62 Transactions, — Zoology. 



Art. V. — On New Zealand Glow-worms. 



By G. V. Hudson. 



[Read before the Wellington Philosophical Society, ith August, 1886.] 



Plate VIa. 



The following article by Mr. Meyrick appeared in tlie " Ento- 

 mologists' Monthly Magazine," for April, 1886 : — 



" A Luminous Insect Larva in N.Z. — Whilst collecting 

 recently after dark beside a densely shaded creek near Auckland, 

 New Zealand, I observed the precipitous earthy banks of the 

 creek illuminated with great numbers of a larva, which has, I 

 believe, never been reared. It resembles in general appearance 

 an Annelid, being about an inch and a half in length, very 

 slender, slimy, and without apparent organs ; but under a micro- 

 scope (as Prof. Hutton has shown me) the head appears that of 

 a predaceous coleopterous larva — e.g., one of the StaphylinidcB. 

 The light consists of a small light-greenish white erect flame, 

 rising from the back of the neck. The larva burrows in the 

 earth, exposing the head and anterior portions from the burrow, 

 but having in front of them a sort of irregular slimy network. 

 They occur in great numbers ; I have counted fifty in a square 

 foot of surface. The same or a similar species has been noticed 

 in caves and mines elsewhere in New Zealand. It is impossible 

 for a wandering entomologist to attack a larva of these habits. I 

 should therefore be interested if any reader can give me a 

 clue to its systematic identification. I suppose that it is car- 

 nivorous, feeding on minute insects, and I conjecture that it 

 uses its lamp (as I do mine) to attract them, or perhaps to see 

 to eat them. — E. Meyrick, Wellmgton, N.Z. — 24th January, 

 1886." 



" [There is distinct necessity for further mformation (with 

 examples in fluid) respecting the animal noticed above. The 

 larvsD of Staphylinidce are ordinarily so like the perfect insect in 

 form (allowing for absence of elytra, etc.) that we venture to 

 doubt the connection of the animal with that family. — 

 Editors, ' Eut. Mon. Magazine.'] " 



It is extremely unfortunate that such an erroneous state- 

 ment as the above, concerning one of our most interesting 

 insects, should bo the first to reach the ears of the London 

 entomologists ; and as it is the opinions of those gentlemen that 

 will most influence us out here, I have instituted a number of 

 observations on the insect, a summary of which I have sent in 

 answer to the Editors' note, and propose to relate them to-night 



