^(} [September, 



brown, with a black border. There are two Zygsenids : one (the commoner) is a 

 very curious and pretty insect, entirely black, except a very large hyaline patch in 

 each wing, and a large crimson blotch on the dorsal surface of the abdomen ; the 

 otber belongs to the genus Glaucopis, and is a very brilliant creature, varied with 

 crimson, steel-blue, and purple-brown, with the whole body glittering metallic-green. 

 It flies high, and is difficult to catch, although not rare. The other moths are, with 

 few exceptions, obscure dingy things, small Botydce being especially well represented. 

 I have found two pretty Notodontidce (one, a pale brown, Cymatophorid-looking 

 thing, being beaten abundantly in the larval state from the Paqui tree. From the 

 same tree I have bred (from a large yellowish-grey half looper) a fine Erebus ?, nearly 

 four inches in expanse, not unlike our Mania maura in aspect. Noctuae, however, are 

 decidedly scarce, and Geometrce still more so, though among the latter are one or 

 two charming little " Emeralds," one of them a perfect miniature of our Phorodesma 

 bajuJaria, only about half the size. The other Orders of insects offer little that is 

 remarkable : the dragon-flies, caddis-flies, Hemerobii, &c, are remarkably like our 

 own species. There are one or two fine Empidce, and other X>>ptera,a\id. some large 

 and conspicuous Pompilidce, Sphegidce, Vespidce, &c, besides a superabundance of 

 mosquitoes, sand-flies, and other equally (or more) objectionable insects. Scorpions, 

 three inches and upwards in length, are occasionally met with under stones, but the 

 district is remarkably free from snakes ; I have only seen one, and he was a harm- 

 less species. — James J. Walker, H.M.S. " Kingfisher," Pacific Station : 2bth May, 

 1881. 



On the variable number of moults in larvce from the same batch of eggs. — Last 

 year I reared a few Orgyia antiqua from the egg, and what I then observed impressed 

 me with the belief that the larva? did not all moult the same number of times, but 

 as I had not kept them separate I did not like to say anything about it in print. 

 This spring I again found a batch of eggs, and securing the first four larva? that were 

 hatched I carefully separated and watched them, and made notes at once of every 

 change that occurred, and these notes I now present in a tabular form. 



No. 1. No. 2. No. 3. No. 4 



Hatched 24th May 25th May 26th May 26th May. 



Moulted 4th June 2nd June 2nd June ... 2nd June. 



Moulted 17th June 7th June 7th June 9th June. 



Moulted 28th June 20th June 19th June 21st June. 



Moulted 6th July — 1st July 1st July. 



Moulted — — — 11th July. 



Spun up 16th July 2nd July 13th July 22nd July. 



Moth emerged... 5th August d ...20th— 21st July 6 ...25th July 9 ... 4th August $. 



They were all treated alike, except that No. 2 had rather a smaller bottle, and 

 No. 4 a larger bottle to live in, than Nos. 1 and 3, but these last had two bottles oi 

 precisely the same size and shape ; the food was whitethorn, and they seemed to 

 prefer that which came from our garden well flavoured with " blacks " from the 

 surrounding chimneys. I fancy I somewhat disturbed No. 1 in his first moult, and 

 so retarded his growth, but this has caused no eventual harm, he has come out a finer 

 moth than No. 2.— J. Helli^b, Exeter : August, 1881. 



