200 [August, 



SOME OBSERVATIONS ON BUPALUS PINIABIUS, L. 



BY H. G. CHAMPION, B.A. 



Having become interested last year in the ravages of Bupalus 

 piniarius at Salnriinster, S.W. Prussia (c/. Ent. Mo. Mag., vol. L., 

 p. 41), I was glad of an opportunity last Easter to see another and 

 even better example at Eberstadt, near Darmstadt, Hessen. I men- 

 tioned (loc. cit.) that at Salmiinster no steps were taken to mitigate 

 the destruction done by the larva ; at Eberstadt, however, the Forstrat 

 had applied various remedies over experimental areas, such as bringing 

 into one section a flock of 200 chickens, which I saw there working 

 very assiduously collecting the pupa?, whose numbers were estimated, 

 from sample plots examined, at about 100 per square metre over a 

 large area. In another place, the moss and needles had been raked 

 into heaps, and the work of destruction left to the birds and the sun, 

 whilst in a third section, the doubtfully advisable method of removing 

 the soil- covering, as litter, pupa? and all, had been applied. The pine 

 trees gave the impression that one had come across a hitherto unde- 

 scribed deciduous species, so completely were they stripped of needles. 



Not inconsiderable numbers of Sphinx pinastri pupae were also to 

 be found, usually two close together under each tree. No Panolis 

 piniperda pupae could be discovered, although this species is some- 

 times abundant enough to be a pest in the district. 



It occurred to me that it might be interesting to breed a few 

 imagines of the Bupalus to observe their habits, pairing, oviposi- 

 tion, &c, so I collected a number of pupae at random and brought 

 them back to Oxford with me. The first thing I noticed was that it 

 was not so easy to " sex " the pupse as I expected : the width of the 

 portion of pupal skin which covers the antennae being practically 

 identical (0016 in. half way down) in $ and $ , and the difference in 

 the transverse grooves marking the joints was by no means striking. 

 Of the 53 pupae collected, 44 were productive, giving, between April 

 28th and May 18th, 22 $ <$ and 22 $ $ , the former emerging, as usual, 

 earlier than the latter (e. g., on May 3rd, the total was 18 <$ $ and 

 5 ? ?). With two exceptions, the failures were attributable to a 

 Tachinid fly, kindly named for me by Mr. Wainwright as Carcelia excisa, 

 Fall., whose larvae had apparently made their way out of the pupal 

 case of their hosts, one or two from each, and themselves pupated in 

 the mould. The flies emerged between May 20th and June 2nd, nine 

 of them in all. Two <$ specimens of an ichneumon kindly named as 



