EVERES ALCETAS. 



231 



and he showed me a fine specimen of ■■'Hi/lotnipes bajulits he took in 

 his window a few years ago. 



I bred specimens of the fly PIn/to melanocephala, Mg., from wood- 

 hce taken under stones at Bembridge. The pupa of the fly filled up 

 the inside of the wood-louse. Mr. Austin tells me this is of great 

 interest, as the life-history of this fly is quite unknown, though the 

 larva of a nearly-related species, Rliinophora atra)iientaria, Mg., has 

 been recorded in (hiisciis aselliis. 



A few bugs I took may be worthy of mention, Coreua dentieidata, 

 Scop., MirUiiis (juadrivinnatus, Costa, Piezodosns incarnatus, Gem., 

 and Mt'tacantJtKs punctijie.s, were swept at Sandown, and Allia 

 acuDiinata, L., at Bembridge. The most niteresting captures, however, 

 were specimens of Urtliottjlns riibiilKs, Put., larvte and perfect insects 

 being taken on a mud flat at Bembridge. They jumped upon 

 young shoots of Salicornia herbacea ("Marsh Samphire") and Suaeda 

 maritimo, and, as their colour is exactly of the same shade of pink as the 

 plants, they become, of course, invisible. 



In Hymenoptera, Formica rufibarbis va,Y.fi(sco-ri(fibarbif; is common 

 at SandoAvn, etc. I took a number of the little ant Solenopsis fiKja.v at 

 Blackgang, all at roots of Arenaria nuiritiiiia, some with Lanittn fiarits 

 and L. ni;ier, and some alone. Mutilla niripes, 3 , was taken at 

 Luccombe, and ? s at Blackgang. A fine 2 of Methoca ichnenDion- 

 oides was captured crawling on the mud in Blackgang Chine. The 

 Fossor, Melli)nis arrensis, w^as captured at Blackgang and Whiteclifi" 

 Bay ; in each case with a Dipteron, its prey, in its clutches. I saw it 

 catch and paralyse instantly, the fly at Blackgang. 



Everes alcetas (coretas) as a distinct species from Everes argiades. 



By J. W. TUTT, F.E.S. 

 In the April number of this magazine {antea pp. 79 et stv/.) I dis- 

 cussed the question of Everes ar;iiades and E. alcetas, from the point of 

 view that they were forms of the same species. I particularly brought 

 forward all the points in favour of considering them the same, and 

 left out the facts that told in the opposite direction. By taking this 

 view (opposite to that which had recently been expressed by various 

 entomologists — Jachontov, Brown, Oberthiir, etc.) I hoped to get 

 (1) answers to the difticulties I set up in the acceptance of them as 

 separate species, (2) more definite knowledge of the structure of the 

 two forms, particularly as to whether the details of their ancillary 

 structure presented any good characters of differentiation. I have 

 unfortunately not been able to draw an answer to the points raised 

 in the first query, and there still remain the especial difficulties 

 created (1) by the record of alcetas (curetas) as a mere aberration, occur- 

 ring very rarely with the type form in certain parts of Russia, Ger- 

 many, Lower Austria, Hungary, etc. ; (2) the absence of any direct 

 information showing that in Kussia, Germany, Austria, etc., where 

 both insects occur, there is any dift'erentiation in the life-cycles, habits, 

 habitats, etc. In fact, the general statements available incline, indeed, 

 in the opposite direction, and this information, still most important and 

 desirable, can only be obtained by lepidopterists on the spot. In 

 Switzerland and in France we appear to have got the matter fairly 

 well in hand, and have evidence to show that the forms are differen- 



