70 [August, 
Note on the food-plant of Lycmna Corydon. — The larva of L. Corydon is 
frequently said to feed on the bird's-foot trefuil {Lotus corniculatus) , but I strongly- 
suspect that it has never been found on that plant. The food of the species is 
Hippocrepis comosa, a plant closely resembling Lotus corniculatus in the flowers, but 
differing widely from it in the leaf and legume. This plant is confined to chalk and 
limestone districts. In the neighbourhood of Cambridge we get the larv» in 
abundance on the Hippocrepis, and lately I have been trying to make them take 
kindly to the Lotus. I mixed some of these two plants together, and found that, 
while they eat up every morsel of the Hipjpocrepis, they left the Lotus. The leaves 
of this latter, however, had minute notches, as if the larva had tasted them, found 
out their mistake, and passed on ; but though I made my larvae fast, they still 
refused to feed on it. This preference that the larva shows for the chalk plant, 
and its reluctance to touch the widely distributed one, throws much light on the 
distribution of the butterfiy. I might mention, as an instance of how easily these 
two plants may be mistaken, that the other day, when I told an entomologist (who 
has sent these larvse all over England) my opinion about the food-plant of this 
insect, he replied, " Why ! I have never seen the larva on anything else but bird's- 
foot trefoil." I found, however, that those he had in his possession were all feeding 
on Hippocrepis. It would be well if entomologists would pay a little more attention 
to botany. — J. Gedge, Cambridge. 
[We shall be glad to hear from other observers on the same subject. — Eds.] 
Remarks on Dr. Jordan's notes " On the similarity of the insects of North America 
and of England." 
The subject of the similarity of the insects of northern Europe and the tem- 
perate and boreal portions of the North American continent has attracted the 
attention of entomologists, ever since the natural productions of America became 
familiar to us, and it is now known that upwards of three hundred North American 
species of all orders are considered as absolutely identical with European forms 
while numerous others are so closely allied as to be the subjects of remark. Before 
proceeding further, it may be as well to enumerate the various " theories of 
creation," one or other of which is most congenial to this or that mind. Firstly, we 
have the original hypothesis of a comprehensive creation, which included all forms 
now living, as well as those now extinct, many of which have left their testimonies in 
the rocks as the sole indication of their existence at periods more or less remote. 
Secondly, the idea of special separate centres of contemporaneous creations has its 
adherents. Thirdly, there is the theory of progressive creation, either continuous 
or per saltiis. Fourthly, the " origin of species by means of natural selection," or 
the Darwinian theory, more or less modified. In another place (Trans. Ent. Soc, 
ser. 3, vol. ii., p. 466) I have stated that, although, perhaps, not prepared to accept 
the latter hypothesis in its entirety, I still look upon it as a reasonable manner of 
accounting for phasnomena which are otherwise inexplicable, and have brought 
forward the subject of Dr. Jordan's notes in support of my opinion. In scrutinising 
Dr. J.'s remarks, it appears that, while he is, at all events, not ready to accept 
either of the two last mentioned theories, and is still, like all of us, " crying for the 
light," he is yet decidedly opposed to give a favourable reception to " natural 
