MALACODERMIDAE FIRE-FLIES GLOW-WORMS 249 



{Luciola} of Southern Europe are an example of the latter con- 

 dition. They are gregarious, and on calm, warm nights crowds 

 of them may be seen moving and sparkling in a charm- 

 ing manner. These individuals are all, or nearly all, males ; 

 so rare indeed is the female that few entomologists have even 

 noticed it. The writer once assisted in a large gathering of 

 Luciola italica in the Val Anzasca, which consisted of many 

 hundreds of specimens ; all of those he caught, either on the 

 wing or displaying their lights on the bushes, w r ere males, but 

 he found a solitary female on the ground. This sex possesses 

 ordinary, small eyes instead of the 

 large, convex organs of the male, 

 and its antennae and legs are 

 much more feeble, so that though 

 provided with elytra and wings 

 it is altogether a more imper- 

 fect creature. Emery has given 

 an account of his observations 

 ,iii(l experiments on this Insect, 

 but they do not give any clear 

 idea as to the exact function of 

 the light. 1 In our British glow- 

 worm the female is entirely apter- 

 ous hence the name glow-worm F I- l29.Phengodes hier&nymi. Cor- 

 doba, South America. (After Haase.) 



-but the male has elytra and A. Male ; B, female, i, i, Positions 

 ample wings, and frequently flies of luminous spots ;/, spiracles. About 

 at night into lighted apartments. 



Although so little has been ascertained as to the light of Lampy- 

 ridae, there are two facts that justify us in supposing that it is in 

 some way of importance to the species. These are: (1) that in a great 

 many species the eyes have a magnificent and unusual develop- 

 ment ; (2) that the habits of the creatures are in nearly all cases 

 nocturnal. It is true that the little Phosphacnus hemipterus is 

 said to be diurnal in habits, but it is altogether an exceptional 

 form, being destitute of wings in both sexes, and possessed of 

 only very feeble light-giving powers, and we have, moreover, 

 very little real knowledge as to its natural history ; it is said 



1 Bull. cut. ital. 1886, p. 406, and Ent. Zcit. Stettin, : xliii. 1887, pp. -201-206. 

 Emery does not mention the name of the species, but we presume it to be the 

 common Italian fire-fly, Luciola it< 



