NOTES ON COLLECTING, ETC. 297 



was still more peculiar, for T took down two females on a suitable day, 

 both having emerged on the same morning, with this result, that, while 

 one female attracted a large number of males, the other only attracted 

 two or three during the whole morning. I noticed that the attracting 

 female was very restless, that she usually rested with her abdomen 

 distended in a peculiar manner, and that on the approach of the male, 

 when he began to buzz about the cage where she was confined, she 

 ■ became much excited. On the other hand, the unattractive female was 

 perfectly quiet and apparently in a sleepy state. Not till the flight was 

 nearly over did she show any signs of restlessness, or rest with her 

 abdomen extended in the manner I have mentioned, and not till then 

 did she attract a single male, but when this began, she attracted two at 

 once. I gather, therefore, that in this species, the females are only 

 .attractive when they are in the humour for pairing. The pairing of 

 these insects is most extraordinary. If you allow the male to enter the 

 •cage where the female is, he buzzes about for a moment, then he does 

 not alight, but backing towards the female they pair, and the male 

 almost instantaneously drops as if lifeless, suspended, of course, by the 

 female. The contrast between the apparently lifeless body, thus 

 hanging, and the insect that a moment before had been buzzing about, 

 its wings moving with extraoidinary rapidity, a simple mass of vitality, 

 is something to be remembered. My next experience was a failure. I 

 attempted to " semble " with S. culiciformis, when I quite expected to 

 be successful. I went to get the pupas but was too late, and only 

 secured one, which emerged directly after I obtained it, and proved to 

 be a fine female. The morning was bright and sunny, and she buzzed 

 about freely, but not a single male came. I can only understand this 

 by assuming that the males were over. I saw one or two which I think 

 were females depositing, but it seems strange that all the males should 

 have died so soon. — A. Robinson, i. Mitre Court Buildings, Temple. 

 October, 1891. 



DOUBLE-BROODEDNESS OF CiDARIA SILACEATA. 1 think Mr. Tutt is 



wrong in assuming this species to be double-brooded on such slight 

 evidence. Numberless cases of autumn emergence of early summer 

 species occur ; but before we can conclude they are truly double- 

 brooded, it will have to be shown that the ova are properly developed 

 in the female, and that the larvEe would feed up and pupate. I never 

 bred the insect till this year, and they have been emerging slowly ever 

 since. My friend, Mr. Gardner, who has reared it frequently, tells me 

 that his experience is the same, and that some of them always emerge 

 in the autumn. I notice a specimen is out to-day. — John E. Robson, 

 Hartlepool. November 22nd, 1891. 



Under ordinary circumstances, perhaps it would be unwise to suppose 

 that Cidaria silaceata is double-brooded, on the mere fact that I 

 happened to capture a fair number of what was undoubtedly a second 

 brood of this species in the Isle of Wight in August, 1889, but this 

 personal knowledge is supplemented by the information of many 

 correspondents and friends in the South of England who all treat it as 

 a distinctly double-brooded species, and not only so, but speak of its 

 strong tendency to seasonal dimorphism. The first brood in the south 

 consists usually of fairly large specimens, with the central band well 

 broken in a majority of specimens. The second brood consists of much 



D 



