SCIENTIFIC NOTES. 361 



and inquiline ; 433 Synevf/us remhardi, 145 ^ s and 288 $ s ; 47 

 St/nen/Hs melanopns ; 15 Chalcids. From five galls no flies had 

 emerged, and on cutting them open (November 10th) I found each 

 contained from 3 to 12 larvfe, these appeared to be healthy and as if about 

 to pass the winter in the larval stage, and I have no doubt they are 

 S. reinhardi. The larvae of the Si/nerr/i occupy the centre of the gall, 

 each forming a separate pear-shaped cell, the small end attached to 

 the centre, and may contain from tAvo to twelve or more cells. 

 When the latter, or any approximate, number, the cells are so 

 arranged that they form a round ball, the extra lodgers, if any, finding 

 accommodation in other parts of the gall. C. koUari galls, in most 

 cases, are attacked by the Si/nerr/i while the galls are soft and green, 

 I submitted some to my friend Mr. Garstang who says : " The soft 

 green gall you asked me to examine, was penetrated through and 

 through by brown streaks, which seemed to have been caused by the 

 passage of numerous ovipositors. In the very centre was a bunch of 

 from twelve to twenty pedunculated eggs, exactly like those in the 

 ovary of the ? s I examined before " (ovary of Cijnips hdlari). From 

 this it appears that the larva of C. kollari may be killed by the 

 ovipositor of the Synenjus coming in contact with the young larva, 

 which at that time must be very sensitive ; if not killed that way, it 

 may be eaten or starved to death. — G. C. Bignell, F.E.S., The Ferns, 

 Homo Park Eoad, Saltash, Cornwall. November 11th, 1901. 



On the distribution of certain British Lepidoptera. — The dis- 

 tribution of Malacosowa oieustria, in Britain, offers one of the greatest 

 puzzles to the student of the distribution of our native lepidoptera. 

 Scarcely less puzzling is that of Sj^hin.v liynstrl, which practically fails 

 beyond the midlands, whilst the distribution of Suierinthus ocellatus 

 and .S'. tiliac, and that of Eutricha qnercifolia are hardly less remark- 

 able. The first-named of these Sphingids almost entirely fails in 

 Yorkshire, Cumberland, Durham and Northumberland, yet a recent 

 record received from Mr. Lofthouse shows that it is a resident in the 

 eastern part of our largest county, and odd specimens are recorded 

 from Hartlepool, Roxburgh, and four places in the Clyde basin. 

 A record of the capture of this species, however, in a recent 

 number of The Naturalist, in Northumberland, almost certainly 

 refers to S. convolvuli, and we suspect also that the reference to Choero- 

 campa elpenor, in the same note, is an error for C. porcellm. The 

 distribution of C. elpenor, too, in the northern counties of England and 

 the southern counties of Scotland is very puzzling ; it is said to be 

 common locally in Lancashire and Westmorland, and yet is so rare in 

 Durham and Northumberland that only two (we believe) ancient 

 records exist, nor can we find any for the border counties of Scotland, yet 

 it has been recorded from as far north as Ayrshire, Perthshire and Aber- 

 deen. What are the northern limitsof this species ? C. porcellns goes, we 

 believe, up to Sutherland. What, too, are the northern limits of ^'. 

 ocellatus and .S'. tiliae / It is amazing that one can get more informa- 

 tion about a species like Fetasia nubcciilosa from Scotch lepidopterists 

 than one can of S. ocellatus or S. tiliae. Are the species really so rare 

 as they appear to be in Scotland ? An odd record of the former species 

 exists for Roxburgh, and one from Aberdeen, whilst there is an odd 

 one of the latter from Cumberland and three from the Clyde basin. I 

 should be glad to have authoritative information of the occurrence of 



