EUCLIDIA GLYPHICA. 169 



The Larvae of Euclidia glyphica, L., and E. mi, CI. 



By E. A. COCKAYNE, D.xM., F.E.C.P., F.E.S. 



In an attempt to identify a larva, which I found at Folkestone in 

 1899 and at first attributed to ijlyphica, I was unable to find any 

 description of a British species with which it agreed and thought it 

 must be the larva of some rare immigrant. Mj' first surmise was 

 right. But my search has revealed such an amazing number of 

 incorrect descriptions and figures m both British and continental works 

 that I have ventured to send the following notes and quotations. They 

 demonstrate a series of errors, which in the case of such common 

 insects must be almost without a parallel. 



The larvae of our two species of Euclidia are very similar in colour 

 and markings, the most obvious difference in this respect being that, 

 in (jli/phica there is a fairly large oblong chocolate-coloured spot 

 situated on the pale mid-ventral surface of the 8th segment and a much 

 smaller one on the 7th, whereas in mi these are wanting. It is the 

 number of prolegs which has given rise to all the trouble. E. mi has 

 only three pairs, those proper to the 7th and 8th segments being 

 entirely absent. E. (/li/p/iica has four pairs, those proper to the 7th 

 segment being absent and those on the 8th reduced to about balf the 

 size of the others. Tbus )iii is twelve footed, and f/bjiiltica is fourteen 

 footed. 



Humphreys and Westwood in British Moths and their Transforma- 

 tions, 1851, say of the genus Euclidia, "Mr. Stephens, indeed, described 

 them as sixteen footed, which Mr. Curtis attempted to correct, by 

 stating that they possess fourteen feet, ingeniously throwing a leaf 

 over that portion of his figure of the larva, which would bave shown 

 his own error." This little gibe would have been more justifiable if 

 these authors had given a correct description themselves. Unfortunately 

 they call the larva twelve footed and Humphreys repeats the mistake 

 in his British Motlis. The figure of <il]i})hica in Curtis' British I'Jnto- 

 molofjy, is a masterpiece. Tbe prolegs on the 9th and 10th segments 

 are clearly shown, but a little leaf of trifolium prevents one from 

 seeing whether there are any on the 7th or 8th. 



The letterpress, too, is worded with skilful ambiguity. In small 

 print Curtis says " the larvae of Euclidia have but fourteen feet, not 

 sixteen as stated by Mr. Stephens." In some general remarks 

 in large print lower down on the same page he says the 

 larvae are " semi-loopers, cylindric, naked, with 6 pectoral, 4 

 abdominal and 2 anal feet." The first is correct if applied to i/lijphica, 

 the second to mi, but neither applies to the genus as a whole. In 

 his special description of mi he states definitely and correctly that there 

 are 4 abdominal feet, but in that of ijli/phica he gives no number. In 

 Stainton's Manual and in his British Butterjlies and Moths both species 

 are said to have 12 legs, and Wilson in his Larvae of the British Le/d- 

 doptera quotes the Manual in the case of ijli/phica without giving a 

 figure. Newman, in his Illustrated Natural History of British Moths, 

 says " the larva of ylyphica is figured by Hiibner and there are but two 

 pairs of ventral claspers (on the 9th and 10th segments)." Meyrick, 

 Handbook of British Lepidoptera, gives in his definition of Euclidia, 

 " Larva slender without prolegs on 7 and 8." Buckler, Larvae of 

 British Butterflies and Moths, copies Porritt's description correctly from 

 October 15th, 1922. 



