NOTES ON COLLECTING. 335 



very small quantities after a long and careful search. Autumnal 

 macro larvte have also been very scarce, except those of Manientra 

 persicariae, which have proved, a perfect pest in gardens, where no plant, 

 shrub, or tree — except evergreens — has escaped their ravages. — B. A. 

 Bower, Chislehurst. October 21.sf, 1904. 



Autumnal emergence of Cerura furcula and abundance of Plusla 

 GAMMA. — I have done so little entomological work this season that I 

 have no matters of interest to note. Out of a brood of L'erura fmnda 

 that was sleeved out, two imagines emerged in September, I have 

 worked a little for autumnal larvae in the Norfolk Broads, but have 

 not been successful, nor am I quite certain what the few I have still 

 feeding are, but hope to have something to say of them if I get them 

 through. Pliisid t/annna is unusually abundant here just now, and is 

 very busy among my crocuses whenever the sun shines. — E. A. 

 Bowles, M.A., Waltham Cross. October 24:th, 1904. 



Aglais urtic/E chased and captured by WAGTAIL. — At the end of 

 July and the beginning of August, this year, I was spending a part of 

 my holiday at Watchet, in north Somerset. One of my favourite 

 walks was along the derelict mineral railway, to the Brendons, through 

 very pretty scenery, and, no doubt, entomologically, one of the best 

 collecting-grounds of the district. On August 1st, my son and I made 

 an extended exploration of this Brendon railway. When we were 

 passing near Cleeve Abbey, we noticed in front of us two birds 

 assiduously pursuing a butterfly, which was dodging and doubling 

 about to elude them. We got as close as we could without unduly 

 disturbing the birds, and found that they were wagtails. One bird 

 practically abandoned the pursuit, but the other was most persistent, 

 and, at last, knocked the butterfly down, but failed to capture it. Upon 

 our going forward to ascertain the species it rose and flew with a 

 somewhat weak flight. The bird at once followed, at first behind, then 

 by the side of the butterfly and level with it, then it curved round in 

 front of it, as if to stop it, iDut at once dived down under and success- 

 fully caught it by the body. We stood still to watch the process 

 further, and saw the bird fly to the iron rail and at once knock off 

 the wings. Apparently the body was eaten as we only found the 

 wings. We identified the species as Ai/lais nrticae. There are one or 

 two points which struck me as being particularly interesting. The 

 bird's flight, instead of being in the customary straight or somewhat 

 curved line, was in a very intricate curve, and evidently made with a 

 very definite purpose in view, which was the seizure of the solid body 

 part of the insect and the avoidance of the wings. This very definite 

 method used by the bird proves that it was not a mere attack brought 

 on by curiosity, but the result of experience, which had taught it that 

 the body and not the wings was the desired tit-bit. Most field- 

 entomologists have repeatedly iBet with detached wings of butterflies 

 and moths. So far as my experience goes, if they are injured it is not 

 by marginal gaps from pieces torn out, apparently by the beaks of 

 birds, but by slits from the base caused by the violent rupture when the 

 body was eaten. The suggestion seems to be that the gaps in the 

 margins are mainly caused during the education of the more or less 

 young birds, and that older birds, having learned where the eatable 

 part is, as a rule go direct for it, yet, however, often hustling and 

 snapping at the intended victim to disable it. — H. J. Turner, F.E.S., 

 98, Drakefell Road, Hatcham. October 28th, 1904. 



