1901.] 1(39 



REDISCOVERY OF LOXOPERA DEAURANA, Peye., WITH A 

 NOTE ON ITS LIFE-HISTORY. 



BY T. A. CHAPMAN, M.D., F.Z.S., 

 With Notes by J. HARTLEY DUHRANT, F.E.S. 



'I'liis spring (March) T thought it might be worth while to ex- 

 amine, on the lie 8te. Marguerite at Cannes, the dead stems of 

 Siiii/n/,iiiiJi ohixatrum (which is ahnost more abundant there than the 

 giant fennel), for larvjo of Loxopera. The question was, were there 

 any, and if so, were they franc ill o nana as in the fennel or another 

 s|)ecies. The stems duly yielded Loxopera larva), but much less freely 

 than the fennel ; frequently, indeed, stems occurred without any. It 

 is difficult to say how many a stem contains, without completely 

 chopping it up. I should say, however, that six or eight to a stem 

 was the average of tenanted ones, and a score probably an outside 

 number, as against 20 to 100, or possibly even more, that practically 

 every fennel plant contained. Of course it must be remembered that 

 the Snujrnlwm stem is not so large as that of the fennel, and is more- 

 over hollow. Could one carry off a few faggots of the stems no 

 doubt any number of moths might be bred ; I took only a few selected 

 pocket samples, some of which have yielded nothing, one produced 

 five moths. These Mr. Durrant informs me are L. deaurana, Peyr. 

 They emerged usually about 6 — 7 a.m. at various dates from April 

 29th to May 15th, at which date no L. francUlonana, kept in the same 

 room, had appeared. This earlier appearance would roughly corres- 

 pond with the earlier date of flowering of the Alexanders than of the 

 Fennel. The dates are of course not necessarily those of the species 

 when at home, which would probably be rather earlier. The evidence 

 of the stems I cut up was clearly that the larvae entered the stem 

 when full grown, having previously no doubt lived in the seeds. It 

 affords an ichneumon very like the Clielonus inanitus which preys on 

 L. francillonana, and is, I believe, the same species. 



Betula, Reigate : May, 1901. 



[When Lord Walsingham published his paper on Loxopera fran- 

 cillonana, F., and its allies [Ent. Mo. Mag., XXXIV, 70—6, PI. II 

 (1898)] we were unacquainted with Gochylis deaurana, Peyr. I be- 

 lieve this species has not been taken since Peyerimhoff captured a 

 single specimen on the lie Ste. Marguerite before 1877, Milliere ^ 

 doubtless referred to the same specimen when he quoted in inverted 

 commas, " Un ex. pris au reflecteur pres de Cannes." Dr. Chapman 

 is to be congratulated on the I'cdiscovcry of this species and the 

 identification of its larva, for although Eagouot made the following 



