February, 1915.] 25 



A very iuterestiui? point disclosed by iny observatious was the fact 

 that both tlie specimens of macuiieoUis hibernated as pupae, whereas 

 both the presumed nntata continued tlieir larval existence throughout 

 the winter months. Mr. Claude Morley has already recorded the case 

 of a larva of m'tata taicen on November 5th not pupating until 

 April 20th in the following year (Entom. xlii, p 143, 1909), and 

 this difference in the period of pupation is, perhaps, characteristic of 

 the two species under consideration. But I do not share the views 

 expressed by Mr. Morley on the same occasion, that larvae of nntata 

 are probably not carnivorous insects, but are addicted to a ligneous diet. 

 Until the end of Octolier, at least, my larvae were observed to feed with 

 great relish upon living Apliids, and upon the carcases of such Mnscidae, 

 Ti'p^didae, and other Diptera as were offered to them ; but, although 

 living flies were eventually consumed, I never saw a larva killing one 

 for itself. On one occasion a small living spider was introduced into 

 the box containing larva No. 1, but its presence caused so much 

 consternation that I soon withdrew it, and the experiment was not 

 repeated. The same larva, however, would feed on killed spiders. 

 But it must be remembered that Mr. Morley' s remarks apply to a 

 time of year when my own notata larvae had ceased feeding altogether. 

 My presumed notata specimens were provided with pieces of diy soft 

 wood after they had ceased feeding, and they quickly made channels 

 in the under surface of the wood, and rested motionless in them, back 

 downwards. Throughout their existence the larvae of both species 

 were given scraps of bark or wood beneath which they might lurk, for, 

 as was to be expected of subcortical insects, exposure to strong light 

 caused them considerable disti'ess. 



In rearing my larvae of maculicotlis, at all events, I did not ex- 

 perience the necessity for moisture insisted iipon by Mr. C. B. Williams 

 (Entom. xlvi, p. 6, 1913), and all my specimens were kept quite dry 

 in glass-bottomed boxes throughout the period of their captivity. 



All the larvae were evidently fully grown on the dates when they 

 reached me, as no larval moults whatever were observed. 



The curious ability of running backwards, proper to larval 

 Baphidia, was displayed repeatedly, and a certain amount of prehensile 

 power seemed to be possessed by the terminal segments of the 

 abdomen. In movements, as well as in appearance, these insects are 

 very ophidian, and the popular name of Snake-fly applies equally well, 

 if not better, to the larva than to the imago. 



I did not succeed in obtaining any eggs,<!^t^(^i{ %finc^^ 



'. 1Q 1,915 



