii. The predominant form in Natal and the 
south coast of Cape Colony, cenea, was thus shown to be 
a dominant relatively to hippocoon, while the predominant 
form everywhere else in Africa was the recessive hippocoon 
itself. The facts brought forward in 1914 also seemed to 
prove that hippocoon was recessive to trophonius, planemordes, 
a leighi-like 2 at Chirinda, and dionysus, inasmuch as all 
these had given a mixture, often approximately half and 
half, of their own form with hippocoon, the male parent 
having presumably carried the tendencies of the latter. The 
Mendelian relationship of these forms to each other and to 
cenea is still uncertain. 

AFRICAN PAPILiIos OF THE NIREUS, CRAM., GROUP ATTACKED 
BY BIRDS.—Prof. PouLton said that he had received from 
Mr. C. N. Barker of the Durban Museum the following 
observation contained in a letter, written to him from the 
Durban Zoological Gardens on April 9, 1919, by Mr. Harold 
Millar :— 

“You will be interested to learn that recently by my office 
here a sparrowhawk caught, on wing, one of the large blue- 
banded Papilios and ate it. Have never suspected they 
would feed on butterflies.” ; 

The butterfly must have been, as Mr. Barker states, Papilio 
lyaeus, Dbl. It was a curious coincidence, in view of Mr. 
Barker’s comment—‘ Such occasional incidents are very 
interesting, but do not influence my contention that the 
persecution is not sufficient to justify the results claimed for 
it ’—that the first record of an attack on this Papilio to 


reach this country should have been at once followed by 
PROC. ENT. SOC. LOND., 11, Iv. 1919. C 


XXXIV 


another observation, which was, in fact, made a little earlier. 
Capt. W. A. Lamborn wrote as follows from Dar-es-Salaam 
on March 26, 1919 :-— 

““T saw a most interesting incident only this evening. Two 
tiny birds, no larger than the little Cordon Bleu [Lstrilda 
phoenicotis, Swains.| or Rouge, were vieing with each other in 
pursuit of what at a distance I took to be a large black Noctuid 
now common in the house. The two birds got it down and 
pecked it vigorously, but it escaped, only to be attacked by 
another similar little bird near by. Then all three attacked 
it, and so I flung a stick at them, and they flew off. To my 
astonishment the insect turned out to be a Pap. nireus, Cram., 
or one of the closely allied species, with both fore-wings, the 
right especially, badly torn behind, but its energies were 
little impaired. I could not catch it, and by and by it 
flew into a lime tree and finally escaped.” 

OBSERVATIONS ON THE LARVA AND PUPA OF UROPTERYX 
SAMBUCARIA, L.»—Prof. Poutton exhibited a pale yellowish- 
grey pupa of sambucaria in its open network cocoon spun 
among strips and small pieces of white paper. It had been 
already shown that the colours were adjusted so as to har- 
monise with those of the normal surroundings—dark or pale 
(“ Colours of Animals,” London 1890, pp. 111, 112; Trans. 
Ent. Soc., 1910, pp. 143, 144). Although this power was 
present in many butterflies, sambucaria was the only moth 
pupa in which it had been observed. The chrysalis also 
resembled that of certain butterflies, e. g. Pyrameis atalanta, 
L., in the rapid lashing movements of the abdominal segments 
which took place on disturbance and were probably a defence 
against enemies. 

The larva, found upon pear in the summer of 1918, was 
over 23 in. long when mature. Living by itself in a large 
sleeve out of doors in almost normal conditions, this single 
larva offered the opportunity of studying certain instincts 
with a precision unattainable when many caterpillars are 
kept together and disturb one another. I especially wished to 
determine the time at which the rigid, wonderfully twig-like, 
diurnal attitude was abandoned and feeding begun. The 
hours are summer time. 


XXXV 


May 18, 1919, 6.40 p.m.—Gently feeding on the leaf with 
which its head was in contact in the day position. 10.45 p.m., 
had moved to a different part of the stem, the head now to- 
wards the base of the twig instead of towards the tip—the 
invariable position when observed by day. 

May 19.—Morning: resting on another twig. There is 
certainly no tendency to “home” like that observed in 
limpets. 9.10 p.m., day position; 10.45, crawling about. 

May 20.—Day position maintained at 9.10 p.m. (third 
observation); 9.43, eating without moving. 

May 21.—Day position at 9.20 p.m. (third observation) ; 
9.55, eating vigorously in new position and with back curved. 

May 23.—Day position at 9.30 p.m. (third observation) ; 
9.45, moving about freely. 

May 24.—Taken to museum to be photographed. The 
disturbance caused the larva to alter its attitude, and when 
the twig was fixed upright in front of the camera, it was 
standing out at right angles to its support. Although in 
this position it appeared to be rigid, close inspection showed 
that it was not really so: the strain was too great, and the 
caterpillar was continually making rapid movements of small 
amplitude, but sufficient to prevent the taking of a photo- 
graph. When its head was gently raised and supported in a 
notch cut in the edge of a leaf the larva had no difficulty in 
maintaining sufficient rigidity, although minute movements, 
perhaps caused by the contraction of the dorsal vessel, are 
indicated in the negative. 

Cessation of feeding, already imminent, was perhaps deter- 
mined at this date by the disturbance. When the sleeve was 
again fixed on the pear tree the larva went to the living twig 
and assumed the rigid. day position, still maintained at 
9.17 p.m. and at 9.30, although at this time a thick line of 
silk was first observed joiming the head to a leaf. By 10 p.m. 
the line appeared to be longer, but 15 minutes later the larva 
was walking about. 

May 25.—The threads observed on the previous day were 
probably abortive attempts at spinning, for on this evening 
the caterpillar had fixed a small loose leaf to stem, suspending 
it by a silken cable. The caterpillar, close beside it, also 


XXXVI 


hung vertically from its hind claspers and was clearly shorter 
and stouter. | 

May 26.—In same position. About noon taken down and 
found to be about 21 in. long in the extended position. The 
larva was then dropped into the white surroundings and 
wriggled violently for a second or two directly it fell among 
the paper strips. It then became perfectly still, holding with 
its true legs to one strip, the middle of the body lying across 
another with the hinder half hanging free. In this uncom- 
fortable position it remained for probably an hour, but by 
1.20 p.m. it had ventured to raise the hinder part sufficiently 
to seize another strip with the claspers. There can be no 
doubt that the behaviour witnessed was instinctive and such 
as to protect the caterpillar when attacked, first by burying it 
more deeply in the undergrowth after it had fallen, secondly by 
promoting its concealment in the depths it had reached. By 
3.37 it had climbed to the position in which it very deliberately 
constructed its cocoon, the labour being postponed and also, 
I think, interrupted by long pauses during which the larva 
hung vertically from its hind claspers. Pupation took place 
on May 31. It is during this long prepupational period— 
seven days in the larva under observation—that the colour 
of the pupa is doubtless determined, and it is possible that 
the long pauses in a vertical position are specially related to 
the incidence of environmental stimuli. 

As regards the earlier phase it was evident that the larva 
maintained its day position until about 9.30 p.m., when the 
light was becoming dim. It is unfortunate, however, that 
the hour could not be observed on May 18, when the larva 
began feeding, although without change of position, as early 
as 6.40 p.m. 

THE MIMICRY OF AN ANT BY AN AUSTRALIAN FOssoRIAL 
wasp.—Prof. PouLton said that he wished to call the atten- 
tion of the Fellows to an interesting example of mimicry 
described in Mr. R. E. Turner’s systematic paper in Ann. 
Mag. N. H., Ser. 8, vol. xv, Jan. 1915, p. 64. The mimic 
was Aphelotoma tasmanica, Westw. (Ampulicinae), found in 
S.E. Australia and as far north as Brisbane, as well as in 
Tasmania. Mr. Turner’s observations were as follows :— 


XXXVii 


“Taken running on dead Hucalyptus-logs in which old 
beetle-holes were numerous. Although of considerably 
smaller size, this wasp bears a considerable resemblance to 
ants of the genus Myrmecia, especially M. eswriens, Fabr., 
and another species with red legs, Myrmecia pilosula, Sm. 
When alarmed the wasp often picks up a fragment of dead 
stick or leaf, which it carries in its mandibles, thus increasing 
the resemblance to the ant. Aphelotoma auriventris, Turn., 
a species with a wide range in the southern half of Australia, 
also bears a considerable likeness to Myrmecia mandibularis, 
Sm., though the difference in size is very great; I have never 
seen this species or any of the Queensland species of 
Aphelotoma [except A. tasmanica| carrying anything in their 
mandibles. The Tasmanian species is considerably larger 
than any other of the genus.” 

It was of much interest that the species of Aphelotoma 
which was nearest in size to the model should have developed 
this additional mimetic feature. The extreme abundance of 
ants in Australia rendered them especially feasible as models. 

THE CLOSE MIMETIC RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN TWO LARGE 
CHINESE SAWFLIES.—Prof. Poutron said that Mr. R. E. 
Turner had kindly drawn his attention to the remarkable 
likeness between Athermantus inperialis, Sm. (Arginae) and 
Abia vitalisi, Turn. (Cimbicinae). Specimens in the British 
Museum were from N. China and N. Indo-China respectively. 
The two species were of the same size, and both had yellow 
wings and an iridescent violet-black body. In spite of their 
wide systematic difference they would, at first sight, pass for 
the same species. The mimicry was probably Miillerian, for 
there was evidence—although as yet insufficient—that the 
sawflies were a protected group. Certain British species 
were mimicked by Diptera which frequented the same flower- 
heads, and the larvae of Croesus had been shown to be dis- 
tasteful to lizards. 

GLOSSINA PALPALIS, R.D., FRomM Capt. CARPENTER’S 
SHELTERS ON ISLANDS IN THE VicToRIA Nyanza.—Prof. 
Pouuron exhibited the specimens described in the following 
extracts from letters by Capt. G. D. H. Carpenter. None of 
the puparia had produced flies since they had been received, 


XXXViii 


Capt. Carpenter's method was founded on the fact that the 
fly always seeks shelter for depositing its larvae, which were 
killed by the sun. Hence the idea of making artificial shelters 
from which the puparia could be collected at intervals. Prof. 
Poulton thought that if the destruction of the puparia were 
the end in view this could be achieved more certainly and 
simply by moving the shelters from time to time, and exposing 
everything beneath to the rays of the tropical sun. The 
shelters could be made with two handles on each side and of 
such a weight that each could be easily moved by two men. 
Later on, if the method proved a success, automatically- 
moved shelters with a clockwork release could be employed. 
In bringing forward these interesting and, it was to be hoped, 
fruitful, experiments, Prof. Poulton wished also to draw 
attention to the important researches in the same field of 
inquiry by Mr. W. A. Lamborn (Bull. Ent. Res., May 1916, 
Vil., p. 38). 
** March 31, 1919. Entebbe. 

“T’m sending you per registered post, the batch of pupae 
collected from my island shelters. I wrote about a week ago 
to say the number was going up satisfactorily every week, 
and this last week showed a further increase, so that I got an 
average of 48 per shelter on Bulago and 64 on Kimmi, a total 
of about 700 pupae from the two islands, most of which I now 
send. Since they were deposited between March 19 and 26 
they are still young, so that I think many will be still un- 
hatched by the time they reach you. When you open the 
box you will find a horrid mass of squashed emerged flies, 
undeveloped, but if you put the pupae that remain in warm, 
damp atmosphere, on dry sand (e.g. a tray im a fern case), 
they should develop all right, and may be of interest to 
entomologists at Oxford. 

“Perhaps it would be an interesting exhibit at the Entomo- 
logical Society, and Fellows who like the experience, by placing 
their bare arms against the gauze side of the cage can have 
the privilege of being bitten by G. palpalis without any risk 
whatever! If you like to feed them regularly (they will bite 
a fowl if the feathers are cropped and it is held against the 
cage) there is no reason why they shouldn’t breed in the 


XXXI1X 


fern case—you can easily arrange a sloping piece of bark 
over a tray of dry sand.” 
“© March 23, 1919. LHntebbe. 

‘“ My experimental trial of my new method of destroying 
Glossina palpalis so far promises well. I knew from my 
previous work that the maximum effect was reached about 
2 months after the erection of the shelters. They have been 
going three weeks now. The totals obtained for the three 
weeks from Bulago Island (7 collecting places) are 48, 157, 
260; and from Kimmi Island (6 collecting places) 104, 200, 
313. So the number is going up by leaps and bounds and it 
looks as if I should get a couple of hundred weekly from 
each shelter, which is what I expect if the method is to succeed. 
The interesting thing is that on each island I have left un- 
touched one ideal natural collecting spot (a tree trunk)—and 
my shelters are just as attractive judging by the comparative 
numbers obtained. So I’m feeling quite cock-a-hoop!! 
The fact that the maximum effect is not reached for some 
weeks seems to show that the 2 fly hunts very carefully all 
over the island until she is satisfied which is the best place ! !”’ 

Nove ON THE LocusTID ANT-MIMIC MYRMECOPHANA, SP. ? 
FALLAX, Br.—Prof. Poutron said that he had received the 
following note from Mr. C. N. Barker who had written from 
Durban on March 7, 1919. The Locustid referred to was 
probably fallax, Br., and was certainly the species spoken of 
by Dr. G. A. K. Marshall in Trans. Ent. Soc., 1902, pp. 535-6. 
The insect, with its very long antennae, was shown in the 
accompanying Plate XIX, fig. 59, together with Camponotine 
ants of three species (figs. 53-56) and an ant-mimicking bug 
(figs. 57, 58), all captured, Feb. 17, 1901, on a small bushy 
vetch at Salisbury, Mashonaland. Dr. Marshall stated that 
the Locustid, “in spite of its long antennae, bears a very 
strong resemblance to an ant” (p. 535). The fineness of the 
antennae was such that they were probably invisible at a 
short distance. Mr. Barker wrote :— 

“T came across lately whilst staying at Winkle Spruit 
some of those curious little Locustids (Mrymecophana sp.) (a 
North African species is figured by Dr. Sharp in “ Insecta,” 
Part I, p. 223), which mimic ants. The illusion is wonderful 


xt 


in the freshly caught specimens, but the whitey-green under 
part of the abdomen unfortunately shrivels and discolours 
a great deal soon after death. Our species has far longer an- 
tennae than those shown in Sharp’s figures. Remarkable as 
the deception is, the long waving antennae detract from it, 
and I cannot conceive any protective value for it. A year or 
two ago I saw an Asilid fly pounce upon what I took to be 
an ant. I caught both and put them in the cyanide bottle 
together, and it was only after I examined them at home that 
I found the victim was a spider instead of an ant.” 

BUTTERFLIES FROM THE Maayan Istanps.—Mr. G. 
Taxgort, on behalf of Mr. J. J. Jorcry, exhibited the following 
species :— 

Papilio androcles, Bdv., a new race from the Sulla Islands. 
It differs chiefly by increase of black and reduction of the 
white markings. This species was only known heretofore 
from Celebes. 

Papilio gigon mangolinus, Fruhst. The race from the Sulla 
Islands, which differs chiefly from the type form in the same 
way as does the androcles race. There is, however, a reduc- 
tion in the extent of the patches of modified scales on the 
fore-wing. The type is common in Celebes, and the only 
other known form inhabits Talaut and Sangir. 

Delias, sp. nov., from Buru. A single @ specimen of a 
distinct species related to isse, Cram., which is already repre- 
sented on Buru by the race echo, Wall. 

Hypolimnas misippus, Cram. The female from Tenimber, 
together with Danaida plexippus larantensis, and Limnas 
chrysippus petilea, Stoll., f. eratippus, Feld. There are several 
specimens of the Hypolimnas 2 in the Tenimber Collection as 
well as a series of males. The D. laratensis appears to be the 
commonest white-banded Danaine in the island. The 
chrysippus form was not common, and is never so in the 
eastern islands, where it becomes darker with a reduced white 


band. 
Papers. 


The following papers were then read :— 
“Notes on the exotic Proctotrupidae in the British and 


xii 
‘Oxford University Museums, with Descriptions of new Genera 
and Species,”’ by ALan P. Dopp. 

‘“ The Scent-scale of Pinacopteryx liliana, Grose-Smith,” by 
F, A. Dixy, M.A., M.D., F.RB.S., ete. 

Dr. Dixry exhibited a large-sized model of the scent-scale 
in illustration of his paper, of which the following is an 
abstract :— 

The outline of the lamina of this scale is like that of a 
chemist’s thin glass flask. At the junction of the neck with 
the body of the flask there is an oval or circular area, which 
under a low power of the microscope appears dark by trans- 
mitted light, and contains a highly refracting, roughly circular 
patch in the middle. This appearance is seen in sections of 
the scale, made by Dr. Eltringham, to be due to the presence 
of a definite body, fusiform in both longitudinal and transverse 
section, staining readily with “‘light-green”’ (Griibler) or 
safranin, and in contact with the upper layer of the scale. 
In the region of this body, which Dr. Eltringham suggests 
may be a mass of dried secretion, the two layers of the scale 
separate, leaving a clear space between the body itself and the 
lower layer. The footstalk of the scale makes a sharp bend 
between the base of the lamina and the accessory disc. It 
appears to arise from the latter on the surface adjacent to the 
wing-membrane. Nearly opposite to its point of insertion, 
and on the other side of the disc, there is a beaded chitinous 
ring surrounding an oval or circular aperture. The sockets 
belonging to the scent-scales are easily distinguished from those 
of the ordinary scales by their large size and peculiar shape. 
Their outer lip ends in a row of minute spines. The disc 
articulates with the socket by the middle portion of its proximal 
margin, the greater part of the disc being outside the socket. 

Further light would no doubt be thrown on these structures 
by the examination of material properly prepared in the 
fresh condition. It is hoped that before long this may be 
obtained. 

The life-history of Mosquitoes. 

Mr. A. W. Bacor, at the request of the Council, exhibited 
with the Hpidiascope a number of slides illustrating the life- 
history of Culex and Anopheles, including every stage of insects 


xii 
of both genera, and various kinds of breeding places which 
they affect, especially in Africa, drawing special attention to 


comparative illustrations of the resting positions of both 
genera, and the difference in the appearance of the proboscis. 


Androconia in a Bee. 


The Rev. F. D. Morice, in exhibiting photographs with the 
Epidiascope, said that in May 1918 he had shown three photo- 
graphs (afterwards reproduced in Plate XI of the Society’s 
Transactions for that year) of some aggregations of scale-like 
hairs, which he had thought might probably be “ androconia,” 
occurring in $3 only of certain Australian sawflies belonging 
to the genus Perga, on the undersides either of all the wings 
(P. castanea), or of the front pair only (P. polita and others). 

He had since, acting on a suggestion made to him in a letter 
from Prof. Cockerell, compared with these structures some- 
thing apparently similar which appears, in the fore-wings 
only, of an exotic genus of Bees, viz. T'hrincostoma, Sauss., 
first described from Madagascar, but represented also in the 
Collections of the British Museum of Natural History by 
several species from 8. Africa and the Oriental Region (Borneo, 
etc.). As with Perga, the structure occurs onlyin 33. It differs 
from those to be found in the above Sawflies, in occupying a 
slightly different and smaller part of the wing (being confined 
to the cubital area), and situate on its wpper, and not, as in 
Perga, on its under side. It is, however, large and dense 
enough to be seen with the naked eye; and when magnified 
appears as an oval patch of long hairs, irregularly matted 
together into a sort of oval ““ mask” lying across the middle 
of the second cubital nerve, which seems to be distorted at 
this point, viz. bent twice abruptly (almost at right angles) 
above and below the centre of the mask. Some of the hairs 
appear to be simple, differing only in length from the general 
microscopic pilosity of the wing-surface. But others are 
evidently much modified, flattened and dilated (more on one 
side than the other) from their middles towards their sharply 
pointed apices (i.e. asymmetrically lanceolate), while their 
basal halves appear simply cylindrical and slender throughout, 
except for a slight bulb-like swelling where they emerge from 


xii 


the membrane of the wing. They are arranged something 
like sticks heaped loosely together in a roughly built bird’s 
nest, their apices, however, all seem to point inwards, 7. e. 
towards the centre of the patch. 

The exhibitor showed photographs of this structure at 
various magnifications (from xX 10 to—approximately— 
x 350), as it appears in a wing of 7’. torridum, Smith, captured 
by Dr. Neave in South Africa, which Mr. A. Cant of the 
Natural History Museum has mounted (entire) in balsam, by 
permission of the keeper of the Entomological Collections of 
the Museum, Dr. C. J. Gahan. 

Mr. BrerHunE-BAKER in commenting on this exhibit, 
expressed his opinion that the scales were androconial, and 
remarked that in many Lepidoptera the androconia were very 
firmly fixed, and that when they came off they frequently 
left the basal dise within the socket. 

Dr. Dixry also expressed ‘his strong opinion that these 
scales were true androconia. 


Wednesday, October Ist, 1919. 


The Rev. George WHEELER, M.A., F.Z.S., Secretary, in 
the Chair. 


Election of Fellows. 


Mr. Cyrit F. Carpenter, Sunrise, 140, Verdant-lane, 
Hither Green, S.E.6; Miss L. Evetyn Curersman, Ento- 
mological Dept., Zoological Society, Regent’s Park, N.W. 8; 
Prof. EK. CHester Crampron, Massachusetts Agricultural 
College, Amherst, Mass., U.S.A.; and Mr. ALBert H. Exston, 
Delemont, Childers Street, N. Adelaide, Australia, were 
elected Fellows of the Society. 


In consequence of the railway strike the attendance was 
very small; there were no exhibits, and it was decided to 
postpone the reading of the paper, illustrated by the Epidia- 
scope, which was to have taken place that evening, 


xliv 


Wednesday, October 15th, 1919. 


Comm. J. J. WaLker, M.A., R.N., F.L.S., President, in 
the Chair. 


Election of Fellows. 


Messrs. JAGAMATH LAXMAN KyHare, Lecturer in Entomo- 
logy, Nagpur Agricultural College, Nagpur, India; CHARLES 
Metiows, M.A., The College, Bishop’s Stortford; ArrHur 
W. Jospins Pomeroy, Govt. Entomologist in Nigeria, Ibadan, 
S. Nigeria, and Kneesworth House, 78 Elm Park Road, 
S. Kensington; Capt. Jonn G. Sr. AuByn, c/o Sir Charles 
McGrigor & Co., 39 Paulton Street, Haymarket, S.W. 1; 
and Lt.-Col. R. 8S. Wuitson, Governor of Western Desert 
Province, Mersa Matruh, Egypt, were elected Fellows of the 
Society. 


Exhibitions. 


ALLONONYMA DIANA, Hp.—A GENUS AND SPECIES NEW TO 
THE Britisu List (Ler.-Try.)—Mr. Durrant exhibited two 
specimens of this species taken at Fasnakyle (Inverness), 
Aug. 12-31, 1919, by Mr. C. W. Mackworth Praed, who had 
kindly presented the specimens to the British Museum. Mr. 
Praed had found diana not uncommon, but had only pinned 
a few specimens. This insect is the Simaethis diana (2316 
of Staudinger and Rebel’s Catalogue), and cccurs in Germany, 
the Alps, Italy, Russia, Sweden, Lapland, etc., and also in 
North America. Among British species diana most nearly 
resembles pariana, Cl., but is at once separable by its green 
colour and by having veins 7 and 8 of the fore-wings stalked 
(instead of separate), for which reason it was separated by 
Fernald from Simaethis as Orchemia, Gu. The adoption of 
Guenée’s generic name for this species being erroneous, Burck 
(1904) proposed the new name Allononyma in lieu of * Orchemar 
(nec Gu.), Fern. 

The life-history of Allononyma diana is apparently not 


Proc. Ent. Soc., Lond., 1979. Plate B: 


pa 


Photo A. E. Tonge. Half-Tone Eng. Co., Ltd. 
MALE GENITALIA X 15. 


i DIANTTOE CLA Ve ORAGO 2. DIANTHOECIA BARRETTIE 


xlv 


known, but a very closely allied species (or form), lwridana, 
Wkr. (=betuliperda, Dyar), occasions considerable injury to 
Birch trees in America, where it has also been bred from Alder. 
It will doubtless be found that diana is also attached to Birch 
in this country. This is a most interesting addition to our 
fauna, as it is obviously not an introduced species. 

Eecs or Ennomos autumNnaria.—Mr. HE. E. Green ex- 
hibited a cluster of eggs of Hnnomos autumnaria, and drew 
attention to their superficial resemblance to the eggs of 
certain Hemiptera. Hach egg is of a long-oval form, sharply 
truncate at the upper extremity, where there is a raised 
whitish ring contrasting sharply with the dark brown colour 
of the remaining area. 

Mr. Green also showed an enlarged drawing of one of the 
egos. 

DIANTHOECIA LUTEAGO AND DIANTHOECIA BARRETTII.— 
Mr. Epetsten exhibited specimens of D. luteago, and D. 
barrett, and contributed the following notes :— 

There has been a considerable discussion in the: past as to 
whether D. barrettii was the same species as D. luteago, and 
having bred D. barrettii in considerable numbers in 1910, 
I determined to go further into the matter. I wrote to 
Staudinger and got specimens from him of D. luteago and its 
form D. argillacea from various localities. I sent them all 
to Mr. Pierce, and when he had examined their genitalia he 
reported that one of the D. argillacea which came from Digne 
in the Basses Alpes differed from the others. I at once wrote 
for more specimens from this locality, but had to wait until 
the next season, when Staudinger sent me several more 
specimens. Mr. Pierce examined all these, and the result is 
as follows :— 

The genitalia of D. luteago and its form argillacea (from all 
localities except Digne) differ from the genitalia of D. barrettit. 
The genitalia of D. barretti and those of argillacea from Digne 
are similar. The chief difference in the genitalia is in the spine 
on the aedeagus. In lweago it is an elongate spike (angle of 
12°), and in barrett a short broad rose-thorn-shaped spike 
(angle of 45°). (See Plate B.) Our British insect can now be 
raised to a species and considered distinct from luteago. The 


xivi 


Digne insect must also be looked upon as a local race of | 
barrettii. My friend, the late Rev. F. EK. Lowe of Guernsey, 
sent me a specimen of the insect described by Tutt as D. 
luteago var. lowei (Ent. Record, 1898, vol. x, p. 150), but this 
proves on examination to be the same as D. barrett. It is 
rather more ochreous than D. barretti from England and 
Ireland, and more like the insect from Digne. Pierce substi- 
tutes the following description of the genitalia for that appear- 
ing in “ The Genitalia of the Noctuidae” (p. 64). 


Barretti. 


Valva (harpe) roughly battledore, spose, harpe (clasper) 
reduced to a fold. Sacculus produced (divided) at the apex 
where it forms a lobe. Uncus broad and tapered. Aedeagus 
set with a short broad spine (angle of 45°), (in luleago an 
elongate spine, angle of 12°). Cornuti, 2 sets: patch of 
short teeth, and a small bunch of fine spines. 

Anellus lobes (Juxta) scobinate. 


My best thanks are due to Mr. Pierce for the trouble he 
has taken in making the preparations. 
The preparations on the slides are as follows :— 


No. | slide. 

Sent as Really Locality Spine 
1. Luteago luteago Tunis elongate 
2. Barrettu barrett Treland broad 
3. Luteago barretti Digne broad 

sub. sp. argil- 

lacea 
4. Luteago luteago Saratow elongate 
5. Luteago luteago Uralsk elongate 

sub. sp. argil- 

lacea 
6. Ditto luteago Amasia elongate 
7. Luteago luteago Batna elongate 
8. Luteago luteago Hungary elongate 
9. Barrett barrett Cornwall broad 


xlvil 


No. 2 slide. 

Sent as Really Locality Spine 
1. Luteago barrettw Digne broad 

sub. sp. argil- 

lacea 
2. Ditto barretlia Digne broad 
3. Ditto barrettia Digne broad 
4. Ditto barrettia Digne broad 
5. Barrett barrettia S. Devon broad 


References to both D. luteago and D. barrett will be found 
in “The British Noctuae and their Varieties’ (Tutt), vol. 1, 
pp. 184-6; vol. ii, pp. 24-6; vol. iv, p. 110. 

I would also like to call attention to the food-plant of the 
larva of D. barrettii. The principal food-plant is rock spurrey, 
Spergularia rupestris, and not Silene maritima. The rock 
spurrey grows in the crevices of the rocks amongst the Silene ; 
it makes a very large tap-root, and in this the larva feeds. 
My brother first discovered it, and quite by accident. We were 
searching amongst Silene to see if we could find the larvae, 
when he noticed a withered plant of spurrey, which broke 
off when he touched it. He noticed that a larva had been 
feeding just under the crown, and called my attention to it. 
We dug out the root and the larva was in it. Nearly every 
plant of spurrey was infected in this locality. The larva 
does sometimes feed on Silene, but prefers the spurrey ; where 
the latter occurs it can be taken in some numbers. It leaves 
the plant when full fed and pupates just under the surface 
on the rocky ledges. Rock spurrey being a very local plant 
no doubt accounts for the scarcity of the insect in many 
apparently suitable localities. Spurrey likes to grow right 
on the cliff face if it can, and in some places is quite inaccessible 
except by being let over the cliff by a rope. 

CoccrnELLA DisTrIncTA.—Mr. DoniIsTHORPE exhibited speci- 
mens of Coccinella distincta bred from the eggs (which 
together with the living eggs and the female parent of one 
of the specimens, he had exhibited at the last meeting) 
and their pupal skins, and read some notes on them. Also 


xlviil 
an abnormal specimen of the Lady-bird with a sharp spiné 
on the left shoulder, with black head and thorax, and quite 
black beneath; the antennae being very short, but of normal 
joints. 

He stated that the larvae had been bred with great difficulty, 
as they died if kept too damp or too dry, and also devoured 
each other. In the end each larva had to be kept by itself 
in a glass-topped box with damp cotton-wool and supplied 
with plenty of Aphidae. 

The time-table of the two bred specimens exhibited was as 
follows :— 


A. Eggs found on pine-needle 
at Weybridge, 21.v.19. 

Hatched, 25.v.19 

Ist moult, 30 and 3l.v.19 


2nd?! +, wr asvindd 
3rd zo Devaet9 
Ath Eh WR Seal 9 


Larva pupating, 22.v1.19 


B. Eggs laid by 9 on oak leaf 
at Weybridge, 30.v.19. 

Hatched, 6.v1i.19 

Ist moult, 10.vi.19 


Ind «3 ids. wid 
ord 1) ph Savals 
Ath i. P2Zicvils 


Larva pupating, 23.vi.19 


Pupa, 25.vi.19 
Imago, 9.vu.19 


Pupa, 28.vi.19 
Imago, 11.vu.19 


An Eayptian TRYPETID FLY, AND THREE DIPTERA NEW 
To THE British List.—Mr. F. W. Epwarps made the following 
exhibits :— 

1. Urellia augur, Frauenfeld. An Egyptian Trypetid fly 
with wing-markings curiously resembling a small fly or flea. 
The resemblance is most probably purely accidental, but is 
at the same time quite striking. The specimen was brought 
to the British Museum by Mr. R. H. Greaves, who pointed 
out the peculiar marking. Major E. E. Austen, D.8.O., 
who has also taken the fly, did not observe any particular 
resemblance to another fly in life. 

2. Three interesting new British Diptera :— 

(a) Orthopodomyia albionensis, MacGregor. A mosquito 
recently discovered breeding in the water in hollow beech- 
trees in Epping Forest. The other species of the genus are 
mostly Tropical American; one occurs in the Oriental region. 


xlix 


(b) Ochlerotatus curriet, Coquillett. A North American 
mosquito found by Dr. H. Scott.on Wareham Heath, Dorset. 
The British specimens differ very slightly from the American 
ones in colour, hence are almost certainly native with us. 

(c) Crypteria limnophiloides, Bergroth. A remarkable 
Tipulid described from Finland in 1913; found in August 
1919, by Capt. J. Waterston, at Bonawe, Argyllshire. 

LaRVAE OF SAwr.ies.—The Rev. F. D. Morice exhibited 
with the Hpidiascope some life-size photographs of the larvae 
of various Perga spp. clustering together on Hucalyptus leaves, 
which had been kindly sent to him by Mr. Hacker of the 
Brisbane Museum in Queensland. He also called attention 
to a recent remarkable discovery published by Messrs. H. E. 
Burke and §. A. Rohwer in Proc. Ent. Soc., Washington, 
vol. xix (1917), viz. that the previously unknown larva of 
Oryssus differs both in structure and habits from those of 
either the Siricidae or the Tenthredinidae, and is parasitic 
on certain wood-boring Coleopterous larvae (Buprestidae and 
probably also Cerambycidae). 


Papers. 

The following papers were read :— 

“The Male Abdominal Segments and Aedeagus of 
Habrocerus capillaricornis,” by F. Murr. 

“On the Mechanism of the Male Genital Tube in 
Coleoptera,” by the same. 

“A New Family of Lepidoptera, the Anthelidae,’ by A. 
JEFFERIS TURNER, M.D. 

“A new Hydroptila,’ by Martin E. Mostey. 

“Scent Organs in the Genus Hydroptila (Trichoptera),” by 
the same. 

The last paper was illustrated by many photographs shown 
in the Epidiascope. | 

Dr. E.trincHaM congratulated the author on his im- 
portant discoveries, and Mr. F. W. Epwarps compared the 
scent-organs found at the back of the neck in certain Diptera 
(Psychodidae). 


PROC. ENT. SOC. LOND. It, Iv. 1919. D 


Wednesday, November 5th, 1919. 


Comm. J. J. Watxer, M.A., R.N., F.L.S., President, in 
the Chair. 


Election of Fellows. 


Messrs. JAMES MrIkLE Brown, B.Sc., F.LS., F.CS., 
176 Carterknowle Road, Millhouses, Sheffield; ALrrep 
Francis Jonn Gepyr, 4 Runwell Terrace, Westcliff-on-Sea, 
Essex; ARTHUR FraNcIS HEemMMiING, Oxford and Cambridge 
Club, Pall Mall, 8.W., and Cambridge Lodge, Horley, Surrey ; 
Witiiams Huan, J.P., Tresaison, Cloverdale, British Colum- 
bia, Canada; Murpocu Camppett McLeop, The Fairfields, 
Cobham, Surrey, and McLeod & Co., Calcutta, India; Dr. 
W. Mansrietp-Apers, Zanzibar; 8. Gorpon Smits, Estyn, 
Boughton, Chester, and James Davis Warp, Limehurst, 
Grange-over-Sands, Lancashire, were elected Fellows of the 
Society. 

Papers. 

In consequence of the number and importance of the 
Papers they were taken before the exhibition of specimens. 
The following papers were read :— | 

“A contribution to the Classification of the Coleopterous 
Family Endomychidae,’ by Gitpert J. Arrow, F.E.S. 

‘* New moths collected by Mons. A. Avinofi in W. Turkestan 
and Kashmir during his Journeys in 1909-1912,” by Sir 
Grorce F. Hampson, Bart., communicated by J. Hartley 
Durrant, F.E.S. 

“On the Histology of the Scent-organs in the Genus 
Hydroptila, Dal.,” by H. Evrrtmnenam, M.A., D.Sc., ete. 

“Contributions to the Life History of Lycaena ewphemus, 
Hb.,” by T. A. Coapman, M.D., F.R.S., etc. 

‘“ Notes on Lycaena alcon, F., as reared in 1918 and 1919,” 
by the same. 

“Cocoon softening in some Agrotids,” by the same. 

 Pseudacraea ewrytus hobleyi, its Forms and its Models 
on the Islands of Lake Victoria, and the bearing of the Facts 
on the Explanation of Mimicry by Natural Selection,” by 
G. D. H. Carpenter, D.M.,-B.Ch. 


hi 


Dr. Evrrincuam, Dr. Carman and Dr. Carpenrer gave 
illustrations of their papers by means of the Epidiascope, 
and Dr. Chapman exhibited a nest. of Myrmica laevinedis 
containing four living larvae of L. ewphemus, and also one 
larva in spirit at the stage in which it enters the ants’ nests. 

Several Fellows commented on these papers, especially on 
Dr. Eltringham’s and Dr. Chapman’s paper on L. euphemus, 
and Dr. Carpenter was warmly congratulated on the success 
of his observations and experiments. 


Photograph of Former President. 

A very interesting photograph of the late H. W. Bates, 
which Mr. Donisthorpe was presenting to the Society, was 
also shown in the Epidiascope. 

MEGACOELUM BECKERI, Fies., A HEmIpreRoN NEW. TO 
Brirarn.—Mr. Donisthorpe exhibited specimens of Mega- 
coelum beckeri, a species new to Britain, which he had first 
captured at Weybridge, August 27, 1918. His total captures 
were as follows :— 


One on fir tree over F. rufanest . . 27.viii.18, Weybridge. 
One on fix tree over F. rufa nest ; + ihe epxls. - 
Three on fir trees over F. rufanests. . 20.ix.18, Oxshott. 
Several larvae on fir tree over F. rufanest 11.vii.19, Weybridge. 
Several larvae on fir tree over F. rufa nest 15.vii.19, 3s 

One larva on oak tree over F. rufanest . 15.vii.19, - 

One larva on fir tree over F. rufanest . 24.vii.19, 5 
Several larvae on fir trees over F. rufanest 3.viii.19, Oxshott. 
One larva on birch tree over F. rufa nest 3.viii.19, “ 


One imago and one larva on fir trees over 
I. rufa nest . se SF 26. yi: 19;" Weybridge. 
One imago on fir tree over F. rufa nest .  31.viii.19, Oxshott. 


It was always found over nests of Formica rufa, but he had 
so far been quite unable to trace the cause of the connection 
between the insects. 
Hmrse convoLvuLt, L., arrackKED BY SMALL BIRDS IN 
B. E. Arrica.—Prof. Poutron read the following note con- 
tained in a letter from the Rev. K. St. Aubyn Rogers :— 


** August 7,1919. Nairobt. 
“During May and June the Convolvulus Hawkmoth was 


lu 


flying freely by day and I three times saw birds with freshly 
cuught specimens. The culprits were Ploceus reichenowt 
(Fischer), Lanius humeralis (Stanley), and Pycnonotus bar- 
batus (Desf.). As regards the last named the moth was still 
living when I first saw it, and I watched the bird struggling 
with it until it succeeded in getting rid of the wings and flew 
off with the remains (I secured the wings for you). This 
observation seems to me of some interest, as it shows what a 
powerful insect can be tackled by a comparatively weak bird 
like a bulbul (Pycnonolus), and effectually disposes of the 
suggestion that Danaines and even Acraeines are neglected 
because they are too large to be managed.” 

Furtuer notes By W. A. LAMBORN ON THE HABITS CF 
THE FLY BenaaLtia.—Prof. Poutton said that he had re- 
ceived the following observations, together with the numbered 
specimens, now exhibited to the meeting, from his friend 
Mr. Lamborn. He had been kindly helped in the determina- 
tion of the flies by Major K. E, Austen, and the ants by Mr. 
W. C. Crawley. The evidence seemed to prove clearly that 
Bengalia seeks prey already bitten by ants because it is unable 
to perforate the surface of any but very thin-skinned insects 
such as female Termites, the larva of Sphex or the pupa and 
freshly emerged imago of the ants themselves. In the succeed- 
ing communication Dr, G. D. H. Carpenter showed, as Dr. 
Gaillard had also observed in 1908, that the African Bengaha 
resembles the allied Oriental Ochromyia in its attacks on 
Termites. References to earlier observations on both these 
genera of Diptera will be found in Proc. Ent. Soc., 19138, 
pp. exxvili-exxix. To these must now be added “ The 
Mouth-Parts of Ochromyia jejuna, a Predaceous Muscid,” 
with Pl. XLVIII, by Capt. F. W. Cragg, M.D., I.MLS., in 
Ind. Journ. Med. Res., vol. v, 1917-18, p. 516. The paper 
contains a detailed description of the mouth-parts and their 
probable use, although the author omits to notice Mr, K. EK. 
Green’s much earlier investigation of the tongue of the Ceylon 
species of Ochromyia (Proc. Ent. Soc., 1908, pp. XXvi, XxXvil). 
Capt. Cragg quotes Mr. Howlett’s observations on O.jejuna, at 
Pusa, where the flies were not seen attacking Termites but 
often robbing various kinds of ants of their larvae. Mr. 


Howlett, had not seen “the flies plundering any quite small 
species.” 

Mr. Lamborn’s interesting observations were as follows + 

“T have repeated on many occasions in B, W. Africa, By, 
Africa, and Nyasaland the observation originally made in 
8. Nigeria as to the fly Bengalia robbing Doryline ants on 
the march of their immature forms or food material, as de- 
scribed in the Proc, Ent, Soc., 1913, pp. exxv—exxviii. 

“A further study of the fly has shown that the ‘ Driver 
ants’? are by no means the only species favoured by its atten- 
tions. On 6th January 1919, at Lindi, KH. A., as Twas watching 
a column of the Myrmecine ants, 889a [Cremastogaster cas- 
tanea, Sm. (tricolor, Gerst.), var, many workers], some passing 
up and some down a baobab tree, a Museid, Bengalia species 
[B. peuhi, Br. and v. Berg., 9], alighted near by and made 
various attempts to rob some of the ants of their food material 
—tiny unrecognisable fragments. [Accompanying the ants 
was the hind end of a small beetle of the genus Onthophagus 
of a sp. unrepresented in the B:M.] The fly was very alert, 
retiring immediately any stray ant happened to come its 
way. As it was soon nearly dusk IT was not afforded an 
opportunity of an extended study of its movements, and wag 
compelled to take it, 

“On 11th January, as T was studying at the mouth of 
their burrow in the ground at the foot of a baobab the Myrme- 
cine ants, 392a | Pheidole liengmei, Kor.: many workers], some 
engaged in bringing up fragments of earth from the depths 
and others returning food-laden, I noticed several Bengalia, 
3924 |B. gaillardi, Surcouf, prob. tropical f. of depressa, 
Walk., ¢ 49], near by, which, from time to time, made a 
dash at various ants and were occasionally successful in 
robbing them of their supplies. By and by IT saw at a little 
distance from the nest the similar ants, 3926 [several workers 
of same sp.|, clinging to the protruding viscera of an un- 
fortunate Carabid, a small black species, on which [ must 
inadvertently have trodden, The beetle was making frantic 
attempts to escape and did succeed in dragging himself along 
laboriously, despite the numerous ants by which he was 
assailed, One of the Bengaha, 392b [g of same sp.| then 


liv 


attempted repeatedly to get hold of the viscera with its 
proboscis but was obviously too frightened of the ant to be 
successful. After watching it for some little time I took it, 
in doing which I disturbed the ants; and the beetle, freed 
from most of its assailants, escaped into a fissure in the ground, 
where I was unable to secure it. 

“The next day I again saw Bengalia [2 ¢ of same sp.] 
robbing the same ants, 392a, 393a [many workers of same sp. ], 
as they returned food-laden to their burrow, and farther on 
found three or four more of the flies [2 ¢ of same sp.] at rest 
near a column of the Ponerines, 393d [three workers of Lepto- 
genys pavesii, Emery], emerging from a hole at the base of a 

‘dead tree, in formation as for a marauding expedition. In 
this case the instincts of the Diptera were evidently much at 
fault, for they had failed to distinguish between the out- 
going army and one returning laden with spoil, and from 
time to time, poised over the ants, occasionally swooped 
down as if they could hardly conceive that prey might be 
entirely absent. 

“Continuing my observations on 13th January, I saw at 
the base of a baobab the Camponotine, 394a [% min. of Cam- 
ponotus (Myrmoturba) sp.,* impossible to identify without % 
maj.|, climbing up backwards and dragging up after it the 
dead and fully grown larva of the Pierine butterfly Catopsila 

-florella, F., held head down. Near by was a Bengalia, 394a 
[$ of same sp.]. Whenever the ant had got a little distance 
away, the fly followed but did nothing, as if loth to let it get 
out of sight but uncertain what action to take; and in the 
course of about five minutes the ant had dragged its prey 
up the tree for about a couple of feet. The Bengalia then 
suddenly made up its mind, for it ran up, seized the larva 
just behind the head in its forelegs so strongly as markedly 
to constrict 1t, and made most frantic suctorial efforts with 
its proboscis, deeply depressing the surface of the dorsum 
but without puncturing it. The ant was too strong for the 

* This Camponotus is superficially extremely like the Ponerine ant 
Leptogenys stuhlmanni. It is possible that the likeness has been in- 
creased by the shrinkage of the former, but it is difficult to believe that 


no bionomic principle is at work. 1t would be very interesting to 
examine a long series of the apparent mimic.—E. B. P. 


iv 
fly and gradually dragged it up the tree and I then took 
both. 

“ Further on I came on a nest of the small Ponerines 3945 
[13 L. pavesw, 4% Leptogenys (sensu stricto) stuhlmanni, Mayr.|, 
similar to 393b, which, at about 10 a.m., were bringing up 
from their nest in a rotten stump their pupae [three examples] 
and callows for a sunning. Near by were some Bengalias 
[three ¢ of same sp.], one of which from time to time seized 
a callow [one of these is evidently indicated by 394c, the 
label on an immature § probably of L. stuhlmannd], as it was 
carried up by one of the ants and frequently got away with 
it to a distance, when, the ant having relaxed its hold, the 
fly was able to suck out the juices at its leisure. 

“On 14th January a further series of Bengalia [2 ¢ of 
same sp.] were taken, each detected in the act of robbing 
more of the ants, such as 395a [several 8 of Pheidole liengmei], 
but belonging to a different nest, returning food-laden. On 
the ground and near to the nest was a pupa of Catopsilia 
florella, too heavy for the ants [several § of same sp.] to drag 
away, but in which they were gnawing a small hole behind 
the left wing case. A Bengalia 395b [a 3 and @ of same sp. 
bear this number], walked round the pupa several times 
and eventually approaching warily suddenly thrust its pro- 
boscis into the breach, momentarily however, for it was 
extremely suspicious of the ants; but it repeated the manceuvre 
many times. 

“The possibility of the fly feeding on dead animal matter 
not found by ants, or attacking living insects, had been 
constantly borne in mind, but though dead insects, such as 
it had been seen to hanker after when taken by ants—the 
larvae and pupae of C. florella for instance were fairly numer- 
ous, there being an absolute plague of these butterflies at 
Lindi—yet Bengaha was never seen to approach any un- 
touched by ants, perhaps because it is unable to effect by 
itself a breach of surface in cuticle hardened by exposure 
postmortem. However, on several occasions the fly was seen 
to attack living larvae of Catopsilia, in each case sickly and 
rather shrivelled specimens; for, owing to the voracity and 
abundance of earlier broods, the leaves of the food plant, a 


lvi 


Leguminous shrub near to Cassia podocarpa, Guill. and Perr., 
which is eaten by this species on the West Coast, had dis- 
appeared, and the later broods were forced to endeavour to 
feed to maturity on leaf-stalks and green bark, so that many 
appeared unhealthy and many had perished. 

“In each attack the procedure was the same. The fly 
followed for about six inches close behind, almost touching 
its prospective victim, and then leapt on it suddenly, frantic- 
ally endeavouring to make an impression with its proboscis 
on the surface of a posterior segment, generally the 10th or 
llth. The first two feeble larvae which were seen to be 
attacked did not respond in any way but continued to crawl 
off. The assault, which was entirely without result, lasted 
for about ten seconds, and was repeated in one case twice 
more at intervals of about half a minute, the fly then giving 
up the attempt. 

“Tn a second case two attacks on a larva took place; and 
in a third the fly seized a larva approaching maturity, which 
then, as is usually the case, made a sudden convulsive move- 
ment whereby the fly was forthwith dislodged, then pro- 
ceeding on its way. The fly made one further attack with 
similar result and then desisted. 

“The ants already studied in relation to Bengalia being 
of the average size it was with some surprise*that on 14th 
January I saw the fly [¢ of same sp.] near the diminutive 
Camponotine ants, 396 [6 3 of Prenolepis (Nylanderia) longi- 
cornis, Ltr., far more metallic than usual, but similar in this 
respect to some in Mr. Crawley’s collection from Ocean Island], 
bringing back tiny burdens to their burrows. With an 
abundance of fairer prey it hardly seemed possible that the 
fly would waste its energies in paltry theft: but it was just 
as guilty in robbing these little creatures as their larger 
brethren, the procedure adopted being precisely as before, 
an equal degree of wariness being exhibited. 

“ Transfer to Dar-es-Salaam in January afforded an oppor- 
tunity of studying Bengalia in a new locality. In the im- 
mediate neighbourhood of the town the Camponotine ants, 
399 [several % of various sizes of Plagiolepis custodiens, Sm.], 
and 401 [4 % of same sp.], which were not seen at all near the 


lvit 


town of Lindi, were by far the most dominant species. They 
nest both in holes in trees and in the ground, favouring sandy 
soil, and seem to occur everywhere so as to be an absolute 
nuisance, running up one’s legs whenever one stands still a 
few seconds. They are savage and very active, so that one 
hardly expected to find Bengalia molesting them. But on 
several occasions in the middle of the month, the indefatigable 
fly was watched pursuing its usual methods, more often than 
not guarding against possible danger from roving ants by 
watching them from an elevation, usually a blade of grass 
or a small stone. The examples observed, which are now 
sent, are numbered 399, 400, 401, 402, 408, 409, 410, 411. 
[Each number is borne by from 2 (410) to 12 (399) workers of 
P. custodiens, and, with the exception of 401 (no fly bearing 
this number), by a single Bengalia gaillardi, of which all are 
males except 411.] 

* On 26th January an instance of faulty perceptions in regard 
to this species of ant, also, was noticed, for a ¢ Bengalia, 
perched on a blade of grass, suddenly swooped down on a 
large worker, 400 [custodiens], carrying one of equal size, 
which the fly endeavoured to seize. The attack was un- 
successful, but the ant dropped its fellow which then ran 
away, there having been, so far as one could see, no urgent 
reason for its porterage. 

“Though these ants are so excessively numerous at Dar- 
es-Salaam, there is no corresponding increase in the number 
of the flies; indeed at Linde, where the species of ants were 
more numerous though the total number of individuals seemed 
far less, the fly was more abundant, possibly because of the 
oreater ease with which it seemed able to obtain its livelihood 
from less redoubtable foes. 

“On 31st January at Dar-es-Salaam a further experiment 
was made on the feeding habits of Bengalia. A living larva 
of the Sphegid Sceliphron spirifex, L., resting prior to pupa- 
tion, was put into a cage containing one of the flies which 
had been without food for 24 hours. The fly straddled 
across it without the least hesitation, and, gripping the thoracic 
region with its fore-legs, applied its proboscis just behind the 
head. A bead of exuded body fluid proved almost at once 


lviti 


that the fly had pierced the cuticle, while the rapid diminution 
in size and falling in of the body indicated the substantial 
meal the fly was making. When it desisted, the larval re- 
mains were removed but were again offered to the fly in an 
obviously decomposed state 24 hours later. It unhesitatingly 
made a second meal.” 

THE FLY BENGALIA DEPRESSA, WALK., ATTACKING A WING- 
LESS TERMITE.—Prof. POULTON gave an account of the follow- 
ing observation recorded by Dr. G. D. H. Carpenter in a letter 
from Mombasa dated May 13, 1919. The fly, a female, 
which closely resembled Walker’s type of B. depressa, was 
exhibited to the meeting together with its victim, a female 
of Termes sp., probably bellicosus, Smeathman. 

“On May 4th in the evening I saw at Kilindini a Termite 
that had shed its wings, crawling about on the ground en- 
deavouring to get away from a medium-sized fly that seemed 
to be in some way attacking it. 

“Thinking the fly might be a Tachinid desirous of laying 
eggs upon the Termite | approached closely and watched; 
but it soon became evident that the fly was looking after 
number one, and not a future generation. It persistently 
applied its protrusible proboscis to the Termite’s abdcmen, 
and after many repeated failures, being shaken off by the 
movements of the Termite, it at last appeared to get the 
proboscis through the chitinous exoskeleton, for it vas so 
firmly fixed that the fly was dragged about passively as the 
Termite hurried along, the fly then not using its legs at all. 

‘“T watched for a period during which it seemed to me 
(though the wish may have been father to the thought !) 
that the fly’s abdomen grew fatter. At any rate, there seems 
little doubt it was sucking the juices of the fat Termite ! 
I was without any collecting apparatus, but managed to 
catch the fly by its wings with my fingers and tie it up, with 
the Termite, by a grass blade in the corner of my handker- 
chief, and now send them to you for identification.” 

MANTIS PIA, SERV., AND A NEMATODE; A COMPLICATED IN- 
stinct.—Dr. G. D. H. Carpenter exhibited the specimen 
of Mantis pia referred to in the following notes which he 
read :— 


lix 


On Kibibi Island, 8. Victoria, Jan. 22, 1919, I was lying 
on the sandy shore a few yards away from the edge of the 
water, where the ripples were breaking. A green Mautis, 
which is exhibited and has been identified as a male Mantis 
pia, Serv., was noted to be at the water’s edge and seemed 
to be rather unpleasantly knocked about by the breaking 
_ ripples. It seemed very curious to me that every time it 
was thrown a little way up the beach by a larger ripple it 
steadfastly walked down again towards the water, as if deter- 
mined to drown itself. My attention being attracted by this, 
I watched for some minutes. At last the Mantis got left on 
a little ridge of sand, but seemed quite suddenly to have 
been overcome, for it lay on its back with legs feebly moving. 
This seemed so curious that I got up to look and found a 
long Nematode or “ Thread-worm”’ (like Gordius) protruding 
from the end of the Mantis’ abdomen. I pulled out the last 
inch or so—it must have been some five inches long—and 
the Mantis seemed much relieved. Now I put it down again 
at the edge of the water, but this time it just as steadfastly 
walked directly away from the water, although I put it back 
at the water’s edge once to make sure it had not lost its sense 
of direction. 

The behaviour of the Mantis was such that one felt sure 
that instinct had forced it to go down to the water in order 
that the Nematode parasite, when adult, might escape from 
the body of the host and get into the water, where, presum- 
ably, reproduction takes place. It is a very remarkable 
case of adaptation of a host to a special need of a parasite. 
These Nematodes are often obtained from insects, and 
may be seen in England on damp earth. They are sup- 
posed to account for the country superstition that if a 
bunch: of horsehair is thrown into a ditch it will turn into 
** Kels.”” 

An interesting species known as the “ Guinea worm”? is 
parasitic on man. Its early stages are passed in the little 
crustacean Cyclops, and if one of these is swallowed in water 
the Nematode develops to the adult beneath the skin of the 
host. It usually finds its way to the legs or feet, and when 
the skin over it is wetted by water the female Guinea worm 


Ix 


manages to protrude the end of its body through the skin 
and drops its eggs in the water. 

Mr. GREEN observed that in Ceylon certain beetles used to 
be attracted to the light and come in and deposit Nematode 
worms even on the dinner-table. 

Mexanic Motus From Scortanp.—Dr. H. A. CocKAYNE, 
on behalf of Mr. Ropert Y. Horn of Glasgow, exhibited :— 
(1) A specimen of Anaitis plagiata showing extreme melan- 
ism, the thorax, abdomen, basal area and central fascia of 
fore-wings being almost black and the rest of the fore-wings 
and the hind-wings dark grey. 

(2) A specimen of Acronycta menyanthidis with black 
marginal area to fore-wings. 

Both were from Dumbartonshire, 1919. Two slightly less 
melanic Anaitis plagiata have been taken at the same place. 

Brep SESsIA FORMICAEFORMIS.—Mr. H. M. EDELSTEN ex- 
hibited bred specimens of Sesia formicaeformis from the Lea 
Valley; also an osier stem in which the larva had fed, and 
photographs to show the emergence hole of the imago. The 
larvae were found in an old osier bed which had not been 
cut for several years. The osiers were in a most unhealthy 
state, and there were numerous dead and dying stems. The 
stems were infested with Willow Weevil (Cryptorrynchus 
lapathi)and Willow Wood Midge (Cecidomyia saliciperda), and 
were covered with rust canker, and had been much pecked 
by birds. The larvae appear to feed under the bark in their 
early stages in a similar way to those of Sesia andrenaeformis, 
afterwards boring up the dead or dying stems to pupate. 
They make no cap over the emergence hole, but eat away 
the inner lining until only the cuticle of the bark remains. 
The emergence hole is oval in shape and reminds one very 
much of that of Nonagria neurica. The pupa is head up- 
wards, though in two cases he had found them head down- 
wards. (These were ichneumoned, and had probably entered 
an old boring.) In osiers that are cut regularly the larva 
feeds under the bark and pupates there like Sesia myopaeformis. 

Some larvae were still feeding on May 20, and others were 
quite small, so it is evident that they take two years, if not 
three, to come to maturity. The pupae were enclosed in 


Ixia 


tough cocoons made of wood gnawings, and silk lined. They 
were very badly stung by ichneumons. 

HYMENOPTERA FROM THE TURIN AND VICENZA DISTRICTS 
or NortTHEeRN Iraty.—Lt. HE. B. Asuiy exhibited the follow- 
ing species from these districts taken in 1919 :— 

Cimbex femorata, Clavellaria amerinae, Ammophila sabulosa, 
Vespa crabro, V. vulgaris, V. germanica, Polistes gallica, 
Eumenes unguiculus, Vill., EB. pomiformis, Rossi, Apis mellifica 
var. Ligustica, Bombus terrestris, B. hortarum and var. harri-— 
sellus, K., B. pomorum, B. agrorum var. pascuorum, Scop., 
B. sylvarum, B. lapidarius, B. ligusticus, Xylocopa violacea, 
Eucera longicornis, Anthophora quadrifasciata, A. acervorum, 
L., A. dispar, Lep., A. grisea, Osmia cornuta, O. aenea, 
Andrena thoracica, Nomada succincta. 

The above species were kindly identified for him by his 
friend, Prof. Zavateri, Head of the Natural History Museum 
at Turin. 


Wednesday, November 19th, 1919. 


Comm. J. J. Waker, M.A., R.N., F.L.S., President, in the 
Chair. 


Election of Fellows. 


Mr. Witi1aMm Fauconer, Wilberlee, Slaithwaite, Hudders- 
field; Sir Norman Lamont, 4, Queen Street, W., and Palmiste, 
Trinidad, B.W.I.; and Mr. Cyrm WintrHrop Mackwortu- 
PRAED, Dalton Hill, Albury, Surrey, were elected Fellows of 
the Society. 


Nonuination of Officers and Council. 


The following list of Fellows was read, as the nominees of 
the Council as Officers and Council for the next session :— 
President, Comm. James J. WALKER, M.A., R.N., F.LS.; 
Treasurer, W. G. Suetpon, F.Z.8.; Secretaries, the Rev. 
GEORGE WHEELER, M.A., F.Z.S., and 8. A. Neave, M.A., 
D.Sc., F.Z.8.; Librarian, G. C. CuHampion, A.L.S., F.Z.S.; 
Other Members of Council, H. E. ANDREWxES; G. 'T. BeTHUNE- 


xii 


Baxer, F.L.S., F.Z.8.; K. G. Bua, B.Sc.; Surgeon-Comm. 
M. Cameron, M.B., R.N.; J. Harttey Durrant; H. Evrrine- 
HAM, M.A., D.Sc.; A. D. Imms, M.A., D.Sc., F.L.S8.; G. A. K. 
MarsuaLi, D.Sc., F.Z.8.; the Rev. F. D. Morice, M.A., 
F.Z.8.; H. E. Pace; the Rt. Honble. Lord Roruscuip, 
M.A., F.R.S. etc., Capt. the Rev. J. B. Warrrston, B.D., 
B.Sc. 


Donation to the Inbrary. 


Amongst the donations to the Library was a MS. Entomo- 
logical Diary of the well-known entomologist J. Curtis, which 
after his death had passed to the late J. O. Westwood, by 
whose representatives it had been given to the Ratcliff Librarian 
Dr. W. Hatchett Jackson, who now presented it to the Society, 
being anxious that during his lifetime it should find a suitable 
and permanent resting-place. 


Exhibitions. 

A CONTRAST IN MEASUREMENTS OF A BEETLE, etc.—Mr. 
DontstTHorPE exhibited a very small specimen of Hylotrwpes 
bajulus, L. only 8°5 mm. long, taken by Mr. R. 8. Mitford, 
C.B., F.E.S.; and a very large one 24 mm. long, taken by 
himself (both from near Weybridge). 

Fowler gives the measurements as 14-20 mm.; so that both 
specimens appeared to be records. 

Also Hupteryx melissae, Cart., a frog-hopper breeding on 
garden-sage in his garden at Putney; and a species of 
Aleurodes*(A. lonicerae, Walk.), from honeysuckle in a cold 
conservatory, also Putney. Both were still breeding in spite 
of the frost, cold and rain. 

ANCYLIS TINEANA, Hb.—AN ADDITION TO THE BritTISH 
List (Lep.—Tiy.).—Mr. Durrant exhibited a specimen of 
Ancylis tineana, Hb., taken casually in the daytime by Mr. 
F. G. Whittle at Camghouran (Perthshire) June 3rd, 1919. 
He said that this species (Stgr. Rbl. Cat. 2268) is recorded from 
Germany, Austria, Holland, Galicia, Russia, Sweden, France, 
Italy, Labrador, etc., so its occurrence in Scotland is not sur- 
prising. On the Continent it has been bred from Crataegus 
oxyacantha, Prunus spinosa and domestica and Populus tremula 


{xu 
—the last record is marked with a “?”’ by Ragonot (MS.) and 
requires confirmation. 

Mr. SHEeLpon observed that Rannoch was so well-worked a 
locality that it was surprising to find a species of Lepidoptera 
new to Britain there, and especially one so distinct. He 
knew the exact spot where the specimen was taken. Of its 
reported food-plants on the Continent, there is a clump of 
Populus tremula near by, and also scattered trees of Pyrus 
malus; the only British Crataegus, C. oryacantha, does not 
grow in the district, neither, so far as he was aware, does 
Prunus spinosa or P. domestica, but P. padus is not uncommon. 

SpiInes ON THE ExyTraA oF TRoprcaAL CARaBIDAE.—Mr. 
H. E. Anprewes exhibited some tropical Carabidae to show 
spines at the apex of the elytra. The specimens shown were 
Macrocentra quadrispinosa, Chaud., from New Guinea ; Strick- 
landia nigra, Sl., from tropical Australia; Catascopus mira- 
bilis, Bates, from Laos; Catascopus regalis, Schm. Goeb., from 
Assam; Colpodes saphyripennis, Chaud., from Sarawak; 
Cordistes aculeatus, Chaud.,from the Amazons ; Agra foveigera, 
Chaud., from the Amazons. The spines generally occurred 
as a single pair, but there might be four spines, or even six— 
as in Catascopus mirabilis. The longest spines seemed to occur 
in species whose habitat is near the Equator. 

His attention had been specially directed to these spines 
by his friend Mr. Sloane, the authority on Australian Carabidae, 
who had lately sent him the following note :—* Spines of 
elytra. I have often thought of these. Why do they occur 
in tropical genera, not very nearly related, e.g. Colpodes, 
Calophaena, Coptodera, Catascopus, etc.? As faras [remember 
all we have in Australia belong to our geologically recent 
immigrant fauna (I mean in Carabidae), e.g. Stricklandia 
nigra Sl., Aristolebia (Sarothrocrepis) mucronata, Sl., Colpodes 
violaceus, Chaud. Can any of the wise men of London give 
any explanation? Or has anyone treated of the subject ? 
Likely these spines are protective : if so, it cannot be against 
birds, but must be against some peculiarly tropical enemy. 
Empirically I have thought it might be against some of those 
lizards that shoot out the tongue to capture their prey. The 
spikes would only protect against some soft instrument of 


xiv 


capture. Anyway these spine-tailed things are mostly in 
South America, and the Oriental and Austro-Malayan regions — 
(Ido not know about Africa). There must be some reason for 
this. What is it?” 

The only two genera about which he had any information 
both occur in India, viz. Catascopus and Colpodes. In North 
India Catascopus facialis, Wied, in which the apex of the elytra 
is toothed only, occurs under the bark of felled trees, which has 
become partially detached from the trunk. His notes all 
referred to the same tree, known in N. India as “‘ sal” (Shorea 
robusta), but that might be because it is the common timber 
tree of those parts. Regarding Colpodes he could only suggest 
that it sometimes lives in trees, and lizards sometimes live 
also in trees, but he thought that any connection between 
these two facts could only be determined by actual observation. 

Several Fellows commented on this exhibit, Mr. Donis- 
THORPE observing that there was also a genus of Australian 
ants (Polyrhachis) remarkable for their spines. 

Norrs Iranian Burrerriies.—Lt. E. B, Asapy exhibited 
the following species taken recently in North Italy :—Males 
and females of Thais polyxena ab. meta, from Stupinigi Wood, 
Turin, April 1919; 2 fresh specimens of Huvanessa antiopa, 
from Arquata Scrivia, Piedmont, July 1918, also a hybernated 
specimen from Lakes of Avigliana, April 1919; 1 male of the 
spring brood of Chrysophanus dispar, var. rutilus, from the 
banks of the Stura, Turin, May 1919; and a series of 7 males 
and 7 females of the autumn brood from Stupinigi Wood, Turin, 
September 1919; 4 males and 1 female of Satyrus statilinus, 
from Arquata Scrivia, Piedmont, August 1919; and 3 males 
and 2 females of Enodia dryas, from Stupinigi Wood, Turin, 
July 1919. 

A NEW Race or PLEBEIUS AEGON MAssEYI.—Mr. J. J. Lister 
exhibited a collection of P. aegon var. masseyi, Tutt, made in 
N. Lancashire and Westmoreland in July 1918 and 1919, with 
series of the heath form from the New Forest, of var. cretacea 
from the North Downs, and of the forms from Delamere Forest, 
Cheshire and Great Orme’s Head, Caernarvonshire, for com- 
parison. He said :—Var. masseyi appears to be now limited 
to the estuarine mosses which lie along the courses of the rivers 


Ixv 


Kent (Westmoreland) and Leven (Lancashire). The two 
estuaries are separated by the Cartmell Fells, which attain a 
nearly uniform height of about 700 ft. 

As is well known this form of aegon differs from the other 
races of the species, which range from Great Britain to China 
and Corea and from Lapland to Portugal, in the fact that the 
females are hardly ever. without a wash or sprinkling of blue; 
the only race which resembles it in this respect being var. 
corsica, limited to that island, but differing markedly in the 
characters of the underside. It appears that the only satis- 
factory way of examining the characters ofa population varying 
so much as this form does is to take “‘samples”’ in different 
localities, carefully abstaining from selecting specimens, except 
for condition, and in numbers sufficient to include at least the 
commoner variants. It is obvious that this method if pursued 
by many collectors might lead to the extermination of a species. 
It is also obvious that unless a series is known to have been 
collected in this manner, as a sample, its value for comparison 
is diminished. 

The results arrived at from the examination of the 
specimens are :— 

(1) That the population of this species inhabiting Holker 
moss, on the Leven estuary, differs slightly from that of 
the mosses about the river Kent and its tributary, the 
Gilpin. If the females from different localities are arranged 
in order of blueness it is seen that the Holker females at the 
beginning of the series are not so blue as those from the West- 
moreland mosses, and that there is a longer “tail” to the 
series of nearly brown females. In other words, the Leven 
females vary about a less blue mean than do those inhabiting 
the Kent estuary to the east, and separated from them by 
the intervening hill barrier. 

(2) Delamere Forest and Great Orme’s Head are, or have 
been (for it is doubtful if the species still exists at the latter 
locality) inhabited by forms intermediate between those 
found elsewhere in England (illustrated by the series from the 

‘New Forest and the North Downs) and var. masseyi from the 
estuarine mosses. For examples of these intermediate forms 
I am indebted to the generosity of Mr. Wm. Mansbridge, 

PROC. ENT. SOC. LOND., V, 1919. E 


Ixvi 


who gave me his specimens from Delamere Forest, and has 
borrowed those from Great Orme’s Head from Dr. John Cotton, 
who collected them there some twenty years ago. 

The distinguishing characters of the races of P. aegon con- 
tained in the collection may be set out as follows :— 

(1) Sandy heath form, from the New Forest. 

3. Upperside reddish purple, fairly deeply bordered with 
black; underside dull warm grey. 

2. Upperside warm brown, only very rarely (perhaps 1 in 
100 specimens), washed or sprinkled with purple; underside 
full cmnamon brown. 

(2) Var. cretacea, Tutt, from the North Downs. 

3g. Upperside bluish purple, narrowly bordered with black; 
underside French grey. 

2. Upperside brown, only very rarely (perhaps 1 in 100 
specimens) washed or sprinkled with blue; underside pale 
cinnamon brown. 

(8) Form from Delamere Forest. 

3. Resembles (1). 9. Resembles (1), but blue forms much 
commoner. Ina sample of 17 females 10 have some trace of 
blue on upperside, 1 has the hind-wing nearly blue except the 
costal border. . 

(4) Form from Great Orme’s Head. 

3. Upperside of the reddest shade of purple of any in the 
series, narrowly margined with black; underside warm grey 
intermediate between that of (1) and (2). 

2. Upperside ground-colour as in (2), but in a sample of 
12 all are more or less purple, of the shade of the 3; underside 
pale cinnamon brown. 

These specimens approach (5) in character; they differ in 
the redder shade of purple of the upperside and the warmer 
shade of the underside in the g, and the warmer colour of 
the brown upperside of the 9. 

(5) Form from Leven estuary (Holker moss). 

3S. Upperside varies from purplish to nearly pure blue, 
black margin rather narrow; underside ground-colour very 
pale French grey. 

Q. Upperside ground-colour is of a blacker, less warm, shade 
of brown, in all my (40) specimens more or less washed with 


\ 


Ixvu 


blue, of the colour of the $. None of them show the grey 
tint sometimes present in (6); underside pale cinnamon 
brown, often paler than in (2). 

(6) From the Kent river mosses. 

S. As in (5), but in some cases the blue of the upperside of 
the wings changes to grey towards the margin of the hind or of 
both wings—a variation parallel with that which in coridon 
culminates in ab. fowlert. Black margin rather narrower. 

2. Upperside. In all my (83) specimens blue is present on 
the upperside. It is always most extensive on h.-w. It is 
generally, not always, divided by black nervures, and very 
rarely extends to costa of h.-w. If little developed it is often 
limited to wedge-shaped interneural patches internal to the 
marginal spots of h.-w., a condition much commoner in (5). 
The pure shade of blue is commoner in 2 than 3. On the 
outer side of the disc the colour is often grey rather than 
blue, and may be almost white. 

In 30-40% of the females of my moss forms a narrow band 
of white, interrupted by the black nervures, precedes the black 
marginal band. This is comparatively rare in the other forms. 
Underside as in (5). 

The var. masseyi is thus a very varying form in the shade 
of the blue colour in both sexes, in the degree of the blueness 
of the female, in the occurrence of the greyish borders of the 
uppersides of the wings of the g, and in the occurrence of a 
white submarginal border on the upperside of h.-w. of 9. 
It differs from other British forms in the frequent occurrence 
of a purer, less purple, shade of blue on the upperside of both 
sexes, in the paleness of the ground-colour of the under- 
side in both sexes, and in the blacker shade of the ground- 
colour of the upperside of the female. It attains its most 
aberrant and splendid characters on the Westmoreland mosses, 
the form found on Holker moss, on the Leven estuary, being in 
some respects an intermediate or penultimate step in the series. 

In some of its features masseyi approaches hypochiona, 
Rambur, from the Pyrenees and Spain. 

VARIATION IN EKUMORPHA ELPENOR PROBABLY PRODUCED 
BY HEAT.—Mr. W. Kaye exhibited various series of the 
Sphingid Humorpha elpenor to illustrate the probable effect 


lxviil 


of heat in enlarging or even producing the small white dis- 
coidal spot. The spot is as a rule very minute or absent in 
British specimens under normal conditions. A series of bred 
specimens from Byfleet was shown which had been reared 
normally, and a smaller series from the same place, but bred 
another year, which had been subjected to considerable sun- 
heat in a greenhouse, but with no artificial heat. These latter 
showed a small white discoidal spot in all the specimens, one of 
which showed it quite large and distinct, while another was 
only a little less distinct. These two were out of but seven 
examples thus reared. A small series of specimens from Ger- 
many and Greece scarcely showed the spot more than ordinary 
British specimens. A small series from Yokohama, Japan, 
of the race lewisi, showed the spot distinctly in at least two 
cases and slightly in all; while three specimens from N. India 
of the race macromera showed the usual well-marked spot as 
well as the characteristics of this race. It appeared possible 
that the stimulus of strong sun-heat tended to develop this 
discoidal dot, for the Indian examples probably experience 
most heat, while Japanese examples would most likely have 
less than the Indian, but more than our own. . 

A THomiIsID SPIDER APPARENTLY PROTECTED FROM THE 
ATTACK OF AN AtTtTip SprpER.—Prof. Pouuron said that on 
September 9th, 1919, at St. Helens, Isle of Wight, he observed 
a Thomisid spider slowly walking up a lamp-post followed by 
an Attid, probably the common Epiblemum scenicum, Cl. 
When he first saw them the Attid was about an inch behind 
but it soon overtook the other and leapt upon it, and then, 
as quickly, jumped off again and walked away. It seemed 
probable that the Attid had instantly recognised some effective 
powers of defence or some unpleasant or unpalatable quality 
in the Thomisid. The observations of Dr. and Mrs. Peckham 
on the elaborate courtship of the Attidae and immense risks 
run by the male rendered it improbable that the behaviour was 
due to a mistaken sexual impulse. 

A QUEEN WASP CAPTURING PREY BEFORE HIBERNATION.— 
Prof. Poutton said that on September 20th last, at Oxford, 
he saw a large wasp carrying a burden and flying very heavily. 
It came down in the middle of the Banbury Road and he was 


Ixix 


then able to see that the prey was a large Syrphid fly, Cata- 
bomba pyrastri, L., carried in the mandibles. He was unable 
to capture the wasp, which, in a few seconds, succeeded in 
rising from the ground and flew off with its victim. The wasp 
was a queen, almost certainly of Vespa germanica, F., or vul- 
garis, L., probably the former, which is the commoner at Oxford. 

VESPA ORIENTALIS, L., REJECTING THE KILLED BUT CARRY- 
ING OFF STUNNED INDIVIDUALS OF THE SAME SPECIES.— 
Prof. Poutton drew the attention of the Fellows to observa- 
tions made on this hornet in Palestine by Mr. C. H. Hamm, 
late R.A.F. The insects were abundant in the Ramleh district, 
from July to October, 1918: they were also seen, singly, visiting 
a large Umbelliferous plant in April and May. They were 
never seen to catch other insects. They nested in the ground. 

When they became common, the workers in large numbers 
visited the mess-tents, feeding on jam and other sweet foods. 
When so occupied they were often knocked down—sometimes 
stunned, sometimes killed. It was then observed that other 
hornets would examine the bodies lying on the ground and 
carry off, generally after considerable effort in rising from the 
ground, those that were still alive. The dead were always 
left as they lay. 

THE MIMETIC ASSOCIATION BETWEEN TWO SPECIES OF 
EUPLOEA AND ONE DANAINE IN Fis1.—Prof. Poutton said 
that ever since 1899 when he had received examples of the 
two common Fijian Euploeas, Nipara eleutho, Quoy, and 
Deragena proserpina, Butl., collected at the same time and 
place by his friend Prof. Gustav Gilson, he had longed for 
the opportunity of studying a long series. In the meantime 
his friend Mr. J. C. Moulton had figured both species from 
the Gilson series and had given an account of the mimetic 
modification in the pattern of proserpina (Trans. Ent. Soc., 
1908, p. 603, Pl. XXXIV, figs. 4, 9). The interpretation 
adopted in Mr. Moulton’s paper was criticised by Col. Manders 
in the “ Entomologist’s Record ” for May 1909 (pp. 120, 121) 
and defended by the present writer in Proc. Ent. Soc., 1909, 
pp. XXXVli, XXXVIil. 

Prof. Poulton had recently received a fine set of these two 
Kuploeas taken by Mr. H. W. Simmonds on the dates and 


]xx 


in the localities shown in the accompanying tabular state- 
ment. Accompanying them were two examples of Tirumala 
neptunia, Feld., both transitional towards the New Hebrides 
form moderata, Butl. One of these and one of the male 
proserpina exhibited symmetrical injuries to the hind-wings, 
indicating attack by birds or lizards; the other neptunia and 
a second male proserpina were asymmetrically injured, 
probably by the same cause. 

Mr. Simmonds wrote on June 7, 1919, that “‘ Waidoi is in 
the very wet district where butterflies are very rare, probably 
owing to the absence of sunshine. The Tirumala flies with the 
Kuploeas and is very difficult to distinguish when on the wing. 
They occur as 1 to 20 or 30 of the two Euploeas. Thecommon 
Euploea has a strong smell of Dumb-nettle when crushed.” 
The table below showed that all three species fly together. 


Eleutho. Proserpina. pee 
Dates in 
ESL. ale 
an 
Sine. ) 2 é 
April 7 1g 1 a2 ii 
A Peo we 4 a at 
é May 27 ie TE; 2 — 
5 =e hes 
3 ets = 2 1 rT 
A bs 
ui June 1 — 1 3 1 
rs) 
& ”° 2 — 1 1 ¥iEs 
S ”» 4* 1 ¢ 5 2 ren 
a —_—_—— = 
3 
Ay 2° o — 3 1 ae 
Pas CR Ceres 2 2 i 
28 + 
= Aa I eae el 
3 
om ” 9 = 6 4 == 
Ce) _ us 
- » 10 —_ 1 2 rs 
Totals 4 26 18 2 


* From this date onwards the collection includes every specimen 
captured. 


lxxi 


When the examples of proserpina were separated into sexes 
it became obvious that the lengthening inward of the fore-wing 
spot (bringing about the resemblance to the chief marking 
of eleutho) is carried much further in the females than the 
males, thus following a very general rule in mimicry, viz. 
when the pattern of a mimetic species differs in the two sexes, 
the female is a better mimic than the male. The further 
mimetic advance of the female was associated with a highly 
dyslegnic pattern (Aéyvov, an edge or border; dve-, bad), 
commonly found in mimetic butterflies in relation to their 
models and in females in relation to their males—generalisa- 
tions illustrated by many examples projected on the screen.* 
The pattern of the male proserpina was less dyslegnic, and 
that of the model eleutho still less so, parts of it being in fact 
eulegnic (ev-, good). 

The mimicry here referred to concerned the fore-wing only. 
In the hind-wing it was possible that eleutho is a mimic of 
_ proserpina. One out of Mr. Simmonds’ four specimens (that 
of June 4) differed in the much higher development of the 
hind-wing submarginal pattern, which in this respect resembled 
forms of eleutho from some other islands. The reduction of 
this pattern in the other three examples as well as in those 
collected by Prof. Gilson promoted a resemblance to proserpina. 

It will be noticed that the numbers of eleutho are very small 
as compared with those of proserpina.t . Further collections 
were needed in order to test these proportions: they might 
be seasonal or local. Prof. Gilson’s small series, taken Oct. 
15-16, 1897, on Nukulau, a coral island, south of the mouth 
of the Rewa River, S.E. Viti Levu, included one eleutho, five 
proserpina. Another eleutho was captured Oct. 8, at Suva. 

* For a fuller development of these principles and the introduction 
of the terms dyslegnic, etc., see Proc. Linn. Soc., 1915-16, pp. 37-41. 

+ In a letter written from Waidoi, Oct. 18, 1919, Mr. Simmonds 
states that after June 10 ‘‘eleutho undoubtedly became relatively more 
common, although never so abundant as proserpina. It is a more deep 
bush species than the other and is still continuing to emerge. When 
crushed the male of eleutho gives off a decidedly pleasant scent like 
cachou. Its flight is rather more like a Nymphaline than a typical 
Euploea. 


«Nov. 1, 1919. To-day I went up into the bush a long way, and 
saw 3 worn proserpina and 1 fresh eleutho.” 


Ixxli 


Wednesday, December 3rd, 1919. 


Comm. J. J. Waker, M.A., R.N., F.L.S., President, in the 
Chair. 


Death of a Fornen President. 


The President announced the death of Lord WaALsIncHAM, 
a former President of the Society, which had taken place shortly 
after the previous midnight. A vote of condolence with Lady 
Walsingham was passed, the Fellows present rising in their 
places. 


Election of Fellows. 


Messrs. A. 8. Bucknurst, 9, Souldern Road, W. 14; Nrparan 
CHANDRA CHATTERJEE, B.Sc., Forest Research Institute, 
Dehra Dun, United Provinces, India; Miss Fitorence B. 
ConsTABLE, 17, Colville Mansions, W. 11; Messrs. Conrap 
THEODORE GimincHAM, O.B.E., F.1.C., Lynwood, Long 
Ashton, Bristol; Wit1amM Hawker-Smiru, Speedwell Cottage, 
Hambledon, Godalming, Surrey; Miss GertrupE M. Jans, 
Penn Court, 54, Cromwell Road, S.W. 7; Messrs. HERBERT 
Witi1aM Miits, N.D.A., The Gardens, Lydney Park, Gloucester- 
shire; Louis Paravicinti, Villa Aleucita, Arlesheim, Bale, 
Switzerland; L. N. Sranimanp, Trewint, Coppett’s Road, 
Muswell Hill, N. 10; P. Susarnatuan, Assistant in Entomology 
at the College of Agriculture and Research Institute, Coim- 
batore, 8. India; E. B. Watson, The Grange, Winthorpe, 
Newark; and H. Worstey Woop, 31, Agate Road, Hammer- 
smith, W. 6, were elected Fellows of the Society. 


Exhibitions. 

LEPIDOPTERA FROM ARGENTINA.—Mr. H. J. TuRNER ex- 
hibited two specimens of Citheronia vogleri and a photograph 
of the full-grown larva, from Argentina, on which he read the 
following notes by the sender :— 

“Probably one of the most interesting insects I send you is 
Citheronia vogleri, and I have a number of males, but only three 
poor specimens of females. The female is nearly double the size 
of the male. I believe this insect is confined entirely to the centre 


Ixxiil 
of the Argentine Republic—at least, I have never seen it or 
heard of it from other parts. It is not found south of Cordoba, 
as its food-plant does not grow further south, and I believe 
the food-plant is not found much further north than Santiago 
del Estero. It has taken me about six years to find the food- 
plant of this moth, or rather caterpillar, I caught a bad 
specimen of a female about six years ago, and got it to lay 
egos. The eggs came out in due time, and I tried all the food- 
plants I could find in the neighbourhood where I caught the 
female, which by the by was while it was flying round an are 
lamp. All the caterpillars died, as I could not get them to 
feed on anything. Since then I have caught males around 
the arc lamps near the outskirts of the city, but I never saw 
another female till this year (1918), and again I got it to lay 
eggs. As I always found the insect in the outskirts of the 
eity, I thought perhaps the food-plant might be some fruit 
tree not generally found except in the fruit gardens. The tree 
I decided on was apricot, and when the eggs hatched I put the 
caterpillars on apricot trees. They started to eat, but were 
very restless, and after a few days some died. Meanwhile I 
made inquiries from the gardeners, if they had ever found a 
caterpillar with long horns; but no one had, so I came to the 
conclusion that this could not be the food-plant. I accordingly 
went out into the country and collected samples of the various 
shrubs and trees. Meanwhile, out of sixty caterpillars only 
about twenty were left. The one plant they seemed to take 
to was a tree known as ‘ Quebracho Blanco,’ one of the 
Argentine hard-wood trees with thick leaves. I thought I had 
now discovered the right food-plant, and so one Sunday went 
out with the idea of trying to find the caterpillar. I did not 
find any on this particular tree, but found it on a shrub belong- 
ing to the same class known as ‘ Quebracho flojo,’ its Latin 
name being Todina rhombifolia. All the caterpillars I had left 
now changed over to this food-plant except two, which kept 
to the apricot, became full grown and pupated. I have alto- 
gether about thirty pupae now; one so far has emerged. They 
have been in the pupa stage about a month now, and I am 
not sure that they wont lie over till spring. The caterpillar 
is a typical Citheronia, with four long horns at the front and 


lxxiv 


one at the back. When full grown it is about 11 cm. long and 
1? cm. thick. Its colouring is like the bark of the tree. The 
pupa is very like that of Basilona imperialis, but smaller 
and jet black. They go to earth to pupate. The food-plant 
is thorny, and the leaves have three spikes and are very thick. 
The caterpillar when first emerging from the ege has the 
characteristic spikes on the Itorns, but as it changes its skin 
this disappears, till the horn of the full-grown caterpillar 
developes only rows of papillae—F. Lrypeman, Cordoba, 
Argentina.” 

SEASONAL Forms oF TERACOLUS ROGERSI.—Dr. F. A. 
Drixey exhibited specimens of Teracolus rogersi, and remarked 
on them as follows :— 

‘“‘Some years since, the Rev. K. St. A. Rogers, who has done 
such excellent work on the Rhopalocera of British East Africa, 
sent home specimens of a new form of Teracolus, belonging 
to the achine group, which had been captured and bred by him 
at Taveta in the months of July and August, 1905 and 1910. 
These were figured and described in our ‘ Transactions’ for 
1915 as Teracolus rogersi.* They were all of the dry-season 
form, the wet-season phase being then, and for a long time 
after, unknown. Specimens have, however, now been received 
from Mr. Rogers which there is no difficulty in recognising as 
the wet-season forms corresponding to the dry-season types. 

“T exhibit a male and female of this latter phase, both cap- 
tured at Kiboriani on March 23, 1918. They are, as might be 
expected, more heavily marked than the dry-season types; 
and show beneath a well-marked dark veining, and a pale 
ground-colour with yellowish bands in place of the dusky 
reddish-ochreous of the types. 

“The form is nearly related to 7’. halyattes, Butl., the type 
of which came from Natal. It may no doubt be considered as 
the representative of that species in British and ‘German’ 
Kast Africa.” 

Lord Rotuscuitp asked whether the small size of the dry- 
season form, the opposite of what occurs in Precis, was charac- 
teristic in Teracolus, to which Dr. Drxey replied that it is usual 
but not perhaps universal; Dr. Marsnaui said that the 


* Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1915, p. 1, Pl. I, figs. 1-4. 


Ixxv 


difference was to be expected as the dry-season Precis larvae 
feed up in the wet season, whilst Teracolus larvae feed through 
the dry season.. 

CoNnTINENTAL NEUROPTERA and PsEupo-NEUROPTERA.— 
Lt. E. B. Assy exhibited the following species :— 

Myrmeleon libelluloides, Le Trayas, French Riviera; Ascala- 
phus longicornis, La Granja, Digne, and Vernet-les-Bains; 
Panorpa communis, Turin and Haywards Heath, Sussex; Perla 
bicaudata, Arquata Scrivia and Vernet-les-Bains; Sympe- 
irum sanguineum, Turin; S. scoticum, Turin; Inbellula depressa, 
Turin; L. erythraea, Turin; L. pedemontana, Turin. 

A BEETLE NEW TO THE BritisH List, AND ForMs oF CETONIA 
AURATA, L.—Mr. K. G. Buarr exhibited a specimen of Abax 
parallelus, Duft, an addition to the list of British Coleoptera, 
from the Scilly Islands, with. specimens of A. ater, Vill. 
(striola, Fab.), for comparison. 

Also series of Cetonia aurata, L., showing :— 

1. A series from Swallowfield, Berks. (June, 1919, A. Camp- 
bell-Smith), with the white markings very much developed. 

2. A series from the Scilly Islands, much less heavily marked 
with white. 

3. Two black specimens (var. nigra., Gaut.) from the Scilly 
Islands, July 1919 (recorded in Ent. Mo. Mag. for Sept. 1919). 

This black form, originally recorded from Corsica, where 
it has also been taken by Mr. Champion, is known also from 
Italy and 8. Russia, but does not. appear to have been observed 
hitherto in Britain. 

ForMs OF THE AFRICAN CHARAXES ETHEOCLES, Cr.—Prof. 
PouLTON said that at the corresponding meeting last year the 
late Mr. H. Dollman showed his beautiful series of bred 
Charaxes of the etheocles group from N.W. Rhodesia. Mr. 
Dollman had proved that there were, in his locality, two 
distinct species differing in larval and pupal characters and 
in food-plant as well as in the patterns of the imagines. Of 
these the first had blue-marked, white-barred females resem- 
bling manica, Trim., and, like it, mimicking the females of 
Ch. bohemanni, Feld.; the females of the second resembled 
phaeus, Butl., lacking the white bar and mimicking the males 
of bohemann. Prof. Poulton had suggested that the first 


lxxvi 


might be forms of ethalion, Boisd., and the second true 
etheocles (Proc. Ent. Soc., 1918, p. Ixxx and footnote). 
This suggestion was no longer tenable, for Dr. Karl Jordan, 
after examining the genitalia, had come to the following 
conclusions :— 

‘““ No ethalion are included in Mr. Dollman’s series. What 
we call etheocles probably consists of two species, both having 
9 @ of the phaeus-type and of the etheocles-type. Dewitz 
figures a 3 close to Dollman’s with phaeus-like 2 9, but the 
2 of the former is white-banded. Our 2 coryndoni (Nov. 
Zool. vi, pl. 8, £.7) is almost the same as one specimen of 
Dollman’s phaeus-series, sub-marginal spots rounded, not 
arcuate.” 

Lord Rothschild had also pointed out to Prof. Poulton that 
one of the series of phaeus-like 2 2 in the Dollman collection 
in the British Museum really belonged to the series of manica- 
like, white-barred 2 92, although without the white bar. Its 
under surface showed the pattern which Mr. Dollman had 
recognised as characteristic of his white-banded females, and 
had shown to Prof. Poulton after the meeting of December 
1918. Its inclusion in the phaeus-like series was clearly 
accidental. 

Mr. Dollman’s most interesting discovery suggested that the 
etheocles group required re-examination throughout in order to 
determine the relationship of the two N.W. Rhodesian species 
respectively to all the other forms. How numerous and dis- 
tinct these are was indicated by a series of coloured slides 
illustrating nearly all the mimetic females of the group, to- 
gether with their models among the larger species of Charazes. 
Attention was specially directed to the least perfect mimic viola, 
Butl., and its model epijasius, Reiche. Although the likeness 
in the cabinet is by no means close, it is probable that the two 
would resemble each other upon the wing. Both were open- 
country butterflies, whereas most of the other forms of etheocles 
and their models were forest-lovers. Dr. 8. A. Neave had 
kindly written :— 

“As far as I recollect—and such of my material as is in 
the B.M. seems to confirm it—I only took the 9 viola form in 
the open country in Northern Uganda. It occurs on both 


Ixxvli 


sides of the Victoria Nile, but chiefly on the east. In that 
region apparently nothing but this form occurs, and it is 
more or less all open country. C. epyjasius is common there, 
but owing to its being hard to catch and still harder to find 
in good condition, its numbers in collections probably do not 
represent its real incidence.” 

Dr. Jordan had kindly informed Prof. Poulton that in 
addition to the localities given in the monograph in Nov. 
Zool., vol. vii, viola has been received from Yelva, Bornu, 
Niger; Meridi, Bahr-el-Ghazal; Ujiga and Kajomba, Lado 
Enclave; Mohoroni, Uganda; and Toro: epyasius from 
Uganda, Blue Nile, Lake Baringo, and Bahr-el-Ghazal, but 
not as yet from the Lado Enclave.” Dr. Jordan added : 
‘““T do not know whether collectors have actually caught 
viola 2 and epijasius in the same spot; both came in a small 
collection from Meridi, Bahr-el-Ghazal.” 

This doubt could be now dismissed, for the Hope Depart- 
ment had received both, taken in the same localities in the 
Nuba Hills by Col. R. 8. Wilson, and still more recently from 
Torit, Mongalla Province, 8. Sudan, captured by Capt. A. L. 
Kent Lemon. A beautiful slide, kindly coloured by Dr. H. 
Eltringham, showed epijasius and the 2 viola taken at Torit 
on May 25, 1919, and the ¢ of viola on May 29. 

Lord Roruscuitp and Drs. JorpaNn, MarsHALL, GAHAN 
and Neave commented on Prof. Poulton’s exhibit. 


Paper. 
The following paper was read :— 
“ New Staphylinidae from Singapore, pt. ui.,” by MaLcoum 
Cameron, M.B., R.N. 


Tue Hovuse-Fty in Winter.—Dr. Lonesrarr inquired 
whether anything could be added to Dr. Gahan’s letters in 
the ‘‘ Times” calling attention to the statement that larvae 
of the House-fly had been found living in snails in mid-winter, 
and Dr. GAHAN said that although he had no reason to doubt 
the statement, yet, in view of the fact that other species of 
fly were known to live parasitically in snails, he thought there 
might possibly be a mis-identification, and for that reason he 


{xxvill 


was.anxious to receive snails for investigation in order to find 
out how far the statement of M. E. Séguy held true; nothing 
definite was yet known as to how the House-fly normally 
passed through the winter; there was no evidence to support 
the old idea that it hibernated in the adult state; and the 
probability was that it went through the winter either as a 
larva or a pupa; but proof here again was wanting, and much 
further investigation in various directions was badly needed. 


Ixxix 


ANNUAL MEETING. 
Wednesday, January 21st, 1920. 


Comm. J. J. Waker, M.A., R.N., F.L.S., President, in 
the Chair. 

The Rev. Gzorce WHEELER, one of the Secretaries, read 
the following 


Report of the Council. 


During the past year the Society has sustained an un- 
usual number of losses by death, fifteen in all, two being 
those of former Presidents, Dr. F. Du Canrz Gopman and 
Lord WaustncHam; five Fellows also have resigned, and 
eight have been -removed for non-payment of subscriptions. 
Our total losses therefore amount to twenty-eight, but in 
spite of this fact our numbers are at this moment at the 
highest point they have ever reached, no less than fifty- 
seven new Fellows having been elected since the last Annual 
Meeting. The Society now consists of twelve Honorary 
Fellows, two Special Life Fellows, six hundred and eighteen 
Ordinary Fellows, making a total of six hundred and thirty-two. 

The Vacancy among the Trustees of the Society, caused 
by the death of Dr. Gopman, was filled by the appointment 
of the Honble. N. Coartes RoruscHi.p. 

The Council has voted a donation of five guineas towards 
the Godman Memorial in the Natural History Museum. 

The continued rise in the price of paper and even more the 
large increase in the cost of labour have made it impossible 
for the Business Committee to sanction the publication of 
quite so large a body of matter as has been customary for 
some years past; the Transactions, however, contain 467 
pages and consist of nineteen papers by the following authors :-— 
H. E. Anprewes (2); Prof. J. Cuester Brapury, M.S., 
Ph.D.; T. A. Coapman, M.D., F.R.S., etc. (3); G. CHEsTER 


Ixxx 


Crampron, Ph.D.; F. A. Dixey, M.A., M.D., F.R.S.; Aran 
P. Dopp; H. Exrrinenam, M.A., D.Se., F:Z.8. (2)? Se 
GrorGE Hampson, Bart., B.A., F.Z.S.; Martin E. Mostey 
(2); F. Mure (2); R. C. L. Perxins, M.A., D.Sc., etc.; A. 
JEFFERIES TURNER, M.D., and C. B. Wriutiams, M.A. Of 
these eight refer to the Lepidoptera, five to the Coleoptera, 
three to the Trichoptera, two to the Hymenoptera, and one 
to Insect Phylogeny, but of those on the Lepidoptera Dr. 
ELTRINGHAM’S on Butterfly Vision, and Mr. Wriiuiams’s on 
Migration are really of much wider interest. The papers are 
illustrated by two chromo-lithographs, one 3-colour plate, 
eight collotypes, one copper line-block, fourteen half-tone 
plates, twelve line-blocks and a large number of text figures ; 
Dr. Chapman bears the cost of the two chromo-lithographs 
and half the cost of twelve half-tones, and Mr. C. B. Williams 
half the cost of five of the line-blocks. Nine of these plates 
are provided from the Westwood Bequest. 

The Proceedings consist of 78 pages, and are illustrated 
by one collotype and one half-tone plate, the cost of the 
block of the latter being defrayed by Mr. H. M. Eprtsren. 

The attendance at the meetings has been generally good, 
except at the first meeting in October, when owing to the 
strike on the Railways and Tubes only four Fellows and one 
Visitor succeeded in putting in an appearance. The exhibits 
have also come well up to the average in number and interest. 

In February a Sub-Committee was formed, consisting of 
Dr. Neave, the Honble. N. C. RoruscuiLp and the TREASURER 
to enquire into the question of better accommodation for the 
Society, which has now, especially with regard to Library 
space, far outgrown its present quarters. This Sub-Committee 
has during the past year been making enquiries with a view 
to obtaining Government accommodation, but this having 
proved impossible, it is now engaged in the preparation of 
alternative schemes. 

The Librarian reports :— 

That 357 volumes have been issued for home use as against 
330 for the previous year. The Library has been largely used 
for the purposes of reference. Thirty volumes and a large 
quantity of separata have been presented to the Library, 


Ixxxi 


The Report was adopted on the motion of Dr. Huan Scort, 
seconded by Mr. H. J. Turner, and the TrEAsurER then 
read the following Report :— ) 


The dominant factor affecting the Finance in 1919 has 
been, as it was in 1918, the cost of publishing. This has 
been about double the price that obtained previous to the 
War, whereas the income has remained almost stationary. 
Under these circumstances the only way to make both ends 
meet was to reduce the amount of the publications, which 
has had to be done. Apart from this question the financial 
position is satisfactory. 

A year ago I ventured to make two forecasts, one of which 
was that I hoped to record as large a number of subscriptions 
paid in 1919 as in 1914, until then the high-water mark. 
The other was that I hoped the amount of arrears of sub- 
scriptions would be reduced during the past year. The 
actual position on the 3lst of December last was, that in 
1919, 488 current year subscriptions had been received in 
place of 472 in 1914, an increase of 16. The amount of sub- 
scriptions in arrears at the end of last year was £84 3s. Od. 
due from 47 Subscribers as against £147 10s. 11d. due from 
69 Subscribers at the end of 1918, a reduction of £63 7s. 11d. 

The total Income in 1919 was £885 15s. 11d., a reduction 
on that of the previous year of £40 7s. 2d. This reduction 
is very much more than accounted for by a reduction of 
receipts from arrears of subscriptions of £109 4s. 6d. The reason 
of this reduction of course is, that the arrears out of which 
this source of income arose, were in 1919 only about one-half 
of what they amounted to the previous year. 

Admission Fees amounted to £48 6s. Od. more than in 1918. 
Four Fellows have compounded for their subscriptions as 
against one in 1918. The sale of Publications is rather un- 
accountably down by nearly £30. Donations in aid of the 
Publications are very small, amounting to only £4 2s. 6d. 
Donations in aid of the Tea Fund have been sufficient to place 
it on a sound footing. There has been during the year a 
large and welcome addition to the number of Fellows, now 
about 200 in number, who have adopted the method of paying 

PROC. ENT. SOC. LOND., V, 1919. F 


Ixxxil 


their subscriptions direct to Messrs. Coutts & Co. through 
their Bankers. This method results in a saving of expense 
to the Society, of expense and trouble to those who adopt it, 
and a considerable amount of trouble to myself. In thanking 
these Fellows I should like to express the hope that there 
will be during the present year a further large addition to 
their ranks. 

With respect to the disposal of the Admission Fees, which 
are not strictly speaking income, a new departure has been 
taken. There has been up to the present nothing in the 
nature of a fund for the purchase of new books for the Library. 
It has been decided that in 1919 and in future, one-half the 
amount arising out of Admission Fees shall be devoted to 
this purpose, the other half being invested annually to assist 
what I propose to call the Compounding Fund. 

An explanation of the meaning and necessity of this Fund 
seems necessary. 

From the date of ie formation in 1833, until the year 1862, 
the Society did not possess any money invested, but used 
everything in current expenditure. In the latter year, how- 
ever, the Council having funds in hand, invested in consols 
the sum of £109 14s. Od. What amounts practically to an 
apology was given for taking this step instead of spending the 
money on the Publications. 

Bearing in mind that at this date no fewer than 22 out of 
the 143 members had compounded for their subscriptions, 
leaving the 121 who had not compounded to carry on the 
entire financial burden of the Society, an apology hardly 
seemed necessary. 

The next investment, of £38 6s. 5d., took place in 1869; 
and various sums were invested between this date and 1876, 
when the principle of investing the compounding fees seems 
first to have commended itself to the Council. In this year 
six were received, and four of them were invested. Between 
the years 1876 and 1894 a few more Fees were invested; 
apparently when the Council considered they could afford 
to do so. 

During the Treasurership of Robert McLachlan it was 
recognised that the Society should in future invest all sums 


Ixxxiil 
arising from compounding to provide a fund the interest of 
which would defray the expenditure the Society must incur 
to those Fellows who had compounded for their subscriptions, 
and for many years, including the whole period of the Treasurer- 
ship of Mr. A. H. Jones, all the compounding fees were invested 
in Consols. 

The result at the beginning of 1919 was that there were in 
the Society 65 Fellows who had compounded, and the interest 
on the money provided to pay their expenses to the Society 
amounted to £33 17s. Od. per annum, or about 10s. 5d. per 
Fellow. 

As the publications supplied to each Fellow cost the Society 
considerably more than this sum, and there are in addition 
what might be called Establishment charges, which work 
out at several shillings per Fellow, it is obvious that at the 
present moment compounding is, from an income point of 
view, a distinct burden upon the Society. 

To gradually reduce this burden, the Council will in future, 
in addition to investing the money arising out of the com-* 
positions, invest also half the amount received from Admittance 
Fees. The Investment chosen for this purpose is the 5% 
War Loan of 1928, which must be redeemed at par in 
that year, whereas the old investment stock, consols, is not 
redeemable at par, the result being unfortunately that to-day 
it is only worth very little more than half the original cost. 

The General Balance, after allowing for the estimated Lia- 
bilities at the end of 1919, amounts to £207 3s. Od. I think 
this sum should be held as a reserve against the cost of moving 
and installing the Library in the new quarters, when these are 
found. 

I regret to have to point out that the Society’s Invest- 
ments show a further large depreciation in value. The 
Stocks, Consols, and Birmingham 3 %, mark a decline during 
the year of £122 17s. 6d. 


The TREASURER then read the Balance Sheet, which was 
adopted on the motion of Mr. E. KE. Green, seconded by 
Mr. StaNLEY EDWwarps. 

The Prestpent then declared the following Fellows to 


lxxxiv 


have been duly appointed to serve as Officers and Council 
for the ensuing session :— 

President, Comm. JAMES J. WALKER, M.A., R.N., F.L.S.; 
Treasurer, W. G. Suetpon, F.Z.8.; Secretaries, the Rev. 
Grorce WHEELER, M.A., F.Z.8., and 8S. A. Neave, M.A., 
D.Se., F.Z.S.; LInbrarian, G. C. CHampron, A.L.S., F.Z.S.; 
Other Members of Council, H. E. ANpRewes; G. T. Beroune- 
Baker, F.L.S., F.Z.8.; K. G. Buatr, B.Sc.; Surgeon-Comm. 
M. Cameron, M.B., R.N.; J. Hartury Durrant; H. 
Exrremincuam, M.A., D.Sc.; A. D. Imus, M.A., D.Sc, 
F.L.S.; G. A. K. Marsmatz, D.S8c., F.Z.8.; the Rev, 
F. D. Moricr, M.A., F.Z.S.; H. E. Page; the Rt. Honble. 
Lord Roruscuitp, M.A., F.R.S., etc., Capt. the Rev. J. B. 
Warterston, B.D., B.Sc. 

The PresipENT also read a letter from Lady Walsingham 
expressing her thanks for the letter of condolence voted by 
the Society. 

He then read an Address, after which a Vote of Thanks to 
him was passed on the motion of Mr. Hanoy Hope, seconded 
by Lord Rorxscuixp, to which he replied. 

A Vote of Thanks to the Officers was then proposed by Prof. 
SELwyNn Imace, and seconded by Mr. W. J. Kayz, to which 
the Treasurer and the two Secretaries replied. 


lexxv ) 


; OZ6L ‘ST A.onune 
‘SJUDIUNDIIP palazpwyO “OD RF NAGY "A “AA “POT “UopuoT 992149 2.107024 Uaangd ‘Ez 
“S}UOMIASIAUT OY} IOJ sotzInvag 9y4 ploy Aoyy 4vYy pu eouxleg Ysvp oY} Jo Ssauqoos100 9} POYlZ190 VARY SleyxULG oy, 
‘sn 0} paonpoid useq eavg s}uowAed qe IO} s1ayonNoA 


“UPAIIOY} OOUBPIODOB UL aq 07 41 AJIG100 PUL sIOYONOA pUe SHOOG oY} YIM sjuoMAeG pue s}dieosy Jo qunosoy 9AOGE 94J pPoulUIBXE OABY OA, 


*adnsvaty, ‘NOGTAHY “4 “A 
6 It LOLTF & IT L8L‘1F 
OL 6L 9T wre see see se gadraoayy snoouvyfeosipy “ 
abd | af ST! Veer Geet LO Ge ee 
OMe Se ee TUINGOD VapUniqe ea UG) 9) OS nung, vey, JO prauy 
9 L €& “" "  Junoosoy pung Areaqvy UG 6 6p  * stomeotqng JO pre uy 
0 € 18 ‘“* gunoooV puny Sutpunodu0g ug —suoneuog “ 
8 § G9 YUNODDY puny ysenbog poomysa AA UO G L GI ree) sen sre ere BUOTTEOTGNG Jo sapeg “ 
0 e LOR wee eee wee eee qunod0y [er1eue+) uO 0 0 e9 aoe eee eee eee eee wee storgisodmo0; “ 
—sjUNnoooVy JueImNyD (12F ‘8161 Ul poateoar- 
pus y1sodaq uo ‘sxoyueg ye ysep “ 6161 IoX Jo yoedser ur suordisosqng) 
0 SI SI vrs os“ samemrdeg snosuv[peostyy “ (Oa 0 th 
0 @ bP ty tee nee ae ee as09—-spuog O ge ot to goteapy uf 
IB AL [euoreN % OST LbF jo aseyoung 0 ial Di eee eee eee eee eee ove eee sively 
—puny suipunoduioy “ 0 ¢ 167°" ** ° 6T16T suorgngIa4U0D Tenuny “ 
0 G c wee eee eee eee wee eee eee CEI | yIpny “ 0 9T 6L eee wee eee eee eee §99,7 MOIssIUpy “ce 
9 G PI “sc squeurysedjoy yysVyT pue vay, “ RCAC te ee 
Ils 6 yn» - Wel vivwe! see! aeyy) ese sine asvqysog “ age eee oe wee *** (qsanbog Ppooarqsa AA ) 
OL Il IP ve oss KJauoyeyg pue suyumg Aipung “ yg % E weysursig uo 4serojuy 
a P €38 ee i; ed LI oe eee eee eee qisodaq uo 480109 UT 
LT 61 OL oo corngraystqg 0 LL eg “*  sjosaog uo puapraig 
€ 0 69 —S}USUI4SOATT WO 4YsotaquT “ 
Orz LE eee ysonbog. PoOoarysa A, 0 ¢ ee Cee aes ces see ses qunosoy 
(ETE Viteran MOG OGD [e19u0+4) pun, vay, UO spuey s.tomsvery, ul yseg “ 
ae OL eats OTL COL Is a= 
Um OO ee SUT Ole $6 ** Janoooy puny ysonbeg pooayse A, 
—suoeorqng jo yson “ 0 O1TS “" “"  4unoosoy puny Surpunodmog 
TU eo L 9 ¥69 
G¢ I If “ ‘‘‘aoueimsuy pue sarday ‘Sutpurg 0 O07 T8 “s* puny surpunod 
OTOL Or ce SE eee aes se SOO RM OINT -UW10/) 09 pasiojsuvsy, ssa7 
—Areiqry ‘ L OL SCLF **" °° 4unoodo0y [e19004) 
0 SI fe eee eee wee ee eee wee eee SOLIB[eg ce 0 Il eee wee eee aoe qunooy puny eal 
a at OLE OT I he aM MORE IM Ve 14 Ns —yunoooy 4se] sed se yueg qv yseo og, 
eietes, 2S ae “‘SINAWAVG Phen pe Pp bs F “SLd1GOaY 


WINDOOOVY SLINAWAVd GNV SLdIdORw 
(O61 ‘Tz Arenuee ‘Sayoepy [enUTY oy} ye pozueserg) 
‘GIGI ‘IE 19qme0eq popuoe IveX Oy} 10} SLNNOOOV S\HAUNSVAUL 


GONOT TO ALATIOS TYOISOTONOLNG FHI 


PB PF td 


) 


Ixxxvl 


( 


“LadNSVALT ‘NOMIHHY “4 “AA 


9 & LIF Oe Se LF: 
9 LOL tt tt et tee eee eee eee eee surorgngiaquog 
0 9T apt 
(Diao Ge ce eeemerert se 616T. ‘TS Jaqmaoagq ‘yueg 4e yseg “ 0 ¢  6I6T ‘Tl Arenue ‘ spury s.1a.mseory, ur yseg ‘ 
(0)! SORE ae OO USL * * annod0V s,te103eQ Ag Quen *  eT6T ‘T Arenuee “yueg ye soueleg oJ, 
jo tse eee ie Te Ge Ss 
‘CNOA VAL 
O Sl 68 | 0 SI 68F 
DE OE: aie mpm, 6161 ‘Tg Joquraoaq ‘yurg 4v yseQ ‘ | 
OOo sat aes =" syOog MON Uo omnsIpuadxn ie | O S168 °  6TI6I Ul paataoat soa UOIssIUIpY JO J[eYy-9UGO OF, 
eh JOINS 
(SMOOd MAN) CNOA AUVUATT 

0 8 PIF | O 8 perF 
0 (G 18 wee wee eee eee 6161. ‘TE Jequmaoeq, ‘yurg qe yseo ‘ ha (6) 0 e9 eee eee eee see eee wee eee 6161 ‘sumoryIsodu0yg cc 
DG epee nee Meee see eyo a (so18g pag) 0 81 6E ‘* ‘GIGI Ul paataoer soag WoIsstuIpy jo Jyey-ouQ  * 

CEE Spuog ABA [RMON % Cc “sy, LPF “quowysoauyt Ag | 0 OLLIE “* ** °" “ 616T ‘T Arenuere ‘yueg 42 couRleg oO, 
D 2S. 5) RD 

GNOd SNIGNNOdWOO 

9 9 ZOIF 9 9 ZOLF 
g@@co cs s  -° BTET ‘Tg taquiessg ‘yu 48 yseO “ ge ye) oI °F e Ue AnIUIG WO sseneg uy —— 
Og Jg@ = 9  suoMmerisny,Ty uo empipuedxg Aq | O1 Z G6.°" “i "" “"" “616 ‘1 Stenuep ‘yuvg qe ooueeg Oy, 
‘ps ¥ DS F 


‘NOI LSGndad GOOMLSAM 


) 


( lxxxvu 


"ladnsnady, ‘NO@IHHY *4) “AA 


Goats CS SO i ecard 
SZ Sl aeg sO OS s«FFUNODDW yuerInD uO 
0 0 OOF aoe aoe wee see qunoovVy qisodaq iv(@) 
| —6IGIL ‘1g tequieog ‘s1ayueg ye souvyeg “* 
Oe Oe 
G Op Ot Ot pung sutpunodmop 
(se LPF 980D) 86 4% (Setteg pag) 
SZ6T SPU AAA [PUOHEN % GST LEF 
6 & FEL * (OSZF 80D) 9G FF 99S % 
WOTpeIOdIOH UVYSUIUUIT “Pp “SZl 6&CF 
Ilion ot pang 
Surpunodmoy ‘(sg  EEz‘TF 480) 
TS 38 % 4% sposuoy “ps ‘so FSF 
—Jo onjea queserg “ 


al 


9 OL 7S : 
Hy) Gi Ge Se poo8 partepisuos you gunouly ssa7 


“* squnoooy predug Azpung pu saze[g Jo 4sop Ome ee Se OUT 

£6IGI ‘A—III S}tug suotqjorsuvay, Saryatg joysop Ag | -qIIZUOH [enuUy jo sivoiTy OF, 
</DS Sey ieee OMS: 

‘SUILITIAVI'T 2 ‘SLASSY 


“6I6T ‘IE UMANAONG LV SHILITIGVIT GNV SLAHSSV OL SV 
WOGNVYONdTN 


+ 


ema 3 


Pte vw 
(- ‘ teu 4 
bi, Pe Mi 1 PY ni 
_t y#. iP att | vt y 7 “ah 
Fi 7 i 
hi Mae wt 


4. — 
pei erag his 


et - 
ss 
. 

> ia 


x. 
Vee? 


a 
= 


mw - 1 ee, 
=e ise 
=a 


fe 


45 


- 
+ 


may 
ty ‘ 
i Any 


esos ; 


, best ees 


=: 


te 


a 
= gh ee 
i pe 
ta 
Say etl ie ales 
yt ee 


4 


! 


ees J ke 2 ee oe 
“sais CO SO Le oo ae 
“i 5 I gee ae 

‘as 


oo 


ed ha 


Y 


rae Ae 


10 20a ast ayr 


~ : 


oe We 
4, 
“te ey a ee 


See a oe 


ye gle! 


~ 


Ixxxix 


THE PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS 


LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, 

From the Report of the Council which has just been read, 
it is I think fairly evident that the past year has been one of 
more than usual prosperity for our Society. Not only do 
our finances—thanks in large measure to our energetic 
Treasurer—show a balance in our favour that may be regarded 
as highly satisfactory, but the steady increase in the numerical 
strength of the Society during the past session is most encourag- 
ing, and the number of new Fellows elected on December 3rd 
has only once been exceeded, I believe, at any previous 
meeting. 

With one exception of recent date, due to causes entirely 
beyond our control, in which the number of Fellows present 
reached probably the lowest point in our entire history, our 
meetings have been very fully attended, and the exhibits 
and discussions have been quite up to their usual high standard. 
Notwithstanding the fact that the cost of printing, and even 
more that of illustration, continues to grow by leaps and bounds, 
the Transactions and Proceedings of the Society for the past 
year, though they may not attain the bulk of some of our former 
annual volumes, are not a whit behind any of their predecessors 
in scientific value and interest. Among so many meritorious 
papers it is perhaps invidious to draw special attention to any 
one of them; but we may congratulate ourselves on being 
enabled to publish in our Transactions a memoir on so 
suggestive and interesting a subject as the paper by Dr. 
Eltringham on “ Butterfly Vision.” 

Our Library continues to increase steadily, and the difficulties 
arising from the inadequate space in which we are compelled 
to house it become more painfully evident year by year. The 
necessity of seeking more ample accommodation is thus in a 
measure forced upon us; and although some, including myself, 


ett ee : 
ae ie Pi 
ey | Se 
= a 


Ss 


SKETCH MAP 


SHOWING RANGE OF 


MAP TO ILLUSTRATE THE PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS. 


© ea Fey Ae bes 
‘as he A 
a @ . 
tev, nee p 
Pp uae 7 
: o en = 
a - wT aie 
aaa we eg 
hi J Poa ; > 
ie 
F J 
i. 
7 


—- 


a ns 
ee 


ge 


cae 
: ~ 


xc 


may regret having sooner or later to leave our present quarters, 
with their advantages of central situation and ready accessi- 
bility, and their associations with the memories of forty-five 
years of the Society’s history, we can only trust that our 
efforts in that direction may be crowned with success in the 
near future. é . 

The honour you have conferred upon me by my, election 
to the office of President has involved the choice of a new 
Secretary in my place, and the Society may be congratulated 
in having found in Dr. §. A. Neave a Fellow who has proved 
himself so highly qualified in all respects for this somewhat 
onerous but highly interesting and enjoyable office—I speak 
from experience. To Dr. Neave and his colleague the Rev. 
G. Wheeler, as well as to the other Officers and Members of 
Council, my best thanks are due for their steady and unfailing 
support and assistance during the past session. 

I regret to say that our losses by death have been more 
numerous than usual, and two of our Fellows who have gone 
from us were in the very front rank of Entomological Science, 
and in former years were among the most distinguished occu- 
pants of the Presidential Chair. On February 19th Dr. F. 
Du Cane Godman passed away, full of years and honours, and 
the generous appreciation by Lord Walsingham of his life-work 
and personality, read by me from the Chair at the meeting 
immediately after his death, is still fresh in the recollection 
of all of us. We may, I think, agree that this noble tribute 
to the memory of our late valued colleague applies in very 
large measure to its own writer, whose unexpected decease 
on December 3rd it was my painful duty to announce to the 
Society at our meeting on the same evening. I fear it will 
be long indeed before the places of these two great masters 
of our Science can be adequately filled. 

We have also to regret the loss of the veteran Major Thomas 
Broun, whose great work on the beetles of New Zealand, con- 
tinued through many years, has revealed to us the marvellous 
Coleopterous fauna of those most interesting islands in the 
far South; of Hereward Dollman, a young and highly promising 
Entomologist and an accomplished artist, whose premature 
death was the result of a fell disease contracted in the course 


XCl 


of duty in Tropical Africa, and of W. E. Sharp, one of the most 
able and energetic students of British Coleoptera, until quite 
lately a familiar figure at our meetings, and whose genial and 
sympathetic nature endeared him to all of us. We rarely 
saw Sir Frank Crisp, who joined the Society as long ago as 
1880, and who was perhaps best known as an eminent micro- 
scopist and botanist, as well as a tower of strength to the 
Linnean Society. Other Fellows who have passed from among 
us are Lt.-Col. L. Blaythwayt, G. M. Carson, H. A. Fry, F. 
Hannyngton, T. Nottidge, E. J. Patterson, 8. Wacher, and 
F. H. Wolley-Dod, the last-named being distinguished for 
his researches and observations on the Lepidoptera of the 
western regions of British North America. 

It is perhaps a natural result of my career in the Royal Navy, 
in which I had the good fortune to observe and to study insect 
life, however superficially at times, in many remote and rarely 
visited parts of the world, that the subject of Geographical 
Distribution has always appealed to me more strongly than 
has any other aspect of our Science. On the present occasion 
it has occurred to me that a useful purpose may be served, 
by bringing together as many as possible of the available records 
of those hardy and adventurous butterflies which have pene- 
trated northward and southward to the extreme limits of 
terrestrial life, and to the most remote islands in mid-ocean. 
I therefore venture to suggest, as the title of my Address— 


“Toe Frinces oF Butrerriy Lire.” 


Commencing our circuit of the shores of the North Polar 
Ocean with Norwegian Lapland, we find here a butterfly fauna 
of unexpected richness and variety for so high a latitude. 
Our enterprising Fellows, Messrs. Rowland-Brown and Sheldon, 
have in recent years visited this very interesting region, and 
we are greatly indebted to them for their delightful and valuable 
papers on Lapland butterflies in the volumes of the “ Ento- 
mologist’’ for 1906 and 1912. Herr J. Sparre-Schneider 
enumerates no fewer than forty-six species which extend their 
range beyond the Arctic Circle, and of these such familiar forms 
as Papilio machaon, Pieris brassicae and napi, Callophrys rubi, 
Vanessa antiopa and urticae, the almost world-wide Pyrameis 


x¢il 

cardu, Argynnis aglaia, Brenthis ewphrosyne and B. selene, 
are found as far north as the 70th parallel of latitude. Still 
more characteristic of the Arctic fauna are Colias hecla, Lef., 
Erebia disa, Thunb., Oeneis norna, Thunb., Melitaea. iduna, 
Dalm., Brenthis chariclea, Schneid.—perhaps the rarest of 
European butterflies—B. frigga, Thunb., and B. polaris, Boisd., 
most of which we shall frequently encounter again as we pro- 
ceed eastward round the Polar basin. Another of our Fellows, 
Dr. Cockayne, has by the fortune of war been enabled to gather 
some experience of the butterflies of the Murman coast, and 
we may, I hope, look forward to an account of his observations 
in that practically unknown region. Dr. B. Poppius records 
six species, all well-known Lapland forms, from the Kanin 
Peninsula east of the White Sea; and on August 4th, 1879, 
on the east coast of Novaya Zemlya, facing the inhospitable 
Kara Sea, the late Admiral Sir A. H. Markham met with Colias 
nastes var. werdandi, Zett., Brenthis chariclea, and the remark- 
able B. improba, Butl., which is probably a melanic form of 
B. frigga and was previously known only from Arctic America. 
Concerning these butterflies he writes—‘‘ The land at the head 
of Schubert Bay was the only place where I saw butterflies; 
and here I was fortunately able to secure several different 
specimens. They are, I believe, the first captured and brought 
home from Novaya Zemlya. They were excessively wild, 
flew very fast, and rarely alighted, so that they were exceed- 
ingly difficult to catch. . . . It is a curious fact that, although 
I landed several times during the month of August with the 
express purpose of obtaining specimens, it was only on the day 
above referred to that I saw any.” 

Records from the northern shores of Siberia are nearly or 
quite wanting, but the adventurous German explorer Midden- 
dorff gives a vivid and graphic description of the summer aspect 
of the tundra in the Taimur peninsula, gay with innumerable 
flowers and alive with insects, of which unfortunately the vast 
majority are the notorious Siberian mosquito. Middendorff 
tells us that on August 3rd, 1845, in the very middle of the 
short Taimurian summer, in 74° 15’ north latitude, he hunted 
butterflies under the shelter of a hill, barefooted and in light 
underclothes. The thermometer rose in the sun to + 68° F., 


xciii 

and close to the ground to + 84°, while at a short distance on 
a spot exposed to the north-eastern air-current, it fell at once 
to + 27°. Further he states that “ the more vigorous vegeta- 
tion on the sheltered declivities of the Taimur provides food 
for a greater number of insects than is found on the coasts of 
Novaya Zemlya. Bees, hornets, and three species of butter- 
flies, buzzed or hovered round the flowers, and caterpillars 
could be gathered by dozens on the tundra; but their mortal 
enemies had pursued them even here, and ichneumon flies 
crept out of most of them.” 

Many degrees of longitude to the eastward, the naturalists 
of the “ Vega ”’ expedition, during their memorable “ North- 
east Passage ’’ in 1878-9, found at their winter quarters, about 
100 miles west of Behring’s Strait, “ larvae of an Argynnis ”’ 
at the end of June; and they met with Oeneis crambis, Freyer, 
and Erebia rossii, Curtis, at St. Lawrence Bay in Chukchi 
Land, a little to the southward of these Straits. The swampy 
meadows of the desolate Pribyloff Islands, in the middle of 
Behring’s Sea, are, according to H. W. Elliott, enlivened in 
summer by myriads of yellow butterflies, in all probability one 
of the North American species of Colias. Alaska appears to pos- 
sess a fairly rich butterfly fauna, two Papilios, aliaska, Scudd., 
and turnus, L., even extending to the valley of the Yukon, 
from whence thirteen species of butterflies are recorded by 
Dr.§. H. Scudder, I can find no records, however, from beyond 
the Arctic Circle in this region, except that of Hrebia fasciata, 
Butl., which appears to be not rare at Kotzebue Sound. This 
remarkable species was first obtained at Cambridge Bay (lat. 
69° N., long. 107° W.) by Capt. Collinson in H.MLS. “ Enter- 
prise,” during the prolonged search for Sir John Franklin’s lost 
expedition. Mr. D. Hanbury, in the summer of 1902, made a 
large collection of butterflies on the Arctic coast near Cape 
Barrow (lat. 68° 30’ N., long. 111° W.), which is described by 
our former President Mr. H. J. Elwes in our Transactions for 
1903, and illustrated by a very fine coloured plate. This 
collection, probably the most interesting and representative 
series of Arctic butterflies ever obtained from any one locality, 
consists of no fewer than fifteen species, including three Hrebias 
(fasciata, Butl., disa, Thunb., and rossi, Curt.); two Oeneis 


XCiV 


(bore var. taygete, Hiibn., and semidea, Say, var.); a variety 
(nixturata, Alph.) of our Coenonympha typhon; four species 
of Brenthis (pales, W. V., polaris, Boisd., chariclea, Schn., and 
frigga var. improba, Butl.); Lycaena orbitulus var. franklini, 
Curt.; and four species of Colias (hecla, Lef., booth, Curt., 
pelidne, Boisd., and nastes, Boisd.). From a little farther to 
the north-east, on the shores of Prince Regent’s Inlet, we have 
the insects collected and preserved under the most trying 
conditions by the expedition under Capt. Sir John Ross, in 
the “ Victory” during its sojourn of four years (1829-1833), in 
this desolate region; the second officer in command, afterwards 
Sir James Clark Ross of Antarctic renown, being in most cases 
the actual collector. Five species of butterflies are described 
and figured by John Curtis in his inimitable style, in the 
Appendix to Sir John Ross’s Narrative of this voyage. These 
are Colias boothi, which “ appears in mid-July on Oxytropis ;”’ 
C. chione, probably a variety of the preceding; Hipparchia 
(Erebia) rossi, “‘ five only, they were scarce and frequented the 
precipitous faces of dark-coloured rocks and loose stones; I 
never found any of them on flowers of any kind” (J. C. Ross, 
1830); H. (Oeneis) subhyalina, one only, probably with the 
preceding; Melitaea tarquinius, in all probability the widely 
ranging Brenthis chariclea, ‘‘an abundant species, like the 
Coliades found feeding on the flowers of Oxytropis, June and 
July 1830”; and Polyommatus franklini (= orbitulus, Esp. 
var.), ‘‘ only two taken, feeding on Astragalus alpinus, end of 
July.” 

Another British Arctic expedition of more than forty years 
later date, that under Sir George Nares in the “ Alert” and 
‘“ Discovery’ in 1875-6, brought back an important little 
collection of insects from nearly the highest latitude attained 
on that occasion, and the butterflies included in it may 
be regarded as probably the most northern representatives 
of their race in the world. Our former President, Mr. R. 
McLachlan, writes of these insects as follows—‘ Thirty-five 
specimens of gaily-coloured butterflies were procured, belonging 
to certainly five distinct species. It may safely be asserted 
that there are desert regions in the tropics that would not 
furnish an equal number, I have used the term ‘ desolate’; 


XCV 


but the desolation is not of that extreme nature one would 
expect. I am informed by Prof. Oliver that over sixty species 
of flowering plants have been determined in the collections 
formed by the naturalists of the expedition between the already 
given parallels of latitude (78° — 83° N.). This fact, at first 
sight, reads like romance . . . Captain Feilden informed me 
that during the short period when there is practically no night, 
butterflies are continuously on the wing, supposing the sun’s 
face not to be obscured by clouds or passing snow-showers.” 
The species found in the vicinity of the “* Discovery’s ”’ winter 
quarters, between 81° 42’ and 81° 52’ N. latitude, were Colias 
hecla (var. glacialis, McL.), Brenthis polaris (also from Disko 
Island in lat. 70° N.), B. chariclea, Lycaena orbitulus var. aquilo, 
Boisd., and, strange to say, a slight aberration (feildeni, McL.) 
of our familiar “‘ Small Copper,” Chrysophanus phlaeas, L. 

Some very interesting observations on the butterflies of this 
remote region were also made by Lieut. A. W. Greeley, the 
leader of the ill-fated American Polar expedition of 1881-4. 
At Lake Hazen, in the interior of Grant Land, on June 28th 
1882, “a large number of butterflies were seen, of which there 
were apparently three different species. They were so active 
and distrustful, however, that I succeeded in capturing but one 
during the day.’ On the 29th, one of the party saw “a 
bumble-bee and a devil’s darning needle ’’—a highly interesting 
record, showing that the range of the Hymenoptera and the 
Odonata extends as far to the northward as that of the Lepi- 
doptera—and “ butterflies were very numerous, as Many as 
fifty being seen during the day,’ which was one of unprece- 
dented high temperature in the Far North. 

The intrepid American explorer R. E. Peary also contributes 
his quota to the records of these Hyperborean butterflies. In 
June 1892, after he had crossed the appalling ice desert of 
North Greenland to bare land on the north-east coast, elevated 
3800 feet above the sea, in lat. 81°37’ N., long. 34°5’ W., 
a fair amount of vegetation and “ two bumble-bees, several 
butterflies, and innumerable flies” were noted by him. 
Another American Arctic voyager, Dr. I. I. Hayes, records 
the capture of a “ yellow-winged butterfly ” on July 9th, 1861, 
at his winter quarters at Port Foulke (lat. 78° 17’ N., long. 


XCV1 


73° W.); and a few days later, at Barden Bay in Whale Sound 
(lat. 77° N.) “‘myriads of butterflies fluttered among the 
flowers,” the day being calm and sunny, with the high tem- 
perature for that latitude of 51° F. 

The entomologists of the Danish expedition to North-east 
Greenland in 1910, at the winter quarters of their ship on the 
east coast in lat. 76° 46’ N., long. 18° 14’ W., met with Colias 
hecla, Brenthis chariclea var. arctica, Zett., and B. polaris in 
numbers, and Lycaena orbitulus var. aquilo less commonly. 
One of them, Fritz Johansen, gives such a graphic and pleasing 
account of these butterflies in their almost inaccessible home, 
that I cannot refrain from quoting it in extenso. “‘ Most marked 
of all the insects, however, are the butterflies, as it is only in 
the height of summer that all are out and can be said to be 
common. It is remarkable that with but few exceptions the 
North-east Greenland butterflies are not found on the most 
fertile places. On mossy ground, for example, the only 
common. butterfly is the yellow Colias hecla, but this is also so 
much bound to such localities, that if there is a fertile slope 
round a larger or smaller water-course, we may be almost sure 
of seeing a Colias flitting about, and be able to follow with the 
eye how it keeps to the windings of the slope. On large grassy 
plots (for example at the foot of the fells) we see several of these 
beautifully coloured insects flitting about; when two come 
nearer together, they playfully cross and recross in the air 
before separating; the one perhaps settles on a Dryas blossom, 
whilst the other seeks rest on a blade of grass, the colour of 
which it resembles so much. The commonest day butterflies 
are, however, the Argynnis, but like the following they are not 
met with on boggy ground (nor in fact on the bare clay or stone 
plains). Yet we may be surprised by these butterflies flying 
up from ground where the dry grass, Cassiope, and other 
plants are only growing in hollows here and there, until we 
observe that it is just these places which afford the butterfly 
the most shelter. When this settles, for example, on a stone 
or a Cassiope tuft, the reddish-brown lichen covering the 
former, like the purple-black leaf of the latter, blends so 
perfectly in colour with the butterfly that this cannot be seen 
before it starts up. It is very shy, flying often far before it 


xevll 


again settles, and as it ‘ doubles’ a great deal in its flight, it 
is more difficult to catch than Colias. These butterflies are 
sometimes seen.together, however, in which case it is Argynnis 
that has come on to the grounds of Colias, and they playfully 
cross one another before proceeding on their way. More 
rarely and more singly we meet with the day-butterfly Lycaena 
orbitulus on localities similar to those of Argynnis. It is quite 
impossible to see this butterfly when sitting on the ground; 
the gray underside of the folded wings blends so perfectly with 
the surrounding small stones. It does not fly far each time, 
but irregularly and fairly quickly.” 

A much earlier record .of butterflies from the same coast, 
but in a considerably lower latitude, is that of the veteran 
whaling captain William Scoresby, junior. At the end of July 
1822, in the region now known as Scoresby Sound (lat. 70° © 
30’ N., long. 22° W.), he found on landing that “‘ the insects 
were numerous, consisting of mosquitoes, and several species 
of ‘butterflies.’ These latter are named in the appendix to 
Scoresby’s narrative of his voyage, as “ Papilio palaeno, L., 
and P. dia, L.,” by Prof. Jameson of Edinburgh. Many years 
afterwards (1899-1900) this part of the Greenland coast was 
visited by Prof. A. G. Nathorst, who there collected specimens 
of the four butterflies so characteristic of these high latitudes, 
Colias hecla, Brenthis chariclea, B. polaris, and Lycaena orbitulus 
var. aquilo, to the first two of which Scoresby’s insects must in 
all probability be referred. No butterfly has been as yet 
recorded from Spitsbergen, though several species of moths are 
known from this archipelago. 

Before finally leaving the North Polar basin, the case of 
Iceland demands attention. As many as six species of butter- 
flies, belonging to the characteristic Arctic genera Colias, 
Erebia, and Brenthis, have been stated by various writers to 
occur in this large island, which from its relatively mild climate 
and fairly luxuriant vegetation might reasonably be expected 
to produce some at least of them. But of late years, the visits 
of several able entomologists to Iceland, notably the long stay 
of Dr. Staudinger in 1857, have not revealed the presence of 
even a single resident species. The only authentic record that 
I can find of the occurrence of any butterfly in Iceland, is that 


PROC. ENT. SOC. LOND., v, 1919. & 


X¢CVill 
of the late Rev. Francis Walker, who notes in Vol. XXII of 
the “* Entomologist,” the capture by Jon Thoroddson in 1888 
of a specimen of Pyrameis cardui in one of the main streets of 
Reykjavik, the capital of the island. 

When we proceed to the Southern Hemisphere, we find the 
terminations of the great land-masses lying many degrees 
farther from the Pole than is the case in the north; and with 
the exception of the extremity of South America, these southern 
lands enjoy far more genial conditions of climate. But the 
scanty butterfly fauna of these regions, as compared with that 
of corresponding or even far higher latitudes north of the 
equator, has not failed to impress strongly all Entomologists 
who have studied the distribution of these insects. The 
marked contraction southwards of the African continent would 
appear to have crowded, within narrow limits at its extremity, 
a Flora unparalleled anywhere in variety and number of species, 
with the possible exception of South-western Australia, where 
the geographical and physical conditions are somewhat similar. 
But when the comparatively low latitude of both these regions 
is considered, their poverty in butterflies is most remarkable. 
Lapland, more than thirty degrees nearer the Pole, produces 
at least as many kinds of butterflies as does Cape Colony, and 
during a residence of twenty-five years at Cape Town our 
former President Mr. Roland Trimen could find only forty- 
seven species in the immediate neighbourhood. A very large 
proportion of these are inconspicuous forms of Satyridae, 
Lycaenidae, and Hesperidae, only one Papilio (leonidas, Fab.) 
extending its range so far south, and the fine Nymphalid 
Meneris tulbaghia, L., being almost the only showy butterfly. 
The fauna of Western Australia is even more scanty, as only 
fifteen species are enumerated ‘as occurring in the district 
round Perth; and when I was there in the summer of 1890, I 
was as much impressed by the very small number of butterflies 
to be seen on the wing, as by the endless variety and beauty 
of the flowers. Next to nothing is known of the insects of the 
long range of utterly desert coast facing the great Southern 
Ocean, and the more fertile regions of South Australia and 
Victoria are not much richer than Western Australia in species. 
The beautiful, varied, and luxuriant island of Tasmania, larger 


xcix 


in area than Scotland, has fewer than thirty species of butter- 
flies, including two or three remarkable endemic mountain 
forms of Satyridae formerly referred to the characteristic 
Australian genus Xenica, as well as one Papilio (macleayanus, 
Leach) which is common near Hobart, and is the most southern 
representative of its almost world-wide family. 

In Patagonia we find, east of the mountain backbone of 
' the country, a barren and treeless land with a limited Flora 
and a rigorous climate for its latitude, while the densely 
forested coast facing the Pacific Ocean is one of the wettest 
and most stormy regions in the whole world. Butterflies 
are therefore very poorly represented, C. Berg recording only 
fourteen species as occurring south of the Rio Negro in lat. 40°. 
In the vicinity of Magellan’s Straits some half-dozen species 
have been found, and Colias imperialis, Butl., one of the finest 
and rarest representatives of its genus, is supposed, though 
with some doubt, to have been taken by Capt. P. P. King, R.N., 
at Port Famine about the year 1830. When I was at Punta 
Arenas on Christmas-day 1880, I found the grassy park-like 
country near the settlement enlivened by numbers of three 
pretty butterflies, Colias vautiert, Guér. (var. cunninghami, 
Butl.), Pieris (Tatochila) argyrodice, Staud., and Brenthis 
cytheris, Drury; but insect life of any kind was almost absent 
in the gloomy and saturated forests of the Western Patagonian 
channels. Mrs. Scoresby Routledge, however, in her adven- 
turous voyage in the yacht ““ Mana ” to Easter Island in 1913, 
occasionally saw butterflies on the shores of the Messier Channel 
in lat. 49°. In Tierra del Fuego, Darwin says that he “ saw 
very few flies, butterflies, or bees,’ but Yatochila theodice, 
Boisd., 7. xanthodice, Luc., and Brenthis cytheris are recorded 
by Mabille from Orange Bay in Hoste Island, not far from 
Cape Horn in lat. 55° 30’8., and these are almost certainly 
the most southern of all known butterflies. 

Brenthis cytheris is also reported by Mr. R. Vallentin as 
occurring commonly in the bleak and treeless Falkland Islands, 
and another “larger and faster flying Fritillary with more 
pronounced markings,” which he says has been seen in West 
Falkland, is almost certainly Danaida plexippus (race erippus, 
Cram.) which has wandered hither from South America, 


Cc 


and has been captured in the islands on more than one occasion. 
The “ blue butterfly,” stated by Mr. Vallentin to have been 
frequently observed close to Stanley in the East Island, has 
not been identified, and thus remains a mystery. 

The butterflies of oceanic islands, as defined by Wallace, 
form the subject of the second part of this Address, and I 
purposely omit any allusion to those of such island groups 
as lie near the great continents, and the insects of which are 
more or less well known. Reference may perhaps be permitted 
to the Faroe Islands, from which no butterfly is definitely 
recorded as yet, though there is a strong probability that 
Coenonympha typhon at least may be eventually found there; 
and to St. Kilda, where C. pamphilus is the only species that 
has been noticed. From the Azores, lying far out in mid- 
Atlantic, the late Dr. Godman has recorded nine butterflies, 
all familiar British forms except Danaida plexippus, which 
was first observed there in 1863, and has occurred subsequently 
on several occasions. To these may be added the little- 
known Satyrus azorica, Strecker, which is perhaps identical 
with a Satyrid butterfly seen in October 1880 by one of my 
messmates in H.M.S. “ Kingfisher’ in some numbers among 
the rocks on the summit of the Caldera of Fayal, 3300 feet above 
the sea. I ascended the mountain on the following day, which 
was unfortunately cloudy, so not a single example of the butter- 
fly could be seen. The one specimen brought to me was in 
poor condition, but it appeared to be more nearly related to 
Oeneis than to any other genus, and it is well worth looking 
for by any entomologist who may visit these interesting islands. 

Fourteen species of butterflies, according to Prof. A. E. 
Verrill, have been observed on the coralline group of Bermuda, 
which is fully 600 miles from the nearest point of the coast 
of North America. The record of three of these, Vanessa 10, 
L., V. polychloros, L., and Debis portlandia, F., rests on the 
evidence of single specimens said to have been taken in the 
islands by Canon Tristram as long ago as 1848; but the first 
two species, to say the least, are most unlikely to have found 
their way from Europe to Bermuda. Vanessa antiopa, L., 
Callidryas eubule, L., Colias philodice, Hiibn., Pieris rapae, 
and Papilio cresphontes, Cr., are more or less infrequent stragglers 


re 

from the American mainland, and Terias lisa, Boisd., which 
has on more than one occasion visited Bermuda in great swarms, 
has perhaps succeeded in establishing itself as a resident species. 
Danaida plexippus has long been known from the islands, and 
D. berenice, F., Pyrameis atalanta, P. cardwi, and Junonia 
coenia, Hiibn., are also resident, a fine and strongly marked 
race of the latter being the commonest Bermudan butterfly. 

Fernando Noronha, though barely 200 miles from the nearest 
point of Brazil, and covered with trees and luxuriant vegetation, 
has only one little Lycaenid, a form of Tarucus hanno, Stoll. 
From Ascension, 750 miles distant from the coast of Africa, 
Pyrameis cardui, Hypolimnas nusippus, and Lampides boeticus 
have been recorded by Mr. P. de la Garde, R.N., although the 
vegetation of the island is of the scantiest, except on the highest 
summit, where there is a little cultivation and some trees and 
shrubs have been planted. The more inviting and fertile 
island of St. Helena has but one species, Limnas chrysippus, 
in addition to those of Ascension, but all the butterflies appear 
to be tolerably numerous as individuals. Far to the south, 
and 1550 miles west of the Cape of Good Hope, lies the storm- 
swept group of Tristan da Cunha and its satellite islands, where 
Dr. von Willemoes Suhm of the “ Challenger’ found “ the 
larvae of a Vanessa,” probably that of Pyrameis carduz, which 
was taken there many years afterwards by Mr. de la Garde; 
and from the report of the two observant German seal-hunters 
who were found at Inaccessible Island by the ‘“‘ Challenger,” 
von Willemoes Suhm concluded that there were two butter- 
flies, a Vanessa and an Argynnis, in that island. When Diego 
Alvarez or Gough Island, 280 miles south of the Tristan group, 
was visited by the naturalists of the “‘ Scotia” in 1904, they 
found ‘‘ a number of beetles, and several kinds of flies,” but 
apparently no butterfly was present. The last Atlantic island 
to which I shall allude is South Trinidad, 500 miles distant 
from Brazil. This remote speck of land, perhaps the weirdest 
spot on the face of the earth, was visited in 1905 by the Earl 
of Crawford’s yacht “ Valhalla,” and by the “ Terra Nova” 
in 1912, but no butterflies were seen by the naturalists in either 
ship, though Mr. E. G. B. Meade-Waldo, in the *“ Valhalla,” 
found a few species of moths of American type. 


cil 

In recent years the Fauna and Flora of the numerous small 
islands scattered over the Indian Ocean have been investi- 
gated by successive scientific expeditions in a fairly exhaustive 
manner, and we now possess a tolerably complete knowledge 
of their insect productions. I purposely omit any reference 
to the Comoro Islands, Mauritius, and Bourbon (which may be 
regarded as’satellites to the almost continental island of Mada- 
gascar) except to recall to mind the very valuable paper by the 
late Colonel Manders on the butterflies of the two latter islands, 
which appeared in our Transactions for 1907. The eleven 
species recorded from Rodriguez, 300 miles east of Mauritius, 
are all found commonly in that island and in Bourbon. From 
the lofty and luxuriantly wooded Seychelles group, which are 
exceptional among oceanic islands from their granitic forma- 
tion, twenty-two species of butterflies have been recorded, 
six of these being, however, somewhat doubtful. These 
include one Papilio, a dwarf form (nana, Obth.) of the Mas- 
carene P. disparilis, Boisd.; and the handsome and peculiar 
Euploea (Pramasa) mutra, Moore, and Atella philiberti, Joannis, 
are confined to the Seychelles and to the great atoll of Aldabra, 
a long way to the south-west. This latter island is the sole 
locality of a very fine and distinct species of the characteristic 
African genus Teracolus (aldabrensis, Holland). The coralline 
Almirantes have apparently only three butterflies, a small 
Pamphila also found in the Seychelles, and two well-known 
Kuropean “ blues,” Zizera lysimon, Hiibn., and Tarucus teli- 
canus, Hiibn., both also plentiful in the Mascarene Islands. 
On Glorioso atoll Mr. M. J. Nicoll in the “ Valhalla” found 
butterflies and a day-flying Sphingid in numbers, one of the 
former being Hypolimnas misippus; and in the Chagos group 
Dr. G. C. Bourne met with the widely ranging Precis villida, F., 
and a very fine and well-marked race of Hypolimnas bolina, L. 
Only two butterflies, also of the most extended distribution, 
Limnas chrysippus and Pyrameis cardwi, are recorded from 
the great coral archipelago of the Maldives. The little Cocos- 
Keeling atoll has produced five species, two of which, Precis 
villida and Limnas chrysippus var. petilia, Stoll, were observed 
by me in my flying visit to the island in January 1904. The 
other three are Hypolimnas misippus, H, bolina, and Pyrameis 


cil 

cardut var. kershawii, McCoy; and the predominance of the 
Australian element in the scanty butterfly-fauna of this little 
island, 1000 miles at least from the nearest point of Australia 
is very remarkable. Christmas Island, which consists mainly 
of coralline limestone upheaved to an elevation of more than 
1000 feet in its highest part, possesses nine butterflies in spite 
of its very small area. Three of these, besides a local race 
(determinata, Butl.) of Melanitis leda, L., are very distinct 
and peculiar to the island, viz. Huploea (Vadebra) macleari, 
Butl., Terias amplexa, Butl., and the fine Charazxes andrewsi, 
Butl. The occurrence of the Australian form of Limnas 
chrysippus in Christmas Island is also noteworthy, as it is 
only 190 miles south of Java, though separated by very deep 
sea from this island. 

The remaining islands in the South Indian Ocean, Marion, 
the Crozets, Kerguelen, Heard, St. Paul, and Amsterdam, all 
lie in a tract of the ocean too stormy and inclement for any 
butterfly hfe to be possible; and indeed they present the 
spectacle of a Lepidopterous fauna reduced to its lowest terms. 
Kerguelen, despite its area of over 1400 square miles, in a 
latitude nearly corresponding with that of Paris, has only 
two practically apterous Tineids, a third species, also apterous, 
having been found in the Crozets; while from St. Paul and 
Amsterdam, in a somewhat lower latitude, two other moths 
of the same family, both fully winged, have been recorded. 
One of these, Blabophanes ptilophaga, Enderlein, lives in the 
nests of penguins at St. Paul and feeds in the larva state on 
feathers; and it is a curious coincidence, to say the least, that 
Darwin noted at St. Paul’s Rocks in the Atlantic ‘“ a small 
brown moth, belonging to a genus that feeds on feathers,” 
as the sole Lepidopterous resident of that tiny islet in mid- 
ocean. 

For our present purpose New Zealand may be regarded as 
an oceanic island on a grand scale, and its limited butterfly- 
fauna is one of the most interesting in the whole world. Of 
its fourteen resident species, nine are absolutely peculiar, 
and of these the most conspicuous, as well as perhaps the most 
plentiful, is the beautiful Pyrameis gonerilla, F., which recalls 
our P. atalanta in its appearance and its familiar habits. There 


clV 


are four very remarkable Satyridae, of which Percnodaimon 
pluto, Fereday, and Erebiola butleri, Fered., are mountain 
insects confined to the South Island, which in structure and 
habits exhibit a great affinity with the Erebias of the Palae- 
arctic Region. Dodonidia helmsi, Fered., is a very beautiful 
insect having something of the facies of an Erycinid, and is 
found sparingly in the wooded regions on both sides of Cook’s 
Strait; and the curious Argyrophenga antipodum, Doubl., - 
which probably has its nearest allies in some of the Chilian 
Satyridae, is the characteristic butterfly of the “ tussock-grass ” 
country which covers so large an area of New Zealand, especially 
in the South Island. Two species of Chrysophanus, salustius, F., 
and enysii, Butl., recall our“ Small Copper,” and are generally 
plentiful, while a third species, C. boldenarum, White, which 
is more local than these, reminds one of the European C. amphi- 
damas in appearance. A little “ Blue,” Lycaena oxleyi, Feld., 
completes the list of endemic species. Four others, character- 
istic of the Australian region, Precis villida, Pyrameis cardua 
var. kershawii, P. itea, F., and Lycaena phoebe, Murray, occur 
more or less commonly, and Danada plexippus, which may 
have reached New Zealand as long ago as 1840, appears only 
sporadically, and its permanent tenure in the islands seems 
to be by no means secure. Hypolimnas bolina, Catopsilia 
catilla, Cr., and an Huploea, have sometimes wandered hither 
from their tropical home, and even our Pyrameis atalanta, 
whose nearest authentic locality is 4000 miles distant in the 
Hawaiian Islands, has on more than one occasion found its 
way to the shores of New Zealand. 

In the Chatham Islands, 400 miles eastward from Cook’s 
Strait, Pyrameis gonerilla has developed a well-marked race 
(ada, Alfk.), but I have no record of any other butterfly from 
thence. Norfolk Island, 450 miles north-west of New Zealand, 
has five species, the fine Papilio amphiaraus, Feld., allied to 
P. amyntor, Boisd., from New Caledonia, being peculiar to 
the island; the others being well-known Australian forms, 
with the exception of Danaida plexippus. Lord Howe Island 
is only six square miles in area, and is separated from the coast 
of New South Wales by 300 miles of deep ocean; but from 
this small island Mr. G, A, Waterhouse has recorded no fewer 


CV 


than seventeen butterflies, including such conspicuous forms 
as Papilio erechtheus, Don., and macleayanus, Charaxes sem- 
pronius, F., Hypolimnas bolina, etc. No butterfly has been 
observed as yet in the so-called Sub-Antarctic Islands of New 
Zealand—the Auckland, Campbell, Antipodes, and Macquarie 
groups—though it is just possible that in the first-named 
islands, which possess a rich and varied Flora of surpassing 
interest, one or more indigenous species may be found. This 
is at any rate the opinion of Mr. G. V. Hudson, who visited 
the Auckland Islands in November 1906, and who writes 


as follows: ‘‘ No butterfly was seen on the islands . . . but it 
would be an unwarranted assumption that no butterfly exists 
there . . . I consider that the existence of a Satyrid butterfly 


on Auckland Island allied to Hrebia or Argyrophenga is 
probable, but I do not think it likely that any member of the 
genus Vanessa occurs there . . . I always kept a very sharp 
look-out for butterflies, but none were seen, although on 
several occasions the weather-conditions for their appearance 
were highly favourable.” 

We commence our survey of the islands of the tropical 
Pacific with the Ladrones, from which, as far as I can ascertain, 
only four butterflies have been definitely recorded, these being 
an endemic Alella (egestina, Godt.), Danaida plexippus, and two 
species of Huploea; one of these, H. (Nipara) eleutho, Q. et G., 
being represented throughout Polynesia by several well-defined 
races. From the widely scattered Caroline Islands, some at 
least of which are elevated and bear a most luxuriant vegeta- 
tion, Semper records a fairly rich butterfly fauna of twenty- 
three species, nearly all of well-known Indo-Australian forms, 
and including two Papilios, alphenor, Cr., and agamemnon, L. 
Mr. G. F. Mathew has also recorded from Ponape Island, a 
curious dwarf race of Melanitis leda under the name M. 
ponapensis. Danaida plexippus has also found its way to the 
Carolines, and Pagenstecher records it from the Marshall 
Islands; but it has apparently been unable to establish itself on 
the low coral islands of the Gilbert and Ellice groups, from 
which the only recorded butterflies are Huploea distincta, Butl., 
and &. eleutho, Precis villida, and the fine form rarik, Esch., of 
Hypolimnas bolina, In the lofty and luxuriant Fiji Islands 


Cvi 


we again find butterflies in considerable variety. At least 
twenty resident species are known, the fine Papilio schmeltzi, 
H.-8., and Charazes caphontis, Hew., with the remarkable 
little Satyrid Xois sesara, Hew., and several Euploeas and 
Lycaenidae, being found nowhere else. The Acraeinae have 
here their most easterly extension in A. andromache, F.; this 
insect may possibly reach the Samoa Islands, where we find the 
most eastern representative of the Papilionidae in P. godeffroyt, 
Semper, as well as of the Danainae (always excluding Danaida 
plexippus) in the small Tirwmala mellitula, H.-S. The Hesper- 
idae may also find their eastern limit in Samoa, unless a butter- 
fly that I saw once or twice in the Marquesas Islands, but was 
unable to capture, may belong to that family, as I suspected 
at the time. Atella bowdenia, Butl., is a characteristic species 
of Samoa, and occurs~also in the Tonga group, where about ten 
species of butterflies were collected during the visit of the 
“ Challenger” in 1874; Belenois java, Sparrm., and Terias 
hecabe, L., recorded also from Tonga, are the most eastern 
known representatives of the Pierinae. The Hervey or Cook 
Islands were visited by me in 1883, and in Rarotonga and 
Aitutaki I observed, besides the universal Danaida plexippus 
and Hypolimnas bolina, Diadema unicolor, Godm., Euploea 
(Nipara) unicolor, H. H. Druce, and Jamides walker, H. H. 
Druce, all undescribed species at the time; also Melanitis leda 
and an Atella, which last I was not able to catch. Far to the 
south-east, at the little outlying island of Oparo or Rapa, 
Danaida plexippus was the only butterfly seen by me. In 
two visits to Tahiti, in April and May 1883, seven species only 
were collected, a very small number for an island of such 
luxuriance and beauty. This poverty of Tahiti in butterfly 
life was noted by the eminent French voyager Capt. Dumont 
d’Urville in the “ Coquille” as Jong ago as 1823, and the 
following free translation of his observations is fully in accord 
with my own experience sixty years later—‘‘ The farther I 
advance in my walk in this country, the more I have occasion 
to convince myself, that the entomologist who wishes to 
increase his collections ought not to lose his time in the South 
Seas. In reality, what land appears to promise a richer harvest 
of insects than Tahiti? What shades, what forests, are more 


evil 

favourable to the development of these little beings? Every- 
where are flowers, humid places, decaying trunks and leaves. 
But what is the result of these laborious walks, of the assiduous 
researches of the naturalist? a dozen species of Lepidoptera, 
some Hymenoptera and Hemiptera, and four or five very small 
Coleoptera. Moreover, except for three species of Nymphalidae 
of which the size, the beauty, and the number of individuals 
strike the eye of the traveller at every moment, he would 
willingly believe that these islands nourish no insects whatever 
—Besides, the sole observation I have to make on Borabora, 
is that this island has afforded me a Lepidopteron which I have 
not yet seen in Tahiti; at the same time I have not found again 
another, occurring in elevated stations near Matavai (Tahiti), 

where it is very rare. In both islands, a Melitaca near cinxia 
frequents the sides of torrents, hillsides, and solitary places; 
and it settles but rarely, which makes it difficult to capture.” 
This “‘ Melitaea”’ is evidently Atella gaberti, Guér., a species 
peculiar to the Society Islands; I met with it rather commonly 
in Tahiti, especially in the mountain forests, where it was 
almost the only butterfly to be seen, and where the brilliantly 
gilded pupa was sometimes to be found attached to leaves, 
The other butterflies I observed in the island, mostly in the low 
ground near the shore, were Hypolimnas bolina, fine, large, and 
abundant, Danaida plexippus, an Euploea, which Mr. H. H. 
Druce has named #. (Nipara) walkeri, the finely ocellated form 
of Melanitis leda known as tartensis, Feld., a small race of the 
wide-ranging Lampides boeticus, and another little Lycaenid. 
I did not, however, meet with the brightly coloured form 
taitica of Precis villida, which I was informed was at times by 
no means rare, and here reaches the easternmost limit of this 
widely spread butterfly. No records are available from the 
Paumotu or Low Archipelago, though Hypolimnas and Euploea 
may extend their range to some of these widely scattered 
islands. In the Marquesas, which rival Tahiti in beauty and 
tropical luxuriance, the universal Danaida and Hypolimnas 
were the only butterflies that were taken during my visit, 
though an Afella? and the problematical Hesperid previously 
mentioned, were seen in Nuka-hiva and O-Hiva-oa, two of the 
larger islands, 


evill 


In Pitcairn Island, though a good many moths were taken 
during the day I was on shore there, not a single butterfly was 
seen; the inhabitants without exception declared that none 
were found on the island, and did not recognise any of the 
species that I showed them. Twenty years or more after my 
visit to this remote spot, Mr. M. J. Nicoll, in the “ Valhalla,” 
had the same experience. He remarks (“ Three Voyages of a 
Naturalist,” p. 213)—‘‘ We saw no butterflies, but there were 
many small moths, and one species, Plutella maculipennis ” 
(which I also noticed on Pitcairn) “‘ was most abundant.” 
The apparent absence of Hypolimnas bolina from this beautiful 
and fertile little island is the more remarkable, as I saw plenty 
of the Malvaceous undershrub which is the ordinary food- 
plant of the larva growing there; and the Natural History 
Museum at South Kensington possesses several specimens of 
the butterfly from the desolate Elizabeth or Henderson Island, 
more than 100 miles to the eastward. It has even probably 
reached the most remote outlier of Polynesia, Easter Island, as 
a butterfly, captured by Mr. and Mrs. Scoresby Routledge 
during their visit to that most interesting spot in 1914, can be 
only that species from their description of the insect, and was 
entirely unknown to the natives. Unfortunately the single 
specimen was lost during transmission home. From Caroline 
Island, a small atoll nearly 500 miles north of Tahiti, the 
Eclipse expedition of 1883 have recorded Melanitis leda, form 
taitensis, and Hypolimnas bolina, form holdeni, Butl. 

Little or nothing is known of the insects of the other small 
coral islands in the equatorial region of the Pacific, but when 
we come to the large and lofty islands of Hawaii and its satellites, 
we find a fairly rich, varied, and isolated Flora and Fauna of the 
highest interest, which are now almost as well known as those of 
any region of equal extent in the Tropics. Including our Pieris 
rapae, which has been accidentally brought over from North 
America, and is now common and sometimes destructive, and 
two American Lycaenids purposely introduced in order to cope 
with the plague of that universal tropical shrub Lantana 
camara, the Hawaiian butterflies number nine only. Two of 
these are endemic species, Pyrameis tammeamea, Esch., by far 
the grandest development of the Vanessid type, and the little 


— 


cix 

Holochila blackburni, Tuely, so curiously suggestive in its 
coloration of a mixture of our “ Purple” and “ Green” Hair- 
streaks. Lampides boeticus, which is common and occurs up 
to 6000 feet elevation, is probably truly indigenous also, while 
Danaida plexippus, Pyrameis atalanta, and P. huntera, L., 
represent the American element of the fauna, and P. cardw, 
which according to Dr. R. C. L. Perkins frequently shows :a 
strong tendency towards the form (kershawii) characteristic 
of Australia, may have been derived from that region. Neither 
of the two predominant butterflies of the Indo-Pacific region, 
Hypolimnas bolina and Precis villida, appear to have reached 
the Hawaiian Islands up to the present date. 

Crossing to the American side of the Pacific Ocean, Clarion 
Island in the little-visited Revillagigedo group, south of Lower 
California and separated by 300 miles of deep sea from the main- 
land, has produced three butterflies, two small Lycaenidae and 
a sub-species of Papilio troilus, L. The Galapagos Islands, 
situated on the Equator 700 miles from the nearest point of 
South America, are very poor in insect life, though their fauna 
is otherwise of classical interest. The six known butterflies 
are all of American type; two of them, Lycaena parrhasioides, 
Wallgr., and Eudamus galapagensis, Williams, are peculiar 
to the islands, and the others are Callidryas eubule, L., Agraulis 
vanillae, L., Pyrameis huntera, L., and P. carye, Hiibn. C. 
eubule and A. vanillae in the Galapagos are strikingly modified 
in the direction of small size and dark suffused coloration, 
being in fact well-marked races of these species. The romantic 
island of Juan Fernandez, 350 miles from the coast of Chile, 
is the last that we shall encounter in our circuit of the oceans, 
and Pyrameis carye, Hiibn., which I found there in March 1882, 
appears to be its sole butterfly inhabitant. 

We have already seen that the range of butterflies north and 
south is fully equal to that of flowering plants, and there is 
little doubt, given continuous land extending as far, that 
flowers and their attendant insects would be found at the 
North Pole itself. As it is, we find butterflies of several species 
maintaining their existence beyond the 80th parallel of latitude 
under the most rigorous conditions of climate, requiring at 
least two or three of the brief Hyperborean summers to com- 


CX 


plete their transformations, and apparently as much exposed 
to the attacks of the usual enemies of their tribe as in far more 
genial regions. The large proportion of Lepidopterous larvae 
in the Far North that are infested with Hymenopterous and 
Dipterous parasites has been specially noted by more than one 
observer; and the wariness and rapid flight of the perfect 
insects, not less than their beautifully protective coloration in 
repose, indicate with equal certainty the presence of active 
enemies in this state. It is not easy to say, however, what 
these enemies can be, unless the numerous small wading birds, 
and such true land birds as the snow-bunting that occur in the 
highest North, have developed a taste for butterflies; but on 
this point observations are almost or quite wanting. Many 
of these boreal forms have an exceedingly wide distribution ; 
some of the species of Colias, Erebia, Oeneis, and Brenthis have 
been found at all points round the Polar Basin where collections 
have been made, and representatives of the first and last of 
these genera reappear at the limits of butterfly life in the 
Southern Hemisphere. The genus Brenthis in particular has 
the enormous range in latitude of 137°—from 81° 52’ N. to 
55° 30’ 8.—though with a wide break in the warmer parts of 
America; and the range of Colias, which is continued through 
the Tropics by the closely allied Meganostoma, the genus 
itself reappearing at high elevations under the Equator, falls 
short of this by only two degrees of latitude at most. In 
Southern Patagonia, too, we find a single species of the char- 
acteristic Arctic genus Oenevs. 

Six butterflies stand out as pre-eminently insular forms, 
these being Danaida plexippus, Melanitis leda, Pyrameis cardui, 
Precis villida, Hypolimnas bolina, and Lampides boeticus. The 
range of each of these species covers an enormous area of the 
earth’s surface, and in several cases extends to the smallest 
and most remote islands in mid-ocean. With regard to Danaida 
plexippus, in the “‘ Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine ”’ for 1914 
T have discussed in some detail its wanderings to our own shores, 
and to lands more than half the earth’s circumference distant 
from its American home, so this most interesting butterfly will 
not require further consideration at present. The various 
geographical races (or sub-species) of Melanitis leda are found 


Cx 


over a vast area in the tropical regions of the Old World, and 
throughout the Pacific islands to Tahiti, but apparently it 
has not yet reached the Marquesas or the Hawaiian groups. 
Pyrameis cardui, whose migratory habits are so well known, is 
perhaps the most widely distributed butterfly in the whole 
world, the only continent from which it is entirely absent being 
South America, where it is replaced by the closely allied P. 
carye, Hubn. In the Old World it ranges from Arctic Lapland 
and Siberia to the Cape of Good Hope, and is to be met with in 
the most desert as well as in the most fertile regions; it has 
established itself in the remotest islands of the Atlantic, except 
those, which like Fernando Noronha and South Trinidad, are 
satellites of South America; and in the Indian Ocean we meet 
with it even in the Maldive atolls. In the Australian region 
the distribution of its form kershawii, McCoy, extends all over 
Australia and to New Zealand, the New Hebrides, and New 
Caledonia, the Loyalty Islands being the most eastern locality 
in which it has been observed by me; and the same form 
reappears far to the north-east in the Hawaiian Islands. 

Precis villida, which under the name of “‘ Albin’s Hampstead 
Kye,” has in some unaccountable manner figured as a British 
butterfly in the works of our older entomologists, has a wide 
distribution in the Indo-Pacific region from the Chagos atoll 
to Tahiti, and from the Caroline Islands to New Zealand; 
becoming more highly coloured as we, go eastward, and its 
brightest form (taztica, Feld.) is found in Samoa and the Society 
Islands. Lampides boeticus has a wider range than any other 
member of its great family, as it occurs in all the warmer 
regions of Europe and Asia, throughout Africa, the Malay 
Archipelago, and Australia. In mid-Atlantic it has reached 
Ascension and St. Helena, and the Mascarene and Seychelles 
Islands in the Indian Ocean; and in the Pacific I have found it 
in the New Hebrides, New Caledonia, and Tahiti, while Dr. 
Perkins records it as common in the Hawaiian Islands. It is 
possible that human agency has been a factor in the wide 
distribution of L. boeticus, as its larva feeds on the unripe seeds 
of cultivated as well as wild leguminous plants, and in some 
localities, as in Mauritius, it does great damage to garden peas. 

I have purposely left Hypolimnas bolina to the last, as it is 


CXil 


certainly the most interesting of all insular butterflies, and in 
its wandering propensities and adaptability to new localities, 
it rivals even the more famous Danaida plexippus. In the 
Indian Ocean its range has quite recently extended to Mada- 
gascar, where previous to 1915 it was quite unknown, but since 
that year the Oxford University Museum has received a good 
many specimens (of the Indian type) taken on the east coast 
of that great island by the Ven. Archdeacon (now Bishop) 
Kestell-Cornish. It probably occurs on nearly every island 
within the Tropics in the Pacific, with the exception, already 
noted, of the Hawaiian group; and it is evidently able to adapt 
itself to the conditions of the smallest and least fertile atolls, 
where even Danaida plexippus fails to establish a footing. 
Throughout its vast range the male is singularly constant in 
appearance, and varies only in size, in the amount of white 
scaling in the centre of the blue spots of both wings, and in 
the greater or less distinctness of the underside markings, 
and the subterminal series of white dots above. These dots 
are very conspicuous in specimens from the Indian region and 
from the northern and western area of its range, but as we 
proceed eastward, they become less distinct and finally disap- 
pear. The female, on the contrary, is perhaps the most variable 
of all butterflies, and nearly every fairly* extensive group of 
islands appears to produce its distinctive race. Specific rank 
has been accorded by various Lepidopterists to many of these 
forms, but it seems to me nearer the truth to regard them as 
variations of a single polymorphic species, resulting from 
different conditions of environment, rainfall, temperature 
and other modifying influences. 

The form of H. bolina found by Dr. G. C. Bourne in Diego 
Garcia (Chagos Islands) is specially remarkable for the great 
extension of the white markings above and beneath, and 
a closely similar variation has, curiously enough, been observed 
in Palawan Island in the Philippines. It is in the Fiji Islands 
that the variation of the butterfly probably reaches its maxi- 
mum; the female there ranges from a practically unicolorous 
fulvous, pale ochreous, or even whitish-ochreous ground-colour 
in which the distinctive markings are nearly lost, to the large 
and handsomely marked form nerina, F., of Queensland, the 


CX1i1 


New Hebrides, and New Caledonia, and the still more richly 
coloured pulchra, Butl., of the latter island, and rarik, Esch., of 
the scattered groups to the northward. Nearly all the specimens 
that I have seen from the Friendly Islands (Tonga) are, on the 
contrary, smaller and more poorly marked than those from any 
other locality, but those that I bred from larvae found in 
Rarotonga and Aitutaki are very handsome, and the females 
are for the most part intermediate between the fulvous Fijian 
form and the large dark race occurring in Tahiti. The markings 
of the females from the Society Islands approximate more 
nearly to those of the male than is the case with any that I 
met with elsewhere, except in the Marquesas, where the local 
race of H. bolina differs from that of Tahiti chiefly in its smaller 
average size and somewhat darker general colouring. 

The above instances convey only a faint idea of the mar- 
vellous range of variation in the female of this most interesting 
butterfly, which can be realised only by the inspection of the 
extensive series from the whole of the area of its distribution, 
contained in the National Collection, or the almost equally 
fine series in the Oxford University Museum. 

It is not my intention at present to discuss the means by 
which butterflies have been dispersed over the oceans to the 
most remote islands, especially as this subject has been 
treated somewhat fully by me in the case of Danaida plexippus, 
in the volume of the “ Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine ”’ for 
1914. The brief bibliography and sketch-map appended to 
this Address will, I trust, enable any one who is interested in 
the geographical distribution of butterflies, to follow these 
frail creatures to their ultimate limits on the earth’s surface, 
and to travel in imagination to the Fringes of Butterfly Life. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


ARCTIC. 


1823. Scoresby, William, junr. Journal of a Voyage to the 
Northern Whale Fishery, p. 204. Appendix V, 
Insecta, by Prof. Jameson, Edinburgh. 
PROC. ENT. SOC., LOND., v, 1919. H 


1835. 


1867. 
1874. 


1877. 


1881. 
1886. 


1886. 


1898. 


1900. 


1903. 


1906. 


1906. 


1910. 


1912- 


CX1V 


Curtis, J. Appendix to the Narrative of a Second 
Voyage in search of a North-West Passage, by Sir 
John Ross, 1829-33, pp. Ixv—lxx, t. A, 

Hayes, I. I. The Open Polar Sea, pp. 412, 433. 

Hartwig, G. The Polar World, pp. 248-51 (translation 
of extract from Middendorft’s “‘ Siberische Reise,” 
1844-5). 

McLachlan, R. Report on the Insects . . . collected 
by Capt. Feilden and Mr. Hart between the parallels 
of 78° N., and 83° N., during the recent Arctic Expedi- 
tion. Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond., xiv, pp. 108-9. 

Markham, A. H. A Polar Reconnaissance, p. 234. 

Aurivillius, Chr. Lepidopteren insamlade i nordligaste 
Asien under Vega Expeditionen. In Vega Exp. 
Vetensk. iakttageler, ser. iv, pp. 73-80. 

Greeley, A. W. Three Years of Arctic Service, vol. 1, 
pp. 372, 385. 

Peary, R. E. Northward over the “ Great Ice,” vol. 1, 
p. 352. 

Aurivillius, Chr. Lep. och Coleop. insamlade under 
Prof. A. G. Nathorst’s arktiska expeditioner .. . 
1898 och 1899. Ofv. Kongl. Vetensk.-Akad. Forh., 
lvii, pp. 1135-44. 

Elwes, H. J. On a Collection of Lepidoptera from 
Arctic America. Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1908, 
pp. 239-43, pl. ix. 

Poppius, B. Beitrage zu Kenntnis der Lepidopteren 
Fauna der Halbinsel Kanin. Helsingfors; Acta 
Soc. Fauna FI. Fenn., 28, No. 3, 1906, pp. 1-11, 
pl. 1. 

Rowland-Brown, H. Some Notes on Scandinavian 
and Lapland Butterflies. Hntom., vol. xxxix, pp. 
242-7, pls. vil, vill. 

Johansen, F. Danmarks Expedition, N. E. Gropalaetl 
Medd. og Grenland, xlii, pp. 50, 51. 

13. Sheldon, W. G. The Lepidoptera of the Norwegian 
Provinces of Odalen and Finmark. Entom., vol. 
xlv, pp. 309-15, 337-46, pl. xii-xiv; vol. xlvi, pp. 
1]--15. 


CXV 


SOUTHERN. 


1877. Berg, C. Beitrage zu den Lepidopteren Patagoniens. 
Bull. Soc. Imp. Nat. Mosc., li, 2, pp. 1-22. 

1881. Walker, J. J. Entomological collecting on a Voyage 
to the Pacific. Ent. Mo. Mag. vol. xviii, pp. 82-3. 

1887-9. Trimen, R. South African Butterflies. 

1891. Mabille, P. Mission Scientifique du Cap Horn, 1882-3, 
vi, div. 2-3, pl. 

1903. Vallentin, R. Notes on the Falkland Islands. Mem. 
and Procs. of the Manchester Lit. and Phil. Soc., 
xlvin, No. 23, pp. 21-22. 

1914. Waterhouse, G. A., and Lyell, G. The Butterflies of 


Australia. 


INSULAR. 
Atlantic Ocean. 


1870. Godman, F. D. The Natural History of the Azores or 
Western Islands. Lepidoptera, pp. 101-3. 

1879. Moseley, H. N. Notes by a Naturalist in the “ Chal- 
lenger,” p. 134. 

1879. Wollaston, HE. The Lepidoptera of St. Helena. Ann. 
Mag. Nat. Hist. (5), ii, pp. 221-4. 
1894. Ridley, H. N. Notes on the Zoology of Fernando 
' Noronha. Journ. Linn. Soc. Zool., xx, p. 548. 
1895. Garde, P. de la. African Rhopalocera. Entom., 
xxvi, pp. 153-5. 

1901-2. Verrill, A. E. The Bermuda Islands. . . . Trans. 
Connecticut Acad., xi, part 1, pp. 756-66. 

1908. Nicoll, M. J. Three Voyages of a Naturalist (for S. 
Trinidad I.). 


Indian Ocean. 

1879. Butler, A. G. Zoology of Rodriguez. Lepidoptera. 
Phil. Trans., clxviii, pp. 541-2. 

1886. Bourne, G. C. General Observations on the Fauna of 
Diego Garcia, Chagos Group. P.Z.8., 1886, p. 333. 

1900. Butler, A.G. Monograph of Christmas Island. Insecta, 
pp. 60-63. 


CXV1 


1907. Manders, N. The Butterflies of Bourbon and Mauritius. 
Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1907, pp. 429-54. 

1909. Jones, F. Wood. The Fauna of the Cocos-Keeling 
Atoll. (Lepidoptera). P.Z.S. 1909, pp. 144-5. 

1909. Fletcher, T. B. Lepidoptera (exclusive of the Tortri- 
cina and Tineina) . . . (of) the Indian Ocean. Report 
of the Percy Sladen Trust Expedition. Trans. Linn. 
Soc. Lond., ser. ii, vol. xiii (Zoology), pp. 288-96, and 
table, p. 315. 


Pacific Ocean. 

1832. Dumont d’Urville, J. Voyage de l Astrolabe pendant 
les années 1826-9. Faune entomologique de l’Océan 
Pacifique, par le Dr. Boisduval. I. Lépidopteres, 
pp. 20-2. ; 

1874. Butler, A. G. List of the Diurnal Lepidoptera of the 
South Sea Islands. P.Z.8., 1874, pp. 274-91. 

1883. Butler, A. G. The Lepidoptera collected during the 
recent expedition of H.M.S. “ Challenger” (for 
Friendly Islands). Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (5), x1, 
pp. 402-4. 

1883. Walker, J. J. Entomological Collecting on a Voyage 
in the Pacific. Ent. Mo. Mag., xx, pp. 91-6, 
222-3. 

1884. Butler, A. G. On a Collection of Butterflies from the 
Fiji Islands. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (5), xii, pp. 
243-348. 

1885. Butler, A. G. Lepidoptera collected by Mr. C. M. 
Woodford in the Ellice and Gilbert Islands. Ann. 
Mag. Nat. Hist. (5), xv, pp. 238-42. 

1888. Olliff, A. 8. Report on a small Zoological collection 
from Norfolk Island. Proc. Linn. Soc. N. 8. Wales, 
ii, vol. ii, Insects, pp. 1013-14. 

1890. Druce, H. H. Descriptions of two new species of Huploea 
from the South Sea Islands. Ent. Mo. Mag., xxvi, 
p- 320. 

1897. Waterhouse, G. A. The Rhopalocera of Lord Howe 
Island. Proc. Linn. Soc. N. 8. Wales, vol. xxii, pp. 
285-7. 


1898. 


1899. 


1904. 


1906. 


1909. 


1909. 


LOL: 


1913. 


1914. 


1919. 


Cxvil 


Hudson, G. V. New Zealand Moths and Butterflies, 
pp. 101-21. 

Meyrick, EH. W. Fauna Hawaiiensis. I. Macrolepi- 
doptera, pp. 193-5. 

Waterhouse, G. A. On three Collections of Rhopalocera 
from Fiji, and one from Samoa. ‘Trans. Ent. Soc. 
Lond., 1904, pp. 491-5. 

Semper, G. Beitrag zur Lepidopterenfauna des Karo- 
linen Archipels. D,. Ent. Zeits. Iris., Berlin (18) 1906, 
pp. 245-67. 

Hudson, G. V. The Subantarctic Islands of New 
Zealand. II. General Notes on the Entomology of 
the Southern Islands of New Zealand, pp. 59-60. 

Pagenstecher, A. Die geographische Verbreitung der 
Schmetterlinge. 

Willams, F. X. The Butterflies and Hawk-moths of 
the Galapagos Islands. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. (ser. 4), 
i, 1911, pp. 289-322, pls. xx, xxi. 

Perkins, R. C. L. Fauna Hawaiiensis, Introduction, 
pp. cliv—clvi. 

Walker, J.J. The Geographical Distribution of Danaida 
plexippus, L. (Danais archippus, F.), with especial 
reference to its recent migrations. Ent. Mo. Mag., 1, 
pp. 181-93, 224-37. 

Routledge, Mrs. Scoresby. The Mystery of Easter 
Island, p. 152. 


Cxvill 


GENERAL INDEX. 


The Arabic figures refer to the pages of the * Transactions’; the Roman 
numerals to the pages of the ‘ Proceedings,’ 


4 


GENERAL SUBJECTS. 

Aberration of Brenthis selene, exhibited, v. 

Africa, attacked by birds, Papilios of the nireus group from, xxxiii; Herse 
convolvuli attacked by small birds in B.E.,li; forms of Charaves etheocles 
from, Ixxv. 

Agrotids, cocoon softening in some, 1, 435. 

Allononyma diana, genus and species new to British list, exhibited, xliv. 

Ancylis tineana, an addition to British list, exhibited, ]xii. 

Andrena and Nomada, the British species of genera, xxviii, 218. 

Androconia in a bee, exhibited, xlii. 

Ant, by Australian fossorial wasp, mimicry of, xxxvi; -mimic Myrmecophana 
fallax, note on the Locustid, xxxix, 

Anthelidae, a new family of Lepidoptera, xlix, 415. 

Areniphes sabella (Galleriadae) in London, occurrence of, xiv. 

Argentina, Lepidoptera from, exhibited, ]xxii. 

Attid spider, Thomisid spider apparently protected from attack of, lxviii. 

Australian fossorial wasp, mimicry of ant by, xxxvi. 

Bee, androconia in a, exhibited, xlii. 

Beetle, contrasts in measurements of, exhibited, lxii; new to British list, 
exhibited, Ixxv. . 

Bengalia, further notes on habits of, lii; B. depressa attacking a wingless 
termite, lviii. 

Birds, African Papilios of the nzreus group attacked by, xxxiii; in B.E. 
Africa, Herse convolvuli attacked by small, li. 

Bonelli’s “‘ Tableau synoptique,” note on, xii, 89, 467. 

Brenthis selene, aberration of, exhibited, v. 

Britain, reappearance of sawfly in, exhibited, xvi; sawfly new to, exhibited, 
xvii; Diptera new to, exhibited, xlviii; Megacoelum beckeri, Hemipteron 
new to, exhibited, li. 

British, species of genera Andrena and Nomada, xxviii, 218; list, Allononyma 
diana, genus and species new to, exhibited, xliv; list, Ancylis tineana, 
an addition to, lxii; list, beetle new to, exhibited, Ixxv. 

British Museum, and in the Hope Collection in the University Museum at 
Oxford, on the types of Oriental Carabidae in the, xxviii, 119 ; and Oxford 
University Museum, with descriptions of new genera and species, notes 
on the exotic Proctotrupoidea in the, xl, 321. 


CXix 


Butterflies, discussion on flight of male, ii; notes on Natal, vii; in Mesopo- 
tamia, poverty of, x; Catopsilia statira in Trinidad, on a migration of 
yellow, xii, 76; from the Malayan Islands, exhibited, xl; from North 
Italy, exhibited, Ixiv. 

Butterfly, prey of spider, exhibited, xxix; vision, 1. 

Californian “Plume” Platyptilia (Amblyptilia) pica found in Scotland, 
exhibited, vi. 

Carabidae, in, the British Museum, and in the Hope Collection in the 
Univérsity Museum at Oxford, on the types of Oriental, xxviii, 119; 
spines on the elytra of tropical, exhibited, ]xiii. 

Catopsilia stattra in Trinidad, on a migration of yellow butterflies, xii, 76. 

Cetonia aurata, forms of, exhibited, lxxv. 

Charaxes etheocles, forms of the African, Ixxv. 

Chattendenia w-album, pupation of, exhibited, xxix. 

Chinese sawflies, close mimetic resemblance between two large, xxxvii. 

Coccinella distincta, and its association with Formica rufa, exhibited, xix; 
ova of, exhibited, xxix; exhibited, xlvii. 

Cocoon softening in some Agrotids, 1, 435. 

Coleoptera, on the mechanism of the male genital tube in, xlix, 404; a 
contribution to the classification of the Coleopterous family Endomy- 
chidae, |. 

Council, nomination of, 1xi. 

Cryptophaga rubescens, pupa and imago of, exhibited, xiv. 

Cyantris argiolus, eccentric movements of the hind-wings in, xi, 

Danaine in Fiji, mimetic association between two species of Huploea and 
one, ]xix. 

Dianthoecia luteago and D. barrettti, exhibited, xlv. 

Diptera, Hemiptera and other insects related to the Neuroptera, notes on 
the ancestry of the, xii, 93, 466; new to British list, exhibited, xlviii, 

Earwigs in flight, xvi. 

Egyptian Trypetid fly, exhibited, xlviii. 

Endomychidae, a contribution to the classification of the Coleopterous 
family, 1, 

Ennomos autumnaria, eggs of, exhibited, xlv. 

Entomology, remarks of Judge on, xviii. 

Ethiopian Hesperid Rhopalocampta anchises attracted by light, exhibited, 


xxii. 
Eumorpha elpenor, variation in, probably produced by heat, exhibited, 
Ixvii. 
Euploea and one Danaine in Fiji, mimetic association between two species 
of, Ixix. ; 


Fellows, election of, i, iii, xiii, xvi, xxviii, xliii, xliv, 1, ]xi, xxii. 

Fiji, mimetic association between two species of Huploea and one Danaine 
in, lxix. 

Flight of male butterflies, discussion on, ii. 

Fly, Egyptian Trypetid, exhibited, xlviii; Lengalia, further notes on habits 
of, lii; B. depressa attacking a wingless termite, lviii. 

Formica rufa, Coccinella distincta and its association with, exhibited, xix. 

Galleriadae in London, occurrence of Areniphes sabella, xiv. 


4 


Cxx 


Genital tube in Coleoptera, on the mechanism of the male, xlix, 404. 

Glossina palpalis from shelters on islands in the Victoria Nyanza, exhibited, 
XXXVil. 

Godman, Dr. F. D., notice of death of, iii; letter from M. Charles Oberthiir 
relating to, xiil. 

Habrocerus capillaricornis, the male abdominal segments and aedeagus of 
xlix, 398. 

Hemiptera, and other insects related to the Neuroptera, notes on the ancestry 
of the Diptera, xii, 93, 466; new to Britain, Megacoelum beckerz, 
exhibited, li. 

Herse convolvuli attacked by small birds in B. E. Africa, li. 

Hesperid Rhopalocampta anchises attracted by light, Ethiopian, exhibited, 
Xxil. 

Hesperidae of the genus Sarangesa resting in holes in the Nuba Mountains 
Province of the Sudan, further notes on, x. 

Hong-Kong, female forms of Rapilio polytes bred at, exhibited, xxii. 

House-fly in winter, Ixxvii. 

Hydroptila, a new, xlix, 391; (Trichoptera), scent-organs in the genus, xlix, 
393; on the histology of the scent-organs in the genus, 1, 420. 

Hymenoptera, especially of those discussed in connection with the long-for- 
gotten ‘‘ Erlangen List ” of Panzer and Jurine, the synonymy and types 
of certain genera of, i, 50; notes on the ancestry of the Diptera, 
Hemiptera and other insects related to the, xii, 93; from the Turin and 
Vicenza districts of Northern Italy, exhibited, lxi. 

Italy, Hymenoptera from the Turin and Vicenza districts of Northern, 
exhibited, lxi; butterflies from North, exhibited, Ixiv. 

Judge on Entomology, remarks of, xviii. 

Jurine, the synonymy and types of certain genera of Hymenoptera, especially 
of those discussed in connection with the long-forgotten ‘‘ Erlangen 
List” of Panzer and, i, 50. 

Kashmir, new moths collected in W. Turkestan and, 1, 431. 

Lepidoptera, the Anthelidae, a new family of, xlix, 415; from Argentina, 
exhibited, lxxii. 

Library, donation to, ]xii. 

Lobesia permixtana, bred specimen of, exhibited, xxviii. 

Locustid ant-mimic Myrmecophana fallax, note on, xxxix. 

London, occurrence of Areniphes sabella (Galleriadae) in, xiv. 

Lycaena euphemus, contributions to the life-history of, 1, 450; notes on 
LI. alcon, as reared in 1918 and 1919, 1, 443. 

Lygaeonematus compressicornis, use of the “ palisades” of, xii. 

Malayan Islands, butterflies from the, exhibited, xl. 

Mantis pia and Nematode; complicated instinct, exhibited, lviii. 

Megacoelum beckeri, a Hemipteron new to Britain, exhibited, li, 

Melanic moths from Scotland, exhibited, lx. 

Mendelian heredity in Papilio dardanus, evidence of, xxx. 

Mesopotamia, poverty of the butterfly fauna of, x. 

Migration of yellow buttertlies (Catopszlia statira) in Trinidad, on a, xii, 76. 

Mimetic association between two species of Ewploea and one Danaine in Fiji, 
Ixix. 


> 


CXxl 


Mimic, from the Murman coast, model and, exhibited, v; J/yimecophana 
fallax, note on the Locustid ant-, xxxix. 

Mimicry, of ant by Australian fossorial wasp, xxxvi; close mimetic resemblance 
between two large Chinese sawflies, xxxvii; by natural selection, Pseud- 
acraea eurytus hobleyi, its forms and its models on the islands of Lake 
Victoria, and the bearing of the facts on the explanation of, 1. 

Model and mimic from the Murman coast, exhibited, v. 

Mosquitoes, extermination of, xvi; life-history of, exhibited, xli. 

Moths, collected in W. Turkestan and Kashmir in 1909-12, new, 1, 431; from 
Scotland, melanic, exhibited, lx. 

Murman coast, model and mimic from the, exhibited, v. 

Myrmecophana fallax, note on the Locustid ant-mimic, xxxix. 

Natal butterflies, notes on, vii. 

Nematode, complicated instinct - Iantts pia and a, exhibited, lviii. 

Neotropical insects, observation , on, exhibited, xxiii. 

Neuroptera, notes on the ancestry of the Diptera, Hemiptera and other 
insects related to the, xii, 98, 466; and Pseudo-Neuroptera, continental, 
exhibited, Ixxv. 

Noctuae, cocoon softening, in some Agrotids, 1, 435. 

Nomada, the British species of genera Andrena and, xxviii, 218. 

Oberthiir, M. Charles, letter from, xiii. 

Obituary, Dr. F. D. Godman, iii; W. E. Sharp, xxviii ; Lord Walsingham, |xxii, 

Odonata, date of Dr. Ris’ names in, xviii. 

Officers, nomination of, 1x1. 

Oriental Carabidae in the British Museum, and in the Hope Collection in the 
University Museum at Oxford, on the types of, xxviii, 119. 

Oxford University Museum, on the types of Oriental Carabidae in the British 
Museum and in the Hope Collection in the, xxviii, 119; with descrip- 
tions of new genera and species, notes on the exotic Proctotrupoidea in 
the British and, xl, 321. 

“ Palisades” of Lygaeonematus compressicornis, use of the, xii. 

Panorpa communis, variety of, exhibited, xvii. 

Panzer and Jurine, the synonymy and types of certain genera of Hymenop- 
tera, especially of those discussed in connection with the long-forgotten 
“Erlangen List” of, i, 50. 

Papilio polytes bred at Hong-Kong, female forms of, exhibited, xxii; 
evidence of Mendelian heredity in P. dardanus, xxx; P. nireus 
attacked by birds in Africa, xxxiii. 

Pieris rapae ab. novangliae, exhibited, v. 

Pinacopteryx Liliana, the scent-scale of, exhibited, xli, 383. 

Platyptilia (Amblyptilia) pica, Californian “Plume,” found in Scotland, 
exhibited, vi. 

Plebeius aegon massey?, new race of, exhibited, lxiv. 

President, death of former, announced, iii, xxii; photograph of former, 
exhibited, li. 

Proctotrupoidea in the British and Oxford University Museums, with 
descriptions of new genera and species, notes on the exotic, x1, 321. 
Pseudacraea eurytus hobleyi, its forms and its models on the islands of Lake 
Victoria, and the bearing of the facts on the explanation of mimicry by 

natural selection, 1. 


CXXii 


Puparia unidentified, exhibited, xxx. 

Pupation of Chattendenta w-album, exhibited, xxix. 

Rhopalocampta anchises attracted by light, Ethiopian Hesperid, exhibited, 
Xxii. 

Ris’ names in Odonata, date of Dr., xviii. 

Sarangesa resting in holes in the Nuba Mountains Province of the Sudan, 
further notes on Hesperzdae of the genus, x 

Sawfly, in Britain,reappearance of, exhibited, xvi; new to Britain, exhibited, 
xvii; close mimetic resemblance between two large Chinese, xxxvii; 
larvae of, exhibited, xlix. 

Scarab, gigantic, exhibited, xviii. 

. Scent-scale of Pznacopteryx liliana, exhibited, xli, 383; organs in the genus 
Hydroptila (Trichoptera), xlix, 393; organs in the genus Hydroptila, on 
the histology of the, 1, 420. 

Scotland, Californian ‘ Plume,” Platyptilia (Amblyptilia) pica, foun in, 
exhibited, vi; melanic moths from, exhibited, lx. 

Seasonal forms of Teracolus rogerst, exhibited, ]xxiv. 

Sesia formicaeformis, bred, exhibited, Ix. 

Sharp, W. E., notice of death of, xxviii. 

Singapore, new Staphylinidae from, |xxvii. 

Spider, and butterfly prey, exhibited, xxix; Thomisid, apparently protected 
from the attack of an Attid spider, Ixviii. 

Spines on the elytra of tropical Carabidae, exhibited, 1xiii, 

Staphylinidae, the male abdominal segments and aedeagus of Habrocerus 
capillaricornis, xlix, 398; from Singapore, new, lxxvii. 

Sudan, further notes on Hesperidae of, the genus Sarangesa resting in holes 
in the Nuba Mountains Province of the, x. 

Teracolus rogersi, seasonal forms of, exhibited, xxiv. 

Termite, Bengalia depressa, attacking a wingless, lviii. 

Thomisid spider apparently protected from attack of Attid spider, ]xviii. 

Trichoptera, scent-organs in the genus Hydropitila, xlix, 393, 420, 

Trinidad, on a migration of yellow butterflies (Catopsilia statira) in, xii, 76. 

Tropical Carabidae, spines on the elytra of, exhibited, Ixiii. 

Trypetid fy, Egyptian, exhibited, xlviii. 

Turkestan and Kashmir in 1909-12, new moths collected in West, 1, 431. 

Uropteryx sambucaria, observations on the larva and pupa of, exhibited, 
XXXiv. 

Variation in Humorpha elpenor probably produced by heat, exhibited, Ixvii. 

Vespa orientalis rejecting the killed but carrying off stunned individuals of 
same species, ]xix. 

Vice-Presidents, nomination of, i. 

Victoria Nyanza, Glossina palpalis from shelters on islands in the, exhibited, 
xxxvli; Pseudacraea eurytus hobleyi, its forms and its models on the 
islands of, 1. 

Vision, butterfly, 1 

Walsingham, Lord, notice of death of, Ixxii. 

Wasp, mimicry of ant by Australian fossorial, xxxvi; capturing prey before 
hibernation, queen, xviii. 

Wicken Fen, announcement as to, xviii. 


CXXill 


SPECIAL INDEX. 


The aha figures refer to the pages of the ‘ Transactions’ ; the Roman numerals 
to the pages of the ‘ Proceedings. 


Abacetus, 148, 210 
Abax, 91 
abdominalis (Tiphia), 56, 60 
abietinus (Orussus), 56 
acanthodactyla (Amblyptilia), vi 
(Platyptilia), vi 
Acantholapitha, 330 
Aceraria, 103 
acervorum (Anthophora), 1xi 
achine (Teracolus), lxxiv 
_ Acidopria, 381 
Aclastus, 57 
Acraea, 48 
Acridiidae, 115 
acrogonus (Carabus), 165, 211 
fe (Orthogonius), 165, 215 
aculeatus (Cordistes), lxili 
acuminata (Trichopria), 380 
acuta (Anthela), 416, 417 
acutipennis (Gnathaphanus), 151, 214 
Adelidae, 113 
adelioides (Aephnidius), 159, 210 
adolphinae (Neolamprima), 406 
Aegeriadae, xxvi 
aegon var. corsica (Plebeius), Ixv 


», var. cretacea (Plebeius), lxiv, 
lxvi 

say EIS ha ha lxiv, Ixy, 
lxvi, Ixvii 


aenea (Osmia), lxi 
aeneum (Calosoma), 130, 211 
aeneus (Catascopus), 197, 212 
aératus (Omaseus), 1738, 215 

»,  (Pterostichus), 1738, 216 
affinis (Hoplopria), 375 
africana (Hoploteleia), 339, 340 
afzeliella (Andrena), 223, 227, 2380, 

259, 270 

Agathinae, 59 
Agathis, 59, 106 
agona (Clivina), 179, 208, 212 
Agonum, 90, 91, 467 


Agraptus, 63, 64 
agrorum var. pascuorum (Bombus), lxi 
Agroterinae, 434 
Acrothereutes, 55 
Agrotidae, | 
Agrotinae, 431 
albicans (Andrena), 219, 220, 221, 
225, 227, 228, 238, 269, 271, 283, 
295 
albicornis (Tachys), 199, 217 
albicrus (Andrena), 219, 2538, 269, 
275 
albionensis (Orthopodomyia), xlviii 
alboguttata (Nomada), 230, 254, 270 
albohirta (Xenotoma), 369 
alcon (Lycaena), 1, 443, 444, 445, 446, 
447, 448, 450, 451, 453, 454, 455, 
456, 459 
Aleurodes, lxii 
alfkenella (Andrena), 
294 
3 var. moricella (Andrena), 
270 
Allantus, 53, 56 
Allononyma, xliv 
alternans (Gnathaphanus), 214 
(Harpalus), 202, 214 
i (Orthogonius), 165, 167, 215 
io (Plochionus), 165, 216 
alternata (Nomada), 246, 247, 270 
alveolus (Hesperia), xxix 
Alyson, 64 
Alysson, 64 
amabilis (Dicranoncus), 164, 213 
Amara, 91, 153, 210, 467 
ambigua (Andrena), "220, 269 
bese 149, 211 
| amer inae (Clavellar ia), Lxi 
amoena (Dioryche), 213 


256, 270, 287, 


amoenus (Colpodes), 173, 213 


», (Pheropsophus), 125, 216 
,»  (Platymetopus), 155,156,216 


CXX1V 


Amplipens, 112 
Ampulicinae, xxxvi 
analis (Andrena), 261, 270, 278 
», (Carabus), 139, 211 
», (Chlaenius), 139, 212 
anchises (Rhopalocampta), xxii 
Anchomenus, 90, 91, 146, 211, 467 
Andrena, xxvili, 70, 218, 219, 220, 
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 227,228, 
929, 230, 231, 235, 236, 237, 239, 
240, 242, 244, 245, 247, 251, 253, 
254, 255, 256, 259, 260, 261, 262, 
265, 267, 268, 282, 316, 317 
andrenaeformis (Sesia), 1x 
Andrenidae, 265, 266 
androcles (Papilio), xl 
androgynus (Crabro), 61, 62 
anglica (Andrena), 236, 245, 269 
angulatus (Carabus), 125, 127, 128, 
134, 211 
3 (Catascopus), 141, 212 
ay (Craspedophorus), 125,134, 
213 


25 (Epicosmus), 126, 214 
3 (Eudema), 127 
(Mochtherus), 164, 215 
angustior (Andrena), 227, 243, 244, 
269, 272, 273, 274, 290, 300, 301 
Anomala, 408 
anomala (Mantibaria), 352, 353 
Anomalon, 58, 59, 60 
Anopheles, xli 
Anopleura, 102 
Anoplogenius, 177, 211 
Anoplognathus, 409 
antestiae (Hadronotus), 351 
Anthela, 415, 418 
Anthelidae, xlix, 415, 418, 419 
Anthelinae, 415 
Anthia, 200, 211 
Anthophora, ii, 70, 226, 233, 234, 
266 
Anthophoridae, 265 
antinorii (Papilio), ix 
antiopa (Euvanessa), lxiv 
antipoda (Paraclista), 369 
antiquus (Abacetus), 189, 210 
. (Argutor), 189, 211 
Antisphodrus, 175, 211 
Apegusoneura, 338 
Aphaniptera, 107 
Aphelotoma, xxxvili 
Aphis, xxii 
apicalis (Chlaenius), 137, 138, 212 
»,  (Procinetus), 371 
apicata (Andrena), 223, 225, 248, 251, 
252, 269, 274, 285, 304, 318 
Apidae, 265 


Apipiens, 110 
Apius, 60 
Appias, 386 
Aptinus, 91, 169, 211 
Archipsocus, 98, 101 
Arctiadae, 415 
arenaria (Philanthus), 61 
arenarius (Philanthus), 61 
Arge, 54, 55 
argentata (Andrena), 225, 236, 254, 
269, 290, 302, 311 
i (Nomada), 263, 270 
argillacea (Dianthoecia), xlv ~ 
Arginae, xxxvii, 55 
argiolus (Cyaniris), xi 
arion (Lycaena), 450, 451, 454, 455, 
456 . 
armata (Melecta), 235, 266, 315 
», (Nomada), 231, 232, 262,270, 
305, 311, 318, 319 
»,  (Strangalia), 409, 411, 413 
Arpactus, 63, 64 
Arsenoxenus, 148, 149, 211 
arvensis (Mellinus), 62 
», (Vespa), 62 
Asilinae, xxvi 
assamensis (Clivina), 205, 212 
assectator (Gasteruption), 58 
AA (Ichneumon), 58 
Astata, 56, 57, 60 
Astatidae, 58 
Astatus, 56, 57, 58 
astericus (Acanthogenius), 180, 210 
5 (Macrochilus), 180, 215 
atalanta (Pyrameis), xxxiv, 41, 43 
ater (Abax), lxxv 
,, (Spiniger), xxvii 
aterrima (Hoplopria), 373 
atrata (Nomada), 231, 270, 305, 315 
atrellus (Prosapegus), 321, 322 
atricapillus (Carabus), 91 
atriceps (Andrena), 231 
»,  (Nestra), 181, 215 
»,  (Perigona), 216 
atricornis (Hoploteleia), 341 
atripes (Trichoteleia), 337 
atropos (Sphinx), 17 
attenuata (Clivina), 206, 212 
B var. bhamoensis (Clivina), 
212 
a5 (Scarites), 206, 216 
Attidae, Ixviii 
augur (Urellia), xlviii 
aurata (Cetonia), xxv 
», var. nigra (Cetonia), lxxv 
aureipes (Meuselia), 369 
»,  (Paraclista), 369 
auricularia (Forficula), xvi 


CXXV 


auriginosus (Palarus), 65, 66 
auriventris (Aphelotoma), xxxvii 
aurocinctus (Kuplynes), 197, 214 
australiae (Scelio), 346 
australica (Perigona), 182, 216 
australiensis (Scelio), 346 
australis (Drypta), 167, 214 

ys (Masoreus), 159, 215 

5,  (Scelio), 348 
autumnaria (Ennomos), xlv 
avinoffi (Zygaena), 433 
baccata (Nomada), 230, 254, 270, 309, 

313, 316, 319 

bajulus (Hylotrupes), Lxii 
Bakeria, 378 
banksianus (Panurgus), 230 
barrettii (Dianthoecia), xlv, xlvi, xlvii 
barrowi (Telenomus), 356 
Baryconus, 334 
Bassini, 60 
Bassus. 59, 60 
batesi (Broscus), 171, 211 
beccarii (Perigona), 182, 216 
beckeri (Megacoelum), li 
bedeguaris (Diplolepis), 71 

3 (Ichneumon), 71 
bellicosus (Termes), lviii 
Belytidae, 369 
Bengalia, lii, liii, liv, lv, lvi, lvii 
bensoni (Macrochilus), 124, 129, 176, 

202, 215 

Beroea, 393 
Bethylidae, 72 : 
Bethylus, 71, 72 
betuliperda (Allononyma), xlv 
bicaudata (Perla), Ixxv 
hicincta (Coptodera), 178, 213 
bicinctus (Coptodera), 178 

a8 (Somotrichus), 178, 216 
bicolor (Cremastobaeus), 341 
bicornis (Zirophorus), 407 
bifasciata (Opisthacantha), 335 

35 (Pimelia), 126, 216 
bifasciatum (Eudema), 126, 214 


bifasciatus (Craspedophorus), 126, 
136, 213 
(Eudema), 127 
bifida (Nomada), 232, 238, 270, 308, 


318, 316, 319 
bifurcata (Mantara), 380 
bihamatus (Chlaenius), 140, 141, 212 
bimaculata (Andrena), 220, 222, 223, 
224, 225, 227, 239, 269, 
983, 295, 316, 317 


an var. conjuncta (Andrena), 
295 

4 var. decorata (Andrena), 
295 


bimaculata var. vitrea (Andrena), 295 
(Heteroglossa), 169, 214 
bimaculatus (Carabus), 120, 211 
¥ (Pheropsophus), 120, 216 
is var. posticalis (Pherop- 
sophus), 198, 216 
(Planetes), 169, 216 
binotatus (Chlaenius), 141, 212 
bioculatus (Tachys), 199, 217 
bipars (Colpodes), 185, 213 
»,  (Lebia), 185, 215 
Bittacus, 108, 109 
Blattaeiformia, 115 
Blattidae, 93, 98, 101, 116 
Blethisa, 91 
boeckingi (Eugereon), 1038 
boetica (Lycaena), xi 
bohemanni (Charaxes), Ixxy 
bolina (Hypolimnas), vii 
Bombidae, 265 
Bomboptera, 105 
Bombus, 233, 234 
Bombylius, 228 
boops (Astata), 56, 57, 60 
5, (Sphex), 56, 60 
borealis (Nomada), 248, 270 
borneensis (Simous), 197, 216 
(Stomonaxus), 160, 217 
Bothriopria, 376 
bowringi (Hexagonia), 133, 214 
boysi (Carabus), 181, 211 
», (Imaibius), 214 
Brachyuus, 169, 211 
Bracon, 59 
Braconidae, 59 
Braconinae, 59 
Bradycellus, 198, 211 
brasiliensis (Scelio), 348 
brassicae (Ganoris), 7, 8, 40, 41 
ne (Pieris), 45 
Bremus, 51 


| brettinghamae (Omophron), 195, 215 


Broscus, 148, 211 
brumata (Cheimatobia), xxix 
brunneipes (Conostigmus), 367 
brunneus (Antisphodrus), 211 
(Colpodes), 146, 147, 213 
(Pristonychus), 175, 216 
(Sphodrus), 175, 216 
brunnilabris (Orthogonius), 165, 215 
brunnipennis (Bembidium), 190, 211 
(Tachyta), 190, 217 
bucephala (Andrena), 227, 245, 
269, 274, 284, 300, 317 
bucephalae (Nomada), 230, 247, 270, 
309, 314, 316, 319 
buchanani (Colpodes), 172, 173, 213 
Buprestidae, xlix 


9 
99 


247, 


CXXV1 


buqueti (Lesticus), 148, 215 
Cacellus, 321 
Calathus, 91 
c-album (Polygonia), 41, 43 
calculator (Bassus), 59 
Callistus, 91 
Calophaena, |xili 
Calosoma, 203, 211 
cambodiensis (Chlaenius), 138, 212 
campestris (Mellinus), 63 
Camponotus, liv 
Camptoderus, 128, 211 
cancer (Mnematium), xix 
caniculata (Hoplopria), 376 
caniculatus (Paramesius), 376 
capillaricornis (Habrocerus), xlix, 398, 
399, 401, 402 
Carabidae, xxvili, ]xiii, 119, 120, 121 
122, 180, 134, 169, 170, 175, 176, 
179, 180, 181, 188, 196, 197, 199, 
206 
Carabus, 180, 211 
carbonaria (Andrena), 223, 225, 238, 
269, 283, 295, 316 
" var. praetexta (Andrena), 
227, 295 
carinata (Apegusoneura), 339 
»,  (Hoploteleia), 339, 341 
i (Macroteleia), 328 
carinatus (Neurogalesus), 376 
carinifrons (Abacetus), 189, 190, 210 
PA (Immsia), 355, 356, 357 
os (Telenomus), 355, 356, 357 
carpini (Saturnia), 438 
caschmirensis (Carabus), 181, 211 
Z (Imaibius), 214 
castanea (Clivina), 179, 180, 208, 212 
- (Cremastogaster), liii 
es (Perga), xlii 
castelnaui (Craspedophorus), 126, 213 
Catadromus, 148, 211 
Catascopus, lxiii, lxiv, 130, 182, 212 
Catopsilia, lv 
celebensis (Catascopus), 182, 212 
Me (Pericalus), 182, 216 
Cemonus, 70 
cenoptera (Psilus), 71 
5 (Tiphia), 71 
Cepha, 53, 57, 58 
Cephalotes, 91 
Cephus, 58, 57, 58 
Cerambycidae, xlix 
Ceraphronidae, 366 
Ceratinidae, 265 
Ceratobaeoides, 363 
Ceratobaeus, 363 
Cerceris, 62 
Cercophora, 110 


cereus (Craspedophorus), 135, 213 
»,  (Dischissus), 185, 213 
», (Panagaeus), 135, 215 
Ceropales, 51, 62, 63, 64 
Cerura, 438 
cetii (Andrena), 222, 270, 280 
ceylanicum (Drimostoma), 160, 214 
ceylonensis (Sceliomorpha), 349 
ceylonicus (Miscelus), 183, 215 
nt (Physocrotaphus), 180, 216 
chalceus (Stenolophus), 177, 178, 217 
chalcocephalus (Panagaeus), 136, 115 
Rs (Pristomachaerus), 136, 
215 
chalcothorax (Chlaenius), 124, 212 
Charaxes, Ixxvi 
charina (Pinacopteryx), 383 
charlonia (Anthocaris), 38 
charmus (Anteris), 342 
3 (Telenomus), 342 
chaudoiri (Coptodera), 179, 213 
5 (Dischissus), 135, 213 
xD (Macrochilus), 130, 215 
Chauliodidae, 115. 
Chelepteryx, 418 
chinense (Calosoma), 130, 171, 211 
chiriquensis (Paramesius), 379 
- (Pentapria), 379 
chlaenioides (Amblygenius), 139, 211 
Chlaenius, 91, 136, 137, 189, 212 
cholaepi (Cryptoses), xxv, xxvi 
Chromoteleia, 321 
Chrysduginae, xxv 
chrysippus (Danaida), viii, x, xl, 422 
f. dorippus (Danaida), viii 
4 petilea f. cratippus (Lim- 
nas), xl 
Chrysis, 233 
chrysolaus (Hadronotus), 352 
nie “(Telenomus), 352 
chrysorrhoea (Porthesia), 36 
chrysosceles (Andrena), 227, 228, 260, 
270, 278, 279, 283, 299 
Cicada, 104 
cicindeloides (Pericallus), 143, 216 
Cilissa, 267 
Cimbex, 66, 67, 69 
Cimbicidae, 69 
Cimbicinae, xxxvil 
cinctus (Carabus), 122, 123, 211 
», (Chlaenius), 122, 1238, 137, 
212 
cineraria (Andrena), 70, 219, 230, 242, 
269, 272, 273, 282, 291, 302 
3 (Apis), 70 
cingalensis (Catascopus), 185, 212 
cingulata (Andrena), 222, 224, 263, 
270, 281, 282, 299 


CXXV1l 


cinnabarina (Nomada), 230, 264 


circumcinctus (Anoplogenius), 177, 
211 

= (Megrammus), 177, 
215 


circumdatus (Chlaenius), 137, 212 
Citheronia, ]xxiii 
citreicoxa (Lapitha), 330 
clarkella (Andrena), 225, 228, 247, 
248, 251, 269, 274, 290, 300, 317 
clavatus (Tropidopsis), 379 
Clivina, 205, 207 
clivinoides (Eupalamus), 179, 214 
Clythra, xxi, xxii 
cocandica [coeandica in error] (Zy- 
gaena), 433 
Coccinella, xx, xxi, xxii 
coelestina (Desera), 167, 213 
es (Drypta), 167, 214 
Coelioxys, 233 
Coeloprosopus, 142, 213 
Coelostomus, 213 
coitana (Andrena), 231, 243, 261, 262, 
270, 278, 279, 280, 283, 302, 317 
Coleoptera, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 
102, 104, 105, 106, 108, 110, 112, 
116, 134, 466 
collaris (Adelotopus), 197, 210 
collesi (Chelepteryx), 417 
Colletes, 70, 233, 267, 268 
Colletidae, 265 
colombensis (Dioryche), 155, 188, 213 | 
A (Selenophorus), 155, 188, 
216 
Colpodes, lxiii, lxiv, 146, 147, 164, 213 
comes (Agrotis), 436, 439, 441, 442 
communis (Panorpa), xxv 
var. unifasciata (Panorpa), 
Xvil 
comperei (Telenomus), 353, 356, 357 
compositus (Curtonotus), 189, 213 
as (Siopelus), 189, 216 
compressicornis (Lygaeonematus), xii 
concinna (Sphex), 63 
concinnus (Agraptus), 63, 64 
(Barymorphus), 171, 211 
of (Chlaenius), 212 
conjtmgens (Nomada), 255, 270, 310, 
315, 316 
connata (Tenthredo), 66 
convexa (Mouhotia), 197, 215 
convexus (Amblystomus), 149, 211 
an (Trechus), 149, 217 
convolvuli (Herse), li 
Copridae, xxvi 
Coptodera. ]xiii, 179 
coracina (Harrisina), xxv 
cordicollis (Morio), 188, 215 


” 


”? 


coridon ab. fowleri (Agriades), lxvii 
cornigera (Nomada), 233 
cornuta (Osmia), ]xi 
cornutus (Syndesus), 407 
coronatus (Oryssus), 56 
Corrodentia, 100, 101, 102 
coryndoni (Charaxes), Ixxvi 
cosmodactyla (Amblyptilia), vi 
a (Platyptilia), vi 
Cossidae, 418 
costulatus (Catascopus), 182, 212 
Crabro, 66, 67, 68, 69 
crabro (Vespa), Lxi 
Crabronidae, 69 
Crabroninae, 69 
Craspedophorus, 126, 127, 128, 135, 
163, 213 
crassellus (Scelio), 343 
craverii (Mallophora), xxvi 
Creagris, 169, 213 
Cremnops, 59, 106 
cribraria (Crabro), 68 
(Thyreopus), 69 
Ae (Vespa), 67, 68 
cribrarius (Crabro), 68 
(Solenius), 68 
a (Thyreopus), 67, 68 
cristatus (Pterostichus), 174, 
Crocisa, 233 
crucifer (Macrochilus), 215 
,,  (Planetes), 180, 216 
| cruciger (Epeolus), 235 
cruentatus (Anomalon), 58, 60 
Cryptinae, 55 
Cryptus, 54, 55 
Ctenophora, 13 
Ctenoptera, 110, 112 
cucujoides (Morio), 188, 215 
Culex, xli 
| cupr eicollis (Catascopus), 197, 212 
cupripennis (Catascopus), 182, 212 
| (Pericalus), 182, 216 
Curculionidae, 144 
curriei (Ochlerotatus), xlix 
curtus (Pheropsophus), 198, 216 
custodiens (Plagiolepis), lvi, lvii 
cyanellus (Stenolophus), 178, 217 
cyanescens (Anoplogenius), 177, PAL 
(Harpalus), 177, 214 


| ” 


9 


216 


| 
i 
2 ? 


| ecyanipennis (Kuplynes), 164, 214 


| Cychrus, 127, 213 
Cymatophoridae, 419 

| Cymindis, 169, 213 

| Cynips, 71 

| daedalus (Hamanumida), vii 
| Danainae, 422 

daplidice (Pieris), x 
dardanus (Papilio), ix, x, xxx 


CXXVill 


dardanus f. cenea (Papilio), ix, xxx, 
XXXxl, XXxli, XXxxiii 
»,  . dionysus (Papilio), XXxili 
f. hippocoon (dardanus), ix, 
KOR K, KT A KITT 
- leighi (Papilio), ix, xxxiii 
- merope (Papilio), 1x 
f. planemoides (Papilio), 
Xxxiii 
tibullus (Papilio), ix, x 
f. trophonius (Papilio), ix 
XXxlll 
Dasypoda, 267 
davidianus (Broscus), 171, 211 
daviesana (Colletes), 229 
decorata (Andrena), 224, 295 
degener (Anchomenus), 189, 211 
9 (Argutor), 188, 189, 211 
Delias, xl 
Demetrias, 91 
Dendrocellus, 170, 213 
denticulata (Andrena), 227, 252, 253, 
269, 287, 298 
dentina (Hadena), xxix 
dentipes (Harpalus), 158, 214 
»,  (Hypharpax), 158, 214 
depressa (Bengalia), liii, lviii 
53 (Libellula), Ixxv, 23 
Dermaptera, 93, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 
102, 104, 116, 466 
derogatus (Acupalpus), 190, 210 
desectus (Vipio), 59 
desertor (Bracon), 59 
(Ichneumon), 59 
sad (Vipio), 59 
designans (Oxylobus), 180, 186, 187, 
215 


ar iiaar! 


29 


‘ 


” 


a (Scarites), 186, 216 
desjardinsi (Cryptomorpha), 405 
diana (Allononyma), xliv, xlv 

»> (Simaethis), xliv 
Diapriidae, 373 
dicaelus (Distichus), 162, 168, 213 
Dichacantha, 348, 349 
Dichoteleus, 333 
dicksoni (Callistomimus), 197, 211 — 
Dicoelindus, 149, 213 
Dicoelus, 149, 213 
Dictyoptera, 116 
difficilis (Harpalus), 177, 214 

»,  (Stenolophus), 177, 178, 217 

Dilapitha, 333 
Dimorpha, 56, 57, 60 
dimorpha (Euxoa), 431 
Dinodes, 91 
Dioryche, 155, 156, 213 
Diplazon, 59, 60 
Diplazonini, 60 


"| Diplolepie 7 90, 144, 213, 467 
Diplolepis, 71 
| Diptera, 98, 97, 99, 101, 104, 106, 
| 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 114, 7 
discalis (Perigona), 182, 216 
Discelio, 348 

Discolia, 60 , 
discolor (Dendrocellus), 170, 213 

5 (Desera), 170, 213 

dispar (Anthophora), 1xi 
var. rutilus (Chrysophanus), 

lxiv 
dispellens (Gnathaphanus), 198, 214 

Ae (Harpalus), 150, 193, 214 

dissimilis (Neurogalesus), 376 
distactus (Helluo), 169, 214 
Distichus, 162, 213 
distincta (Coccinella), xix, xx, xxi, 

Xxli, xxix, xlvii 
ab. domiduca (Coccinella), 

xix 
distinguenda (Diplochila), 193, 213 
(Rhembus), 193, 216 


92 


09 


99 
Ditomus, 91 
diversus (Acolus), 362 

»,  (Telenomus), 362 
divina (Lapitha), 330, 332 
divisus (Hadronotus), 351 

»,  (Telenomus), 351 
dohrni (Colpodes), 213 

», (Euplynes), 185, 214 
Dolichus, 91, 145, 213 
dolosa (Procris), 434 
dorsata (Andrena), 225, 226, 227, 258, 

270, 276, 278, 292, 296, 317, 318 
Dromius, 91, 163, 214 
dryas (Enodia), lxiv 
Dryinidae, 353 
Dryinus, 71, 72 
Dryophanta, 71 
Dufourea, 266 
duris (Romilius), 328 

», (Scelio), 328 
Dyschirius, 91 
Dytiscus, 13, 405 
ebeninum (Bembidium), 199, 211 
ebeninus (Tachys), 199, 217 
Eccoptogenius, 192, 214 
edusa (Colias), x 
egeria (Pararge), 41, 42 
elaeochroa (Trichoclea), 432 
elegans (Carabus), 141, 182, 211 
(Catascopus), 141, 142, 182, 

212 

55 (Elaphrus), 141, 182, 214 
eleutho (Nipara), lxix, lxx, Ixxi 
elevatus (Carabus), 178, 211 
(Loxoncus), 177, 215 


29 


99 


CXX1X 


elevatus (Scaphinotus), 178, 216 
(Somoplatus), 178, 216 
Fe (Somotrichus), 178, 215 
eliminata (Sarangesa), x 
elliptica (Anthia), 121. 211 
elongatula (Clivina), 162, 212 
elongatus (Apegus), 321 
elpenor (EKumorpha), Ixvii 
race lewisi (Eumorpha), ]xviii | 
», race macromera (Kumorpha), 
Ixvill 
Klythroptera, 104 
Elytroptera, 104 
emarginata (Macroteleia), 326 
Embiidae, 93, 97, 98, 101, 102, 466 
Emphytus, 56 
Eneyrtidae, 353 
Kndomychidae, | 
Endopterygota, 112 
Epeira, 13 
Epeolus, 233, 235, 266, 268 
Ephemerida, 94, 95, 96, 97, 116 
Ephemeridae, 110 
ephippiata (Clivina), 209, 212 
Epicosmus, 125, 127, 214 
epijasius (Charaxes), Ixxvi, 1xxvii 
Kpomis, 91 
Hrigorgus, 59 
er ythraea (Libellula), Lxxv 
erythrocerus (Brachyaulax), 381 
erythrogaster (Macroteleia), 328 
erythropa (Hoploteleia), 341 
PF (Macroteleia), 341 
erythropus (Scelio), 345 
esuriens (Myrmecia), xxxvil 
ethalion (Charaxes), xxx, ]xxvi 
etheocles (Charaxes), Ixxv, Ixxvi 
f. manica (Charaxes), Ixxv, 
Ixxvi 
f. phaeus (Charaxes), Ixxy, 
Ixxvi 
ethlius (Calpodes), xxiii, xxiv, xxviii 
eubule (Callidryas), 76, 80, 81, 82, 
83, 86, 87 
Kucera, 229, 234, 266, 268, 315 
Eudema, 126, 127, 128, 214 
Eugereon, 103, 104 
Euglossata, 110 
Eumetabolus, 57, 58 
Euphaedra, viii 
euphemus (Lycaena), 1, li, 449, 450, 
451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 
456, 460, 461, 462, 463, 
464, 465 
euphrosyne (Brenthis), 45, 46, 47, 48 
Euploea, lxx, Ixxi 
Euplynes, 164, 214 
europaea (Hoploteleia) , 340 


” 


9? 


9) 


9 


PROC. ENT. SOC. LOND., v, 1919. 


europaea (Mutilla), 71 
eurytus hobleyi (Pseudacraea), 1 
excavaticeps (Ancus), 210, 211 
eximia (Andrena), 225, 246, 304, 317 
extrema (Tachyta), 190, 217 
extremus (Acupalpus), 190, 210 
fabriciana (Nomada), 230, 236, 242, 
243, 245, 270, 282, 305, 
310, 316, 319 
fabricii (Panagaeus), 127, 215 
facialis (Carabus), 130, 132, 211 
(Catascopus), Ixiv, 130, 182, 
141, 202, 212 
fallax (Myrmecophana), xxxix 
falsitica (Andrena), 256, 270, 288, 294 
fasciata (Andrena), 240, 269, 271, 290 
(Pimelia), 125, 126, 127, 128, 
216 


? 


2? 


fasciatipennis (Lamproteleia), 334 
| fasciatus (Anaulacus), 159, 211 


(Baryconus), 334 


” 


| feae (Pirantillus), 146, 216 


felspaticus (Dicoelindus), 148, 149, 


213 


| femoralis (Hydroptila), 394, 396, 397, 


427, 429 
femorata (Cimbex), Lxi 
»,  (Crabro), 67 
femoratus (Chlaenius), 207, 212 
(Orthogonius), 165, 215 
274, 


ferox (Andrena), 246, 269, 273, 
284, 300, 317 
ferreus (Siopelus), 189, 216 
ferruginata (Nomada), 264, 270 
ferrugineus (Rhynchophorus), 
410, 413 
ferruginosa (Anthela), 416, 419 
figulus (Sphex), 60 
,. (Trypoxylon), 60 
figuratus (Brachynus), 202, 211 
fimbria (Triphaena), 436, 437, 439, 
440, 441 
fimicola (Perigona), 181, 216 
», (Trechicus)) 181217 
finitimum (Bembidium), 191, 211 
finitimus (Tachys), 191, 217 
flava (Nomada), 230, 245, 270, 308, 
310, 315, 316, 319 
(Tenthredo), xvi 


409, 


” 


| flavicornis (Telenomus), 362 


BA (Tenthredella), xvi 
flaviculus (Tachys), 198, 217 
flavifrons (Scolia), 60 
flaviguttatus (Chlaenius), 141, 212 
flavilabris (Carabus), 154, 211 
flavipes (Andrena), 227, 228, 229, 239, 

269; 271, 272, 281, 291, 
297, 317 


Xxx 


flavipes (Crabro), 65, 66 
»,  (Dendrocellus), 170, 213 
»,  (Desera), 170, 213 
»,  (Drypta), 168, 214 
»,  (Macroteleia), 327 
»»  (Nomada), 231 
(Palarus), 65, 66 
(Philanthus), 65, 66 
,,  (Tiphia), 65, 66 
flavofemoratus (Chlaenius), 207, 212 
flavoguttata (Nomada), 236, 256, 257 
264, 270, 282, 308, 310, 
315, 316, 318, 319 
var. hoeppneri (Nomada), 
236 
flavopicta (Nomada), 229, 235, 270, 
307, 312. 315, 319 
florea (Andrena), 222, 269, 272, 291, 
297, 317 
florella (Catopsilia), liv, lv 
fodiens (Clivina), 210, 212 
Foenus, 58 q 
forcipata, (Hydroptila), 395, 397, 425, 
426, 427, 428 
Forficula, 229 
Forficulidae, 99, 101, 115 
formicaeformis (Sesia), lx 
formicarius (Dryinus), 72 
formosum (Sparasion), 343 
fossorius (Crabro), 68 
foveigera (Agra), |xiii 
frenchi (Telenomus), 357 
froggatti (Scelio), 348 
fryi (Colpodes), 197, 213 
fucata (Andrena), 220, 227, 244, 250, 
269, 285, 300, 304, 316, 318 
», (Nomada), 240, 270, 307, 312, 
319 
fuciformis (Hemaris), 24 
fulva (Andrena), 227, 248, 260, 269, 
274, 285, 303, 317, 318 
fulvago (Andrena), 220, 222, 255, 269, 
275, 276, 289, 299 
fulvicrus (Andrena), 227, 229, 239, 
254, 269, 271 
furva (Nomada), 229, 232, 270, 310 
315, 316, 319 
fuscata (Andrena), 259 
fuscescens (Amblystomus), 149, 198, 
Dil. 
(Hispalis), 149, 198, 214 
fuscicollis (Pheropsophus), 168, 169, 
216 
fuscifusa (Feltia), 432 
fuscipes (Andrena), 231, 252, 253, 259, 
269, 275, 286, 297, 298 
fuscitegula ( Hoplopria), 373 
fuscoaeneus (Catascopus), 186, 197, 212 


9 


gagates (Platisma), 174, 216 
»,  (Pterostichus), 174, 216 

gaillardi (Bengalia), liii, lvii 
Galerita, 169, 214 
Galleriadae, xiv 
gallica (Polistes), Lxi 
garbei (Bradypophila), xxvi 
Gasteruption, 58 
gaverei (Cryptocephalomorpha), 197, 

3 ; 3 


Gelechiadae, xxiv 
geniculata (Desera), 168, 213 

3 (Drypta), 168 
Geometridae, 416 
Gephyroneura, 417, 418, 419 
germanica (Nomada), 232, 270, 3805, 

311, 315 
55 (Vespa), lxi, lxix 


| geryon (Scarites), 170, 216 


gigon mangolinus (Papilio), xl 
giraulti (Ceratobaeoides), 363 
3, (Ceratobaeus), 363 
glabratus (Xantholinus), 400, 407 
glabriceps (Gryonoides), 361, 362 
glabriculus (Coptolobus), 186, 213 
gladiator var. trisulcata (Macroteleia) 
328 é 
glorianus (Prosapegus), 324 
Glossosoma, 393 
glutinans (Colletes), 70 
Glyptomorpha, 59 
Gnathaphanus, 150, 214 
gobar (Scelio), 347 
Goéra, 393 
Gonius, 65 
goodeniana (Nomada), 233, 236, 241, 
242, 270, 307, 312, 316, 319 
Gorytes, 62, 63, 64, 233 
gracilicornis (Macroteleia), 325 
gracilis (Hemilexis), 376 
s,  (Spilomicrus), 376 
gravenhorsti (Plectrotarsus), 113, 466 
gravida (Andrena), 240, 269, 271, 297 
gravidator (Proctotrupes), 365 
me var. partipes (Procto- 
trupes), 365 
grisea (Anthophora), lxi 
Grylloblattidae, 93, 105 
Gryonoides, 360 
guttatus (Chlaenius), 141, 212 
»,  (Pericallus), 206, 216 
guttulata (Nomada), 263. 264, 270, 
306, 311, 315, 318, 319 
gwynana (Andrena), 225, 227, 248, 
244, 245, 269, 272, 273 
274, 291, 301, 317 
3 bicolor (Andrena), 261, 301 
Habrecerus, 402 


CXXX} 


Hadeninae, 432 

Hadronotus, 352 

haemorrhoidalis (Cilissa), 243, 261 

(Scolia), 60 

BA (Tachys), 191 

hahneli (Bradypodicola), xxv 

Halictophagus, 237 

Halictostylops, 237 

Halictoxenus, 237 

Halictus, 221, 228, 230, 233, 234, 236, 
237, 267 

halyattes (Teracolus), lxxiv 

hamifer (Chlaenius), 139, 140, 141 
212 

hardwicki (Catascopus), 130, 131, 212 

a (Colpodes), 172, 213 

Harpactus, 233 

harpaloides (Arsenoxenus), 148, 149, 
211 ’ 

Harpalus, 151, 194, 214 

hattorfiana (Andrena), 222, 224, 231. 
262, 270, 280, 283, 299, 317 

Haustellata, 104 

heathi (Pheropsophus), 198, 216 

Hedychrum, 233, 234 

Hedyeryptinae, 55 

Hedycryptus, 54, 55 

Helluo, 169, 214 

helveticata (Eupithecia), vi 


9 


helvola (Andrena), 249, 269, 285, 300 | 


Hemerobiiformia, 115 

Hemimorus, 357 

Hemiptera, 93, 94, 97, 99, 100, 101, 
102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 
110, 118 

hemiptera (Tiphia), 71 

hemipterus (Bethylus), 71 

Hesperidae, x, xXiv 

Hestia, 422 

Heteroglossa, 169, 214 

Heterometabola, 106 

Heteroptera, 103 

hillana (Nomada), 232, 260, 270, 309, 

3138, 315, 316, 318, 319 
5, var. ochrostoma (Nomada), 
309 

Holometabola, 110, 112, 114 

Homalolachnus, 203, 214 

Homaloptera, 111 

Homoptera, 97, 100, 103, 104, 105 
109, 110, 112, 118 

hopei (Orthogonius), 204, 215 

Hoplisus, 62, 63, 64 

Hoplogryon, 357, 358 

Hoplopria, 373, 374 

Hoplopriella, 373 

Hoploteleia, 338, 339, 341 

hortarum (Bombus), Lxi 


oun var. harrisellus (Bombus), 
xi 
hubbardi (Zorotypus), 466 
hiigeli (Chlaenius), 137, 212 
humeralis (Crabro), 66, 67, 69 
5 (Palarus), 66 
humilis (Andrena), 219, 222, 264, 270, 
278, 281, 283, 299 
Hybocampa, 438 
Hydroptila, xlix, 1, 391, 398, 394, 397, 
420, 421, 423 
Hylotoma, 54, 55 
Hylotominae, 55 
Hymenoptera, 13, 93,97, 99, 105, 106, 
HOF, 108) OOS MONAT TGs 7 
Hyphaereon, 214 
hypochiona (Plebeius), Ixvii 
Hypsiceraeus, 64 
icarus (Lycaena), 41 
Ichneumon, 58, 99 
Ichneumonidae, 60 
Idiogastra, 105 
illocatus (Anchomenus), 
211 
Imaibius, 181, 214 
Immsia, 353 
imperialis (Athermantus), xxxvii 
As (Basilona), Ixxiv 
impressipennis (Gnathaphanus), 154, 
214 


188, 189, 


impressus (Carabus), 90, 467 
aS (Catadromus), 202, 212 
“8 (Gnathaphanus), 214 
impunctatus (Lagarus), 148, 214 
indica (Anthia), 121, 211 
(Clivina), 187,205, 206, 209, 212 
,, (Diplochila), 213 
», (Trigonotoma), 148, 217 
indicum (Calosoma), 171, 211 
indicus (Aneurhynchus), 382 
,, (Carabus), 144, 171, 211 
», (Omaseus), 173, 215 
(Opisthius), 195, 196, 215 
,,  (Pterostichus), 173, 216 
indus (Distichus), 162 
». (Scarites), 162, 216 
Inebriatidae, xxiv 
infans (Tachys), 198, 217 
infixus (Abacetus), 190, 210 
», (Selenophorus), 188, 190, 216 
insularis (Discelio), 348 
io (Vanessa), 7, 18, 28, 36, 41, 43 
iridicolor (Stenolophus), 178, 217 
Ismene, xxili 
Isoptera, 938, 98, 101, 102, 105, 117 
466 
isse (Delias), xl 
,, race echo (Delias), xl 


a” 


o? 


CXXX1 


Ithoniidae, 111 
jacobaeae (Nomada), 229, 240, 270 
jaculator (Foenus), 58 
jansoniana (Perigona), 216 
jansonianus (Trechus), 181, 217 
janthina (Triphaena), 442 
janthinae (Proctotrupes), 364 
japonica (Drypta), 167, 214 
rs (Perigona), 216 
japonicus (Harpalus), 176, 214 
(Pardileus), 215 
(Stomonaxus), 160, 217 
a (Trechicus), 182, 217 
javauica (Clivina), 209, 212 
an (Lapitha), 330, 331 
javanus (Anisodactylus), 150, 211 
(Chlaenius), 137, 212 
»  (Miscelus), 183, 215 
», (Pheropsophus), 168, 216 
»,  (Sagraemerus), 158, 216 
javeusis (Pantoclis), 370 
jejuna (Ochromyia), ln 
Junonia, x 
juvencus (Ichneumon), 58 
3 (Sirex), 58 
labialis (Andrena), 228, 230, 236, 
237, 264, 270, 281, 288, 298 
labiatus (Philanthus), 61 
labilis (Coccinella), xix’ 
laelius (Sarangesa), x 
Laemostenus, 91 
Laemosthenes, 91 
laetatorius (Bassus), 59 
(Diplazon), 59, 60 
a (Ichneumon), 59 
laetus (Philanthus), 61 
laeviceps (Pachauchenius), 207, 215 
laevicollis (Poeciloistus), 139, 216 
laevigata (Carabus), 122, 211 
nny (Luperca), 122, 215 
laevigatus (Enceladus), 122, 214 
(Holoscelis), 122, 214 
te (Scarites), 122, 216 
laevinodis (Myrmica), li, 444, 445, 
456, 462, 463, 465 
laeviventris (Hadronotus), 353 
A (Trissoleus), 353 
Lamprias, 91 
lampriodes (Colpodes), 185, 213 
Lamprophonus, 193, 214 
Lamproteleia, 334 
lanestris (Eriogaster), 437 
lapathi (Cryptorrynchus), 1x 
Laphrinae, xxvi 
lapidarius (Bombus), ]xi 
Lapitha, 330 
lapponica (Andrena), 250, 269, 285, 
303, 317, 318 


»> 


o> 


99 


” 


2? 


| lapponicus (Bombus), v 

laricis (Lygaeonematus), xvii 
Larridae, 57 

Lasiocampidae, 418 

Lasius, 70 

lata (Clivina), 179, 212 

lateralis (Hypharpax), 153, 158, 214 
(Nomada), 247 


22 


(Oxylobus), 186, 187, 215 
6 (Scarites), 186, 216 
lathburiana (Nomada), 242, 270, 308, 
313, 316, 318 
Leistotrophus, 399, 401, 402 
Leistus, 188, 215 
Lepidoptera, 13, 98, 97, 104, 105, 106, 
LOT, 108; LOO LILO; ar i tes 
117 
Lepidostoma, 393 
Lepithrix, 177, 215 
leucophthalma (Nomada), 248, 251, 
270, 308, 314, 316 
leucura (Systasiata), xxiv 
levigatus (Omophron), 195, 215 
Libellula, 24 
libelluloides (Myrmeleon), lxxv 
licinoides (Gnathaphanus), 202, 214 
liengmei (Pheidole), liii, lv 
ligusticus (Bombus), 1xi 
lihana (Pinacopteryx), xli, 383, 384, 
386, 387, 388, 389 
Limacodes, 437 
limbatus (Broscus), 171, 211 
‘ (Telephorus), 407 
limnophiloides (Crypteria), xlix 
Lindeniinae, 69 
linearis (Celaenephes), 188, 212 
»,  (Leistus), 188, 215 
lineola (Drypta), 167, 214 
(Nomada), 232, 233, 236, 238, 
239, 270, 308, 313, 316, 318 
Liparidae, 415, 418 
Lissauchenius, 136, 215 
lithariophorus (Carabus), 181, 211 
(Imaibius), 214 


”? 


” 


” 
Lithobius, 229 
lobata (Clivina), 208, 209, 210, 212 
longicollis (Desera), 168, 213 

i (Pericallus), 144, 216 
longicornis (Ascalaphus), Ixxv 
(Eucera) lxi, 229 
(Nylanderia), lvi 
Ns (Prenolepis), lvi 
longior (Paramesius), 378 
Loxandrus, 149, 215 
Loxocrepis, 164, 215 
Loxoncus, 177, 215 
lucens (Andrena), 260, 270, 317 


> 


”? 


(Lamprophonus), 194, 215 


3? 


CXXXill 


luctuosa (Melecta), 266 
lugubris (Crabro), 70 
yy (Pemphredon), 70 
luna (Actias), 437 
lunulatus (Crabro), 67 
luridana (Allononyma), xlv 
lutea (Dichacantha), 348, 349 
», (Tenthredo), 66, 67 
luteago (Dianthoecia), xlv, xlvi, xlvii 
» sub. sp. argillacea (Diantho- 
ecia), Xlvi, xlvii 
», var. lowei (Dianthoecia), xlvi 
luteicornis (Spiniger), xxvii 
luteola (Mantoida), 98 
lutescens (Spiniger), xxvii 
lyaeus (Papilio), viii, xxxiii 
Lycaena, 450, 451, 456, 460, 463 
Lycaenidae, xi, 452 
Lymantriidae, 415 
lynceus (Hestia), 425 
maclachlani (Hydroptila), 395, 397, 
426 
macleayi (Chlaenius), 139, 212 
ee (Distichus), 162, 213 
i (Orthogonius), 166, 215 
Macrocheilus, 124 
Macrochilus, 124, 215 
macrophallus (Pachyrhina), 109 
Macropis, 267 
Macroteleia, 321, 328, 329, 342 
maculata (Ceropales), 64 
3 (Evania), 64 
= (Hypsiceraeus), 64 
maculatus (Crabro), 67 
maculifer (Chlaenius), 141, 212 
maderae (Calosoma), 171, 211 
magnifica (Coccinella), xix 
major (Bombylius), 228, 240 
malabariensis (Orthogonius), 204, 215 
malachurus (Halictus), 233 
Mallophaga, 93, 97, 100, 101, 102, 
108, 118 
malvacearum (Agathis), 59 
mandarinus (Craspedophorus), 127, 
213 
a (Isotarsus), 127, 214 
mandibularis (Hoploteleia), 341 
oe (Megaspilus), 366 
A (Myrmecia), xxxvil 
Mantara, 379 
Mantibaria, 352 
Mantidae, 98, 98, 101, 106, 115, 116, 
117 
Mantis, lix 
marginale (Drimostoma), 160 
marginalis (Brachinus), 124, 211 
(Drimostoma), 193 
(Dytiscus), 405 


2? 


9 


marginalis (Lamprophonus), 193, 215 
a (Lebia), 165, 215 
A (Promecoptera), 165, 216 
marginata (Andrena), 224, 231, 262, 
263, 270, 280, 281, 283, 
299, 317 
sf (Cryptocephalomorpha), 
197, 213 
na (Driméstoma), 214 
marginatus (Adelotopus), 197, 210 
marginicollis (Colpodes), 185, 192, 213 


i (Dolichoctis), 192, 213 
marginifer (Dolichoctis), 184, 185, 
192, 213 


.s (Dromius), 184, 214 
marshalli (Zavipio), 59 
marshamella (Nomada), 229, 231, 282, 
236, 245, 246, 270, 308 313, 316, 
318 
Masoreus, 158, 215 
massiliensis (Coptodera,, 178, 213 
mastersi (Balanophorus), 407 
Mecoptera, 93, 97, 104, 106, 107, 108, 
109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 
7, 
medioguttatus (Chlaenius), 186, 187, 
212 
Megachile, 233, 268 
Megachilidae, 265 
megaera (Pararge), 41 
Megaloptera, 114, 115 
Megasecoptera, 110, 111, 114, 116, 
117 
Megrammus, 177, 215 
melanaria (Clivina), 206, 212 
melanarius (Gnathaphanus), 214 
= (Platymetopus), 150, 216 
Melanius, 91 
melanogaster (Scelio), 347 
Melecta, 233, 234, 235, 266, 268 
melissae (EKupteryx), Lxii 
mellifica var. ligustica (Apis), lxi 
Mellinus, 62 
mellyi (Chlaenius), 171, 212 
», (Diaphoropsophus), 171, 213 
Melolontha, 13 
menyanthidis (Acronycta), x 
meridianus (Acupalpus), 190, 210 
Merope, 106 
Merriwa, 332 
Metabola, 106, 110, 112 
metallicus (Trissolcus), 358 
metatarsalis (Prosapegus), 323, 325 
micans (Carabus), 1389, 211 
,,  (Chlaenius), 139, 212 
Miecrobracon, 59 
Microcephalus, 149, 215 
Microdus, 59 


CXXX1V 


Micropterygidae, 105, 113, 114 
Micropteryx, 113 
milhauseri (Hybocampa), 438 
minor (Bombylius), 228 
(Probaryconus), 336 
»,  (Scelio), 336 
minutula (Andrena), 223, 224, 227, 
228, 256, 257, 270, 288, 
289, 294, 317 
var. parvula 
270 
minutuloides (Andrena), 257, 
270, 289, 294 
var. parvuloides (An- 
drena), 270 
minutus (Halictus), 229 
mirabilis (Catascopus), ]xiii 
mirella (Sceliomorpha), 349 
misippus (Hypolimnas), xl 
mixta (Andrena), 224, 249 
Mochtherus, 163, 215 
moestus (Eccoptogenius), 192, 214 
Molops, 91 F 
moricella (Andrena), 256, 287, 294 
morio (Halictus), 229 
mouffetella (Andrena), 241 
mucronata (Aristolebia), lxiii 
3 (Sarothrocrepis), xiii 
mulciber (Trepsichrois), 425 
Munychryta, 417, 418, 419 
muscidorum (Galesus), 381 
mutatus (Chlaenius), 138, 212 
Mutilla, 71 
Mycetophilidae, 108 
myopaeformis (Sesia), 1x 
Myrmecia, xxxvii 
Myrmecophz.ua, xxxix 
Myrmica, 443, 456, 457, 462, 464 
Myrmosa, 60 
Myrmoturba, liv 
mystacea (Arpactus), 64 
BC (Sphex), 63 
mystaceus (Arpactus), 63 
x (Mellinus), 63 
nana (Andrena), 225, 256, 270, 277, 
287, 293, 294 
» (Tachyta), 190, 217 
nanum (Bembidium), 190, 211 
nanula (Andrena), 256, 270, 293 
napi (Pieris), 40 
Nemoptera, 108 
Nemopteridae, 111, 115 
neophron (Euphaedra), viii 
Neopria, 379 
nepalensis (Broscus), 170, 211 
(Chlaenius), 171, 202, 212 
(Desera), 170, 213 
(Percus), 170, 215 


(Andrena), 


9 
258, 


29 


9° 
9° 


3°? 


| Nepheronia, 386 
| neptunia (‘Tirumala), lxx 
. f. moderata (Tirumala), Ixx 
neurica (Nonagria), 1x 
Neuroptera, 93, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 
102, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 
117, 466 
Neuropteroidea, 115 
nietneri (Tachyta), 190, 217 
niger (Eumetabolus), 57, 58 
Se (SUE) sri 
nigra (Stricklandia), Lxiii 
nigrescens (Chromoteleia), 329 
nigricans (Pantolytoidea), 372 
nigriceps (Andrena), 229, 252, 253, 
269, 275, 287, 298, 317 
(Bembidium), 181, 211 
(Perigona), 181, 216 
nigr ‘icollis (Acantholapitha), 332 
(Lapitha), 330 
a (Pheropsophus), 198, 216 
nigricornis (Apegusoneura), 339, 341 
” (Hoploteleia), 339, 341 
nigricoxis (Chlaenius), 207, 212 
nigrifrons (Andrena), 257 
nigroaenea (Andrena), 221, 231, 241, 
242, 244, 269, 271, 272, 273, 274, 
281, 291, 301, 317, 318 
nireus (Papilio), xxxiv 
nitens (Proctotrupes), 364 
nitida (Andrena), 219, 227, 228, 231, 
241, 242, 269, 272, 273, 291, 


? 


92 


301 

» var. baltica (Andrena), 227, 
301 

»> var. consimilis (Andrena), 223, 
227 


nitidiuscula (Andrena), 260, 270, 278, 
279, 289, 302 

nitidiusculus (Halictus), 221, 229 

niveus (Acentropus), 113 

nobilis (Brachynus), 202, 211 
»,  (Panagaeus), 126, 215 

noctiluca (Lampyris), 19 

Noctuidae, 415, 431 

Nomada, xxviii, 218, 225, 
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 
241, 242, 248, 244, 247, 
251, 252, 253, 254, 258; 
262, 264, 265, 266, 268, 
305, 310, 318 


228, 229, 
235, 239, 
248, 249, 
259, 261, 
270, 282, 


| Notodontidae, 415 


notulatus (Carabus), 163, 211 


55 (Craspedophorus), 213 
Nymphes, 111 
Nysso, 65 


| Nysson, 65, 233 


CXXXV 


obliterans (Coptolobus), 186, 213 
3 (Scarites), 186, 216 
oblongus (Agonoderus), 125, 210 
BA (Pachytrachelus), 125, 215 
obscura (Nomada), 230, 244 
obsoleta (Hoplopria), 375 
hs (Laelia), 415 
obtusifrons (Nomada), 231, 261, 262, 
270, 306, 311, 315, 318 
occidentalis (Mutilla), 71 
occipitalis (Aptinus), 168, 211 
op (Pheropsophus), 168, 216 
occulta (Hydroptila), 396, 397, 427, 
428, 429 
Ochromyia, lii 
ochrostoma (Nomada), 260 
Odonata, 94, 95, 96, 100, 104, 110, 
116 
Odontopria, 374 
Omaloptera, 111 
Omaseus, 148, 215 
Onthophagus, lili 
Onycholabis, 145, 215 
Oodes, 92 
Ophioninae, 60 
orbicollis (Chlaenius), 137, 212 
Orchemia, xliv 
orientale (Calosoma), 171, 202, 211 
orientalis (Amara), 177, 210 
(Anomala), 406 
(Anthia), 121, 122, 200, 11 
a (Chlaenius), 139, 212 
i (Exallonyx), 365 
sis (Tridessus), 177, 214 
af (Pachymorpha), 121, 200. 
215 


ae (Vespa), lxix 
ornatus (Philanthus), 62 
Orthogonius, 165, 215 
Orthoptera, 13, 93, 100, 104, 106 
orthopterae (Hoploteleia), 339 
Orthopteroidea, 115 
Orussus, 56 
Oryssus, xlix, 56 
ovatula (Andrena), 225, 227, 259, 
260, 270, 292, 296, 297 
» var. fuscata (Andrena), 296 

ovatus (Lopha), 198, 215 

», (Lachys), 198, 217 
ovina (Andrena), 269, 272 
Oxybelus, 70 
oxygonus (Catascopus), 141, 212 
Oxylobus, 180, 215 
Pachauchenius, 150, 215 
Palaeodictyoptera, 94, 95, 96, 97, 111, 

116, 117 
Palarus, 65 
pallida (Idiotypa), 379 


pallida (Neopria), 379 

palpalis (Glossina), xxxviii, xxxix, 
382 

pamirensis (Procris), 433 

pamphilus (Coenonympha), 17, 18, 
41, 48 

panagaeoides (Chlaenius), 203, 204, 
212 

Panagaeus, 126, 127, 186, 215 

Panhomoptera, 118 

Panneuroptera, 117 

Panorpidae, 106 

Panorpodes, 106 

Panorpoidea, 111, 114 

Panurgidae, 265 

Panurgus, 266 

parallelus (Abax), Ixxv 

a (Celaenephes), 188, 212 

a (Paussotropus), 197, 215 

paranensis (Schistocerca), 348 

Paranomalon, 58, 59, 60 

Parascelio, 341 

Pardileus, 176, 215 

pariana (Simaethis), xliv 

parryi (Clivina), 179, 208, 212 

parumpunctatus (Pterostichus), 174, 
216 

parvula (Andrena), 224, 225, 227, 
256, 257, 258, 288, 294 

parvuloides (Andrena), 257, 288, 294 

parvus (Orthogonius), 189, 215 

paucisetis (Hemilexis), 377 

Paururus, 58 

pavesii (Leptogenys), liv, lv 

pedemontana (Libellula), Ixxv 

Pediculidae, 93, 97, 101, 102, 103 
IO ao Waly ke: 

pellucidus (Sphecodes), 237 

Pelor, 92 

Pemphredon, 70 

Pepsis, xxvii 

Percus, 92 

Perga, xlii, xlix 

perkinsiana (Macroteleia), 327 

permixtana (Lobesia), xxviii 

pernyi (Antheraea), 438 

pertusa (Sarangesa), x 

peryphinus (Tachys), 191, 217 

peuhi (Bengalia), li 


‘| Phasmidae, 93 


Pheropsophus, 124, 125, 169, 216 

Philanthus, 53, 61, 62 

philea (Callidryas), 81 

philippensis (Amblygnathus), 207, 
211 

(Gnathaphanus), 207, 
214 

philippinensis (Drypta), 167, 214 


be) 


CXXXV1 


phlaeas (Chrysophanus), 41 
hoenicis (Myelois), xiv 
horidae, 107, 108 
Phryganea, 105 
Phryganeidae, 113 
Phryganidae, 99 
Phycitidae, xiv 
We (Mantis), lviii, lix 
ica, 53 3 
pica (Amblyptilus), vi, vii 
piceipes (Telenomus), 354 
piceus (Hydrophilus), 18 
picicornis (Brachyaulax), 381 
picilabris (Orthogonius), 165, 215 
picipes (Clivina), 212 
», (Coelostomus), 160, 213 
pictus (Aploa), 202, 211 
» (Barycomus), 334 
»,  (Brachynus), 202, 211 
»,  (Philanthus), 62 
Picus, 53 
Pieris, 886 
pilifrons (Sphecodes), 287, 254, 
pilipes (Andrena), 238, 268, 283 
-,, (Anthophora), 235 
» (Melitta), 227 
pilosa (Rhacoteleia), 338 
pilosiceps (Hoplogryon), 358 
pilosula (Myrmecia), xxxvil 
placidulum (Agonum), 188, 190, 210 
SBI (Abacetus), 188, 189, 190, 
210 
plagiata (Anaitis), lx 
Planema, 48 
Planetes, 169, 216 
planicornis (Barymorphus), 171, 211 
BS (Chlaenius), 212 
planigera (Maraga), 189, 215 
planigerus (Orthogonius), 189, 215 
Planipennia, 111, 114, 115 
plantigradum (Dinopelma), 197, 213 
Platymetopus, 150, 
216 
Platynus, 92 
Platyptera, 102 
Platysma, 92, 148, 216 


Plecoptera, 93, 97, 98, 101, 102, 116, 


466 
Plectoptera, 94 
plexippus laratensis (Danaida), xl 
Poecilus, 92 
poggei f, 
vili 


polita (Andrena), 242, 255, 269, 275, 


289, 299 
»»  (Diplochila), 144, 213 
»»  (Perga), xlii 
», (Rhembus), 144, 216 


154, 155, 156, 


carpenteri (Pseudacraea), 


politiceps (Trimorus), 359 
politus (Carabus), 144, 211 
3 (Lachiys)i 199% 27 
», (Trimorus) 360 
polyphemus (Telea), 437, 438 
Polyrhachis, lxiv 
Polystichus, 92 
polytes (Papilio), xxii 
», mandane (Papilio), xxii 
» romulus f. cyrus (Papilio), 
xxii 
»,  Stichius (Papilio), xxii 
polyxena ab, meta (Thais), lxiv 
pomiformis (EKumenes), Lxi 
pomorum (Bombus), lxi 
Pompilus, 60 
posticus (Carabus), 136, 211 
»,  (Chlaenius), 136, 212 
praecox (Andrena), 225, 250, 251, 252, 
269, 285, 298, 304, 318 
praetexta (Andrena), 223 
prasinus (Halictus), 236 
Precis, ix, x, lxxiv, lxxv 
presidens (Catascopus), 182, 212 
- (Pericalus), 182, 216 
Priocnemis, xxvii 
Pristomachaerus, 136, 216 
Pristonychus, 91 
Proctanura, 112 
Proctotrupidae, xl, 363 
Prohymenoptera, 105 
Promecoptera, 165, 216 
pronuba (Agrotis), 437 
»,  (Tryphaena), xiv 
propinqua (Andrena), 258 
Prosapegus, 321 
proserpina (Deragena), lxix, xx, ]xxi 
Prosopidae, 265 
Protoblattoidea, 106 


proxima (Andrena), 221, 255, 270, 


278, 292, 302 
Psammochares, 60 
Pselaphidae, 194 
Pseudacraea, viii 
Pseudoneuroptera, 116 
Pseudovipio, 59 
Psilus, 71 

Psithyrus, 233, 234 


| Psocidae, 98, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 


101, 102, 108, 104, 105, 106, 107, 
109, 115, 116, 117, 118, 466 
Psychodidae, xlix 
Pterophoridae, vii 
Pterostichus, 92 
pulchella (Gyrophaena), 400, 407 
pulchellus (Gryonoides), 361, 362 
pulcher (Chlaenius), 122, 212 
pulchricornis (Hydroptila), 396, 429 


slid 


CXXXVil 


Puliciphora, 108 
punctata (Mystacides), 393 
punctaticeps (Scelio), 346 
punctatus (Broscus), 170, 211 

oa (Cephalotes), 170, 212 

35 (Chlaenius), 141, 212 
puncticeps (Chlaenius), 141, 212 

> (Planetes), 169, 216 
puncticollis (Distichus), 162, 213 

(Taeniolobus), 162, 217 
punctidactyla (Amblyptilia), vi, vii 
ss (Platyptilia), vi, vii 


punctilabris (Gnathaphanus), 150, 
151, 193, 214 
ae (Harpalus), 150, 193, 
214 


punctulatus (Harpalus), 151, 214 

$3 (Platymetopus), 151,216 
punctum (Distichus), 162, 213 

‘5 (Scarites), 162, 216 
Pupipara, 110 
purpurella (Micropteryx), 113 
pusaria (Cabera), xxix 
pusilla (Perigona), 216 
pusillus (Extromus), 182, 214 
pygmaeus (Astatus), 57, 58 

- (Cephus), 57 

Ls (Sirex), 57 
Pyralidae, xxv, 431, 434 
pyrastri (Catabomba), lxix 
pyri (Saturnia), 438 
quadricolor (Chlaenius), 139, 212 
quadridentata (Merriwa), 333 
quadrifasciata (Anthophora), 1xi 


quadrimaculatus (Catascopus), 141, 
212 
” (Helluo), 176, 214 
” (Macrochilus), 215 
39 (Pericallus), 141, 


142, 143, 216 
quadrinotatus (Cyrtopterus), 164, 213 
quadriplagiatus (Cyrtopterus), 192, 
213 


3 (Dolichoctis), 
192, 213 
quadripunctata (Clythra), xxi 
(Seolia), 60 
quadrisiznatus (Catascopus), 142, 212 
33 (Pericallus), 216 
quadrispinosa (Macrocentra), 1xiii 


185, 


quinquecinctus (Ceropales), 62, 63, 
64 
>» (Gorytes), 62, 63 
>» (Hoplisus), 63 
% (Mellinus), 62, 63 


quinquepustulatus (Stenolophus), 178, 
189, 217 
rapae (Ganoris), 386 


rapae (Pieris), x, 40, 41, 44, 45 
», ab, novangliae (Pieris), v 
Raphidoidea, 115 
recta (Clivina), 187, 206, 212 
rectificata (Diplochila), 213 
rectificatus (Rhembus), 193, 216 
reductus (Catascopus), 185, 186, 212 
reflexus (Carabus), 126, 127, 211 
»,  (Craspedophorus), 125, 126, 
128, 213 
co (Cychrus), 126, 127, 128, 213 
“ (Hyphaereon), 156, 214 
regalis (Catascopus), Ixiii 
», (Craspedophorus), 129, 213 
»  (Panagaeus), 126, 215 
relinquens (Abacetus), 189, 210 
Ea (Argutor) 189, 211 
relucens (Harpalus), 177, 214 
»»  (Iridessus), 177, 214 
repandens (Dromius), 191, 214 
af (Tetragonica), 191, 217 
reticulatus (Sphecodes), 236, 254 
retinens (Diplochila), 192, 213 
»  (Platysma), 192, 216 
retractus (Mochtherus), 189, 215 
(Panagaeus), 164, 189, 215 
Rhacoteleia, 338 
rhamni (Gonepteryx), 25, 45 
Rhembus, 90, 144, 216 
rhenana (Nomada), 230 
Rhodites, 71 
Rhopalidae, 69 
Rhopalinae, 69 
Rhopalum, 69 
Rhophites, 266 
Rhynchophorus, 413 
Rielia, 352, 353 
Rieliomorpha, 352, 353 
Risophilus, 91 
roberjeotiana (Nomada), 
270, 315 
rogersi (Teracolus), lxxiv 
Romilius, 328 
rosae (Andrena), 246, 269, 284, 304 
» Var. eximia (Andrena), 269, 284 
», (Cynips), 71 
rotundus (Hoplogryon), 358 
roylei (Antheraea), 437 
rubescens (Cryptophaga), xiv 
rubicundus (Sphecodes), 236, 237, 
264 
rubripes (Neurogalesus), 376 
rubritinctalis (Pyrausta), 434 F 
rufa (Hormica) xix kx xd, KK 
KOKI RRO dT 
ruficeps (Colpodes), 164, 213 
PP (Lamprias), 164, 214 
»,  (Planetes), 169, 216 


222, 231, 


CXXXVill 


ruficollis (Acanthoteleia), 331 
ruficornis (Nomada), 230, 232, 236, 
245, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 264, 
270, 308, 309, 310, 314, 315, 316, 
318, 319 
ruficrus (Andrena), 230, 244, 269, 272, 
273, 291, 300 
rufifemoratus (Chlaenius), 136, 137, 
212 
35 (Lissauchenius), 
215 
rufinotum (Conostigmus), 368 
rufipes (Brachyaulax), 379 
,, (Drimostoma), 160, 214 
»,  (Epeolus), 235 
», (Nomada), 232, 252, 253, 270, 
306, 312, 315, 319 
ms (Palarus), 65, 66 
», (Rhopaloscelio), 343 
(Stomonaxus), 160 
rifithorax (Chromoteleia), 330 
rutiventris (Cymindis), 183, 213 
xn (Miscelus), 183, 215 
rufulus (Tachys), 195,217 / 
rugicollis (Dendrocellus), 213 
- (Desera), 170, 213 
a (Harpalus), 176, 214 
As (Pardileus), 215 
ruginodis (Myrmica), 450, 460 
rugosa (Bakeria), 377, 378 
rugosiceps (Hoploteleia), 341 
rugosifrons (Clivina), 206, 212 
rugostriatus (Hadronotoides), 352 
rybiensis (Cerceris), 62 
a (Sphex), 62 
sabella (Areniphes), xiv 
sabulosa (Ammophila), Lxi 
as (Clivina), 161, 212 
saliciperda (Cecidomyia), 1x 
sambucaria (Uropteryx), xxxiv 
sanguineum (Sympetrum), Ixxv 
saphyripennis (Colpodes), Lxiii 
Sapyga, 60, 233 
Saropoda, 266 
satis (Acraea), vii 
Saturnia, 438 
saundersella (Andrena), 225, 256, 257, 
270, 288, 293, 294 
saxeseni (Lygaeonematus), xvii 
scabriceps (Megaspilus), 367 
scabrinodis (Myrmica), 443, 444, 445, 
448, 456, 461, 462, 465 
Scaphinotus, 178, 216 
Scarabaeidae, xviii 
Scelio, 336, 349 
Scelionidae, 321, 853 
scenicum (Epiblemum), xviii 
schenckella (Andrena), 256 


136, 


schmidti (Colpodes), 213 
ne (Euplynes), 164 
schreibersi (Antisphodrus), 175, 211 
scita (Dioryche), 188, 213 
scitus (Cardiaderus), 188, 211 
Scolia, 60 
scoticum (Sympetrum), Ixxv 
scrophulariae (Allantus), 56 
(Tenthredo), 58, 56 
sculptilis (Oxylobus), 180, 186, 215 
is (Scarites), 180, 186, 216 
sculptipennis (Stomonaxus), 160, 217 
scutellaris (Gryonoides), 362 
segmentaria (Cryptus), 54 
selene (Actias), 437 
»,  (Brenthis), v, 47 
semicircularis (Scarites), 162, 216 
semisanguineus var. nigrocinctus 
(Scelio), 346 
Semnianae, xxv 
senicula (Munychryta), 418 
senilis (Ophonus), 152, 215 
»,  (Platymetopus), 152, 216 
septempunctata (Coccinella), xx, xxi, 
XXii 
serena (Hoploteleia), 341 
sericea (Andrena), 219, 225, 230, 237, 
258, 254, 269, 273, 275, 290, 302, 
317 
sericipennis (Anaulacus), 158, 211 
Sericostoma, 393 
Setodes, 393 
setosa (Pselaphanax), 194, 216 
», (Selina), 194, 216 
sexfasciata (Nomada), 229, 232, 234, 
268, 270, 307, 312, 315, 318, 319 
sexguttata (Anthia), 121, 200, 211 
sexguttatus (Carabus), 121, 211 
sexpunctatus (Chlaenius), 203, 212 
Sialidae, 115 . 
siamica (Clivina), 208, 212 


' signata (Nomada), 248, 270, 308, 309, 


310, 314, 316 
Silo, 398 
silvestrii (Galesus), 382 
Simaethis, xliv 
Simblephilus, 61, 62 
similis (Andrena), 228, 258, 259, 260, 
270, 292, 296, 317 
»»  (Sphecodes), 254 
simillima (Andrena), 258, 269, 286, 
287, 298 
simla (Caligula), 437 
simulans (Hoplopria), 373 
a (Hydroptila), 391, 892, 395, 
397, 424, 425, 427, 428 
sinense (Sparasion), 343 
sinicus (Harpalus), 176, 214 


CXXX1X 


sinicus (Pardileus), 215 

Siphonaptera, 97, 104, 107, 110, 114, 
117 

Siphunculata, 102 © 

Sirex, 58 

Siricidae, xlix 

smaragdulus (Carabus), 189, 211 

i (Stenolophus), 178, 189, 

217 

solea (Lygaeonematus), xvii 

Solenius, 67, 68, 69 

solidaginis (Nomada), 231, 252, 253, 
270 


solutus (Tachyporus), 399, 402 
Somoplatus, 178 
Somotrichus, 178, 216 
Sorbentia, 112 
sparsa (Hydroptila), 391, 392, 394, 
395, 397, 422, 424, 426 
Sphecodes, 221, 228, 238, 234, 236, 
237, 255, 263, 267 
Sphenophorus, 409 
Sphex, lii 
Sphodrus, 143, 146, 216 
Spilomicrus, 376 
spinidorsis (Spiniger), xxvi, xxvii 
spinigera (Andrena), 
236, 245, 246, 274, 284, 
304, 316, 317 
55 var. anglica (Andrena), 284 
spinosiceps (Acidopria), 380, 381 
= (Xyalopria), 380 
spinosus (Alysson), 64 
(Crabro), 65 
(Nysson), 65 
»,  (Pompilus), 64 
spinulosus (Sphecodes), 237 
spirifex (Sceliphron), lvii 
splendens (Colpodes), 173, 213 
splendidula (Callida), 164, 211 
cS (Lebia), 164, 215 
splendidulus (Carabus), 165, 211 
splendidus (Catascopus), 182, 212 


99 


” 


spreta (Andrena), 257, 270, 288, 293, 
294 


squamigerum (Calosoma), 203, 211 

stagmatophora (Holophysis), xxiv 

Staphylinidae, lxxvii 

statilinus (Satyrus), lxiv 

statira (Catopsilia), xii, 76, 80, 81, 84, 
86, 87, 88 

Steleodera, 195, 217 

Steriphocryptus, 54, 55 

Steropus, 175, 217 

stigma (Carabus), 169, 211 

Stilbopteryx, 96, 116 

stolidus (Harpalus), 189, 214 

(Stenolophus), 189, 217 


99 


225, 227, 231, | 


subfasciatus (Hadronotus), 3 


Stomonaxus, 160, 217 

Strangalia, 413 

Strepsiptera, 97, 99, 100, 105, 110, 112 

striata (Clivina), 206, 212 

striaticeps (Telenomus), 355 

striaticolle (Drimostoma), 160, 214 

striaticollis (Brachyaulax), 374 
(Stomonaxus), 160, 217 

Strigia, 169, 217 

striola (Abax), Ixxv 

striolata (Apegusoneura), 339 

a (Hoploteleia), 339 

Strobisia, xxiv 

stuhlmanni (Leptogenys), liv, lv 

Stylops, 228, 237, 238, 239, 251, 252, 

256, 257, 259, 264 
subaeneus (Amara), 153, 210 
(Gnathaphanus), 158, 154, 
214 

subcostatus atlanta 214 
(Harpalus), 150, 214 

50 

(Telenomus), 350 


29 


” 


| subiridescens (Dirotus), 145, 213 
| submetallicus (Abacetus), 189, 210 


3, (Distrigus), 189, 213 
subolivaceus (Amara), 153, 211 
(Gnathaphanus), 153,154, 

214 
subopaca (Andrena), 
289, 294 
subplana (Sceliacantha), 336 
subpolitus (Scelio), 344 
subproductus (Scarites), 162, 216 
subquadratus (Sphecodes), 233 
subsignans (Coptolobus), 186, 213 
5 (Scarites), 186, 216 
succincta (Andrena), 70 
(Colletes), 70, 235 
Ss (Nomada), lxi, 241, 270 
Suctoria, 102, 107 
suffusa (Perigona), 182, 216 
Sugentia, 104, 110 
suleatus (Scarites), 170, 216 
x (Tachys), 199, 217 
suleifrons (Microbracon), 59 
suturalis (Tachys), 198, 217 


99 


225, 256, 270, 


9? 


| swinhoei (Chlaenius), 171, 212 


sykesi (Chlaenius), 123, 203, 212 

sylvarum (Bombus), lxi 

sylvaticus (Geotrupes), 409 

sylvestris (Hydroptila), 396 

synadelpha (Andrena), 220, 224, 227, 
249, 250, 269, 286, 303, 317, 318 

tabida (Cepha), 57, 58 

tabidus (Sirex), 57 

tabogana (Tinthia), xxvi 

Tachyporus, 401 


cxl 


Taphria, 90 
taprobanae (Helluodes), 180, 214 
tarandi (Oedimagena), v 
tarsata {Andrena), 227, 231, 261, 262, 
270, 279, 280, 288, 295, 317 
Tarus, 169, 217 
tasmanica (Aphelotoma), xxxvi, 
XXXVii 
Teleasinae, 361 
Telenomus, 353 
tenebrioides (Catadromus), 148, 212 
Tenthredinidae, xlix, 105 
Tenthredo, 53, 54, 56 
tenuicollis (Carabus), 139, 211 
* (Chlaenius), 139, 212 
tenuicornis (Holoteleia), 335 
Teracolus, x, lxxiv, Ixxv 
Termes, lviii, 105 
terminalis (Hexagonia), 132, 214 
(Trigonodactyla), 132, 217 
terminata (Callida), 197, 211 
‘a (Hexagonia), 132, 214 
a (Trigonodactyla), 1 32, 217 
Termitidae, 100 
terrestris (Bombus), lxi 
5 (Conostigmus), 368 
testudo (Limacodes), 437 
Tetragonica, 192; 217 
tetrasemus (Thyreopterus), 164, 217 
tetraspilotus (Dromius), 163, 164, 214 
- (Mochtherus), 1638, 189, 
215 
tetrastigma (Pericallus), 143, 216 
thoracica (Andrena), Ixi, 241, 242, 
269, 272, 278, 291, 301 
thoracicus (Discelio), 348 
Thrincostoma, xlii 
thunbergi yee peels 150, 214 
Thyreopidae, 52, 55, 69 
Thyreopinae, 69 
Thyreopus, 67, 68, 69 
Thysanoptera, 97, 99, 100, 108, 115, 
118 
tibiale (Trichiosoma), 437 


tibialis (Andrena), 225, 238, 269, 270, 


284, 295, 316 

tigurina (Hydroptila), 396 

tinctipennis (Neopria), 379 
53 (Spilomicrus), 379 

Tinea, xxv 

tineana (Ancylis), Lxii 

Tineina, xxiv 

Tipula, 13 

Tirumala, xx 

togata (Allantus), 56 

tomentosus (Craspedophorus), 134, 213 
a (Panagaeus), 125,126, 127, 

134, 215 


tormentillae (Nomada), 222, 231, 261, 
262, 270, 306, 312, 315 
torridum (Thrincostoma), xliii - 
torta (Dioryche), 154, 155, 213 
Tortrix, xxix 
Trachelastatus, 57, 58 
Trachelus, 57, 58 
transversa (Clivina), 208, 212 
trechoides (Harpalus), 178, 214 
“3 (Stenolophus), 178, 189, 
2N7 
Trechus, 149, 217 
triangularis (Canthon), xxvi 
triangulum (Philanthus), 61, 62 
s: (Vespa), 61, 62 
Trichoptera, xlix, 93, 97, 99, 105, 107, 
109, 110,225 113; Dl4y taSaaee 
117 
tricinctus (Mellinus), 65 
tricolor (Amara), 152, 153, 158, 211 
»  (Cremastogaster), liii 
»  (Hypharpax), 152, 214 
tridentata (Andrena), 252, 269, 287, 
298 
Trigonodactyla, 132, 217 
trimaculatus (Acanthogenius), 130, 


210 

ip (Carabus), 129, 211 

ie (Macrochilus), 129, 130, 
176, 215 


trimmerana (Andrena), 219, 2238, 225, 
227, 230, 231, 236, 
245, 246, 247, 269) 
272, Zid 2a. Zs. 
284, 304, 305, 317, 


318 

a var. scotica (Andrena), 
284, 305 

BS var. spinigera (Andrena), 
269, 274 


tripustulatus (Brachinus), 124, 211 
3 (Helluo), 124, 214 
a (M acrochilus), 124, 215 
af (Pheropsophus), 130, 216 
Triteleia, 328 
troglodyta (Sirex), 57 
trogositoides (Morio), 188, 215 
Tropidocarabus, 181, 217 
truncata (Hemilexis), 377 
truncativentris (Telenomus), 353, 355 
Tryphoninae, 60 
Trypoxylon, 60 
turneri (Ceratobaeoides), 362 
»,  (Ceratobaeus), 362 
»,  (Proctotrupes), 363 
umbripennis (Perigona), 216 
oe (Trechicus), 181, 217 
umbrosa (Tachys), 190, 217 


a a i 


exli 


umbrosa (Tachyta), 190, 217 
undulatus (Parascelio), 342 
unguiculus (Kumenes), ]xi 
unicolor (Bothriopria), 376 

>, (Cemonus), 70 

pop (Crabro): 70 

>,  (Miscelus), 183, 215 

ae (Sphex), 70 

iS (Spilomicrus), 376 

»,  (Symphyus), 145, 217 
unidentata (Desera), 167, 213 

tg (Drypta), 167, 214 

unifasciata (Lebia), 178, 215 
unifasciatus (Somotrichus), 178, 216 
Uroceridae, 105 


urticae (Vanessa), 4, 5, 6, 7, 18, 25, 


28, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 
vaga (Andrena), 242, 269, 272, 278, 
282, 290, 302 
»,  (Sphex), 67 
vagus (Solenius), 67, 68, 69 
vallator (Lygaeonematus), xii 
Vanessidae, 7 
variabilis (Hyponomeuta), 36 
varians (Andrena), 224, 230, 247, 248, 
249, 250, 269, 274, 275, 
282, 286, 303, 317 
9 var. mixta (Andrena), 227, 
249, 304 
variegata (Antestia), 351, 354 
“ (Palarus), 65 
a (Tiphia), 65, 66 
venezuelensis (Scelio), 348 
viduatorius (Cryptus), 54 
(Hedycryptus), 54 
vinula (Dicranura), 437 
viola (Charaxes), Ixxvi, xxvii 
violacea (Xylocopa), Ixi 
violaceus (Colpodes), 1xiii 
fs (Prosapegus), 321 
Vipio, 59 


Vipionidae, 59 
Vipioninae, 59 
virgata (Drypta), 167, 214 
viridicollis (Lesticus), 148, 215 
Fi (Omaseus), 148, 215 
Pe (Trigonotoma), 148, 217 
vitalisi (Abia), xxxvii 
vogleri (Citheronia), Ixxii 
vomitoria (Calliphora), 22 
vulgaris (Melolontha), 401, 404, 408 
is (Vespa), ]xi, lxix 
vulneripennis (Gnathaphanus), 149, 
214 


w-album (Chattendenia), xxix 


* (Thecla), xii 
wallacei (Catascopus), 205, 212 
Ha (Hoplopria), 374 
= (Seelio), 344 
wallichi (Carabus), 171, 181, 211 
wesmaeli (Lygaeonematus), xvii 
westermanni (Selina), 194, 216 
whithilli (Catascopus), 200, 201, 212 
wilkella (Andrena), 220, 221, 223, 
225, 228, 258, 259, 260, 270, 273; 
276, 277, 278, 292, 296 
wollastoni (Conostigmus), 367 
x (Oxylabis), 372 
xanthacrus (Chlaenius), 187, 212 
xanthopus (Halictus), 221 
xanthosticta (Nomada), 252, 261, 270, 
308, 314, 316 
Xyloryctidae, xiv 
yamamai (Antheraea), 438 
Zavipio, 59 
Zeugloptera, 113 
Zoraptera, 93, 98, 101, 105, 466 
zotale (Romilius), 328 
Zygaenidae, 433 
Zygaeninae, xxv, 433 
Zygothoraca, 110 


exli 


ERRATA. 


TRANSACTIONS. 


Page 79, line 8 from top, for eastern read western. 

Page 80, line 27 from top, for east central read west central. 
Page 328, line 7 from top, for Zssorora read Jssororo. 

Page 341, line 12 from bottom, for Zssorora read Jssororo. 

Page 353, line 20 from top, for Lnt. WZ. May. read Ent. May. 
Page 433, line 5 from bottom, for coeandica read cocandica. 
Page 434, line 13 from top, for rubritinetalis read rubritinctalis. 
Page 466, line 9 from bottom, for acurately read accurately. 


PROCEEDINGS. 


Paze xl, line 11 from bottom, for larantensis read laratensis. 

Page xliv, line 3 from bottom, for Orchemat read Orchemia. 

Page Ix, line 17 from bottom, for Cryptorrynchus read Cryptorrhyncus. 
Page Ixii, line 14 from bottom, for Cart. read Curt. 


PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLay & Sons, Litrep, 
BRUNSWICK ST., STAMFORD S1., S.E. 1, AND BUNGAY, SUFYOLK. 


ie 
— 


wah si 


oY fs ae tS ay % rae hy Dani MA. Ta er, Ce nahin t 
mi > ’ . Rode Me eyed bis 


Hig, Aaa Oe vel one aaa if. wore ‘the 
ry be @ k A eh. Seth my ee i ty Chin eae toa. 4 dict yah : 4 , 


PSone yey, AR AR, Pa leg es ie Bt. 
; a, ee ee. ote (Se fim bs ty Cee Syne Prag aes 
nye I Tae TDG tet OL RAIR ctnylelek. eRe” Wig taFiaallik 
ine fae 4 eo ae ; Mp. 1 irene ; oy HEM vehi : 
bat t i AP Ast , vg ; i ae AL 
Aa Ad, Waa SE ae ee hee < aie HAY plein wie i oh 
i } 
f Vo a's Hl 
) Aa i od i ae 
Br eb, i y q Pi I itetork Naeb Ge Hh 
ae Rit Aes ; ae eS (Res duel bey 
Diy BM REGS oe Alf, 
ae i 1 ey ie ' ng, , x 
7 
| 
4 
% i 
5) 


HN a Pete 
My 


Ws! 


Wei) 

WANG? 

OAM 
i