2 ARKIV FÖR ZOOLOGI. BAND 5. NIO 12. 



as an example worthy of imitation to his coiintry fellows, 

 BoucHÉ and Perris, whose descriptions of the larvse of other 

 Scymnidae he criticizes. He says^ (p. 342) »Les metamor- 

 phoses des Scymnus arcuatus Rossi (et äter Kugel) ont été 

 au contraire fort bien étudiées par Hegeer et les exellentes 

 planches qui accompagnent ces deux mémoires présentent des 

 qualités qui en garantissent suffisamment Fexactitude.» 



This eulogy is however utterly uncalled for, at least 

 as regsirds Cl. arcuatus, because the larva described under 

 that name by Hegeer is not at all the larva of that 

 beetle, as I am going to pro ve. 



From the account Hegeer gives of the opportunity he 

 had to observe the life history of CL arcuatus it is evident 

 that he has not followed the development from egg to the 

 adult. He says (p. 326) that in the spring 1856 he found 

 some small, white-powdered larvse together with Aleyrodes 

 immaculata Steph. These he recognized at once as Coccinellid- 

 larvse, and after zealous researches he found in the same 

 locality a beetle, in which he, although it managed to escape, 

 while he was looking at it with his pocket lens, at once 

 recognized Clitostetliiis] arcuatus. He brought home a plant, 

 on which were eggs and larwae of Al. immaculata, and was 

 able to observe that the larva of the beetle fed on Al. imma- 

 culata. In June Hegeer went abroad for some days and, at 

 his return, he found that the larvse had disappeared and 

 during the summer he failed to find either Al. immaculata 

 or the supposed larvse of Cl. arcuatus. 



Låter, in the beginning of August, he found again eggs 

 and larvse of Aleyrodes and adults of Clitostethus. 



It is not easy to see, how, from the data given above 

 (which are quoted from his paper), Hegeer could be able to 

 tell US both how many days the different larval stages and 

 how many the pupal stege requires, and there seems to be 

 no other explanation for this left, than that he states as 

 facts his own assumptions. 



As a matter of fact the larva described by Hegeer is 

 certainly not that of Cl. arcuatus and I very much doubt 

 that it is a larva of a beetle at all. Because, to judge from 

 the drawing Hegeer gives (Fig. 10. Pl. 5.) of the mouthparts, 

 they appear to be veritable sucking mouthparts. 



^ Annales de la Société Entomologique de France. Serie 5. T. 10. 1880. 



