THE LIFE-HISTORY OF CHATTENDENIA (kDWAKDSIa) W-ALBUM. 161 



help me, for he merely figured the larva and pupa without a word of des- 

 cription, and this seemed to have been largely the origin of Barrett's in- 

 formation, so that one can say honestly that of the lifehistory hitherto 

 nothing was really known. The attention that the author and his helpers 

 have given to the "larva" and "pupa," and everything connected there- 

 with, will attract the real naturalist, and the field-worker should be 

 able to clear up some of the strange details quoted by various authors 

 as to possible "foodplants," of which "ash," "lime," "oak," "sallow," 

 and "sloe" all look a little impossible, although Newnham vouches 

 for "ash," whilst Reaumur's observations on "the larval preparation for 

 pupation," written in June, 1730, are almost incomparable. 



Of other interesting items absolutely ignored by all other British 

 authors, the extended notes on the "scales" and " androconia," the 

 detailed account of the "variation," of which iteiiiialborin/ata is a very 

 remarkable form, are very attractive ; whilst the notes on " habitats " 

 and " habits" breathe of the fields and woods, and bring to mind the 

 lovely days we have all spent in the woodlands of our own " home " 

 county, whichever it may be, the Avoodlands of France and Central 

 Europe, or the wild slopes of the alps where this species occurs. 

 Its British range gives us some 40 counties as against the 22 of 

 Newman and 21 of Barrett and South, the latter of whom, in his 

 recent work, seems largely to copy the former, and, how fatal this 

 copying is, for Barrett says that Yorkshire appears to be the "northern" 

 limit of this interesting species, that "in the west it is recorded no 

 further than Cheshire and Shropshire " — yet our author turns out a 

 record for " Dumfries " by Lennon (an excellent collector in his day); 

 he also notes it from " Carnarvon," " Flint," " Glamorgan," 

 "Merioneth," "Monmouth," "Radnor," and "Somerset," all of 

 which are beyond the western limits of Barrett, as copied by South. 

 Similarly, South gives it as only occurring "in Essex, generally common 

 near Maldon," whilst our author notes it as occurring in " Essex : 

 appearing to be wherever there is wych-elm, and generally distributed 

 — Epping (Doubleday), Bergholt Woods near Colchester (Harwood), 

 Maldon (Fitch), North Fambridge (Whittle), Stanstead (Spiller), 

 Withiim (Burnell), Beeleigh, Coggleshall, Danbury, Hazeleigh, Bur- 

 leigh (Raynor), etc." Similarly, in most works, the old record of 

 Stephens in 1835 largely does duty for " Surrey," whilst in the new 

 volume we find " Guildford, Godalming, Witley, Cobham (Newman), 

 Ripley near Windsor (Stephens), Esher (Fleet), Clay gate (Barrett), 

 Shere (Tremayne), West Wickham Wood (Fletcher), Chertsey (A. H. 

 Clarke), Box Hill (Oldaker), Reigate district (Tonge), etc." As a final 

 shot against haphazard copying, I would note that South, in 1906, 

 observes that " the egg has been described as whitish in colour, and is, in 

 shape something like an orange. with a depression on the top," yet, in 

 1897, an actual detailed description of the egg of Chattendenia w-albiun. 

 was available {Ent. Uec, ix., p. 292), i.e., published ten years earlier 

 than this erroneous description was copied from Newman. 



Of the plates illustrating this special species, besides the figures 

 (pi. i) showing the chief forms of the imago, there are many points to 

 notice : (1) The marvellous difference between the egg of this insect 

 and those of its allies as exemplified in pi. ii, in Avhich the eggs of all 

 the British "hairstreaks" are beautifully reproduced from photographs 

 by Mr. Tonge. (2) The great difference also between the pupal hairs 



