62 [March, 



October 8th, 1918. — During some cold da3^s none had emerged ; to- 

 day, being fine, I put the jar containing the cocoons in the sun. About an 

 hour later I found that fifteen had emerged, and another did so whilst I 

 was counting them. Of the fifteen, eight were perfect, seven had already 

 been mutilated — three had lost a leg, one had lost two legs, and three 

 had lost an antenna. 



If more than one specimen were placed in a jar with a j^iece of 

 pine for oviposition, in twenty-four hours all or all but one were much 

 mutilated and helpless. 



EXPLANATION OF PLATES I-III. 



Platji; I. — J'ig. 1. Drawing of egg-covering of Pteronus pini on margin of a 

 pine needle at basal end of leaf: a, median ridge; b, lateral ridge. 

 A lateral view. Fig. 2. Vertical (or marginal) view of cover, some- 

 what diagrammatic. Fig. 3. Young larvae of P. pini, showing social 

 method of feeding, X I5. Fig- 4. Needles with egg-pockets of P. sez-^t/Vr 

 (diagrammatic), X 4, from specimens mounted in baham ; the irregular 

 margin opposite the pockets is due to pressure forcing the thin walls of 

 the pockets out of shape ; the living specimens show no indications of the 

 margins or openings of the pockets. 



Figs. 1, 2 & 3 are by Mr. E. E. Green. 



Plate II. — Photographs, lateral views, of egg-covering of P. />^M^, by Mr. F. 

 N. Clark. Figs. 1 & 2 X 15, 3 & 4 X 20. 



Plate III. — Fig. 1. Stereoscopic photograph of needles with eggs of P. jnni. 

 Figs. 2, 3. Eggs of Cladiiis viininalis in petioles of poplar (Ent. INIo. Mag. 

 vol. liv, p. 11). Fig. 4. Eggs of Pteronidea (Nematus) sulicis. AU 

 enlarged. These photographs are by Mr. Hugh Main. 

 IJeigate. 



January 1919. 



ALLANTU8 PERKINSI, N. sp.— A NEW BRITISH SAWFLY. 

 BY THE EEV. F. D, MORICE, M.A., F.Z.S. 



We seem to have two really distinct, though extremely similar, 

 species mixed in most collections of Sawflies under the name AUantiis 

 arciiatus Forst. Dr. K. C. L. Perkins some 3"ears ago called my atten- 

 tion to this, but at the time I was not inclined to agree witli him that 

 the differences which he pointed out were of sj^ecific value. Some of 

 these, at least, were of a kind Avhich in man}' other cases I had found to 

 be inconstant, and I was probably influenced by observing that practi- 

 cally all recent describers (Cameron, Konow, Enslin, etc.) represent 

 arcuatus as an exceptionally variable species, and that, though many 

 attempts liad been made to separate fi'om it particular forms as distinct, 



