—~ 
NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS. 187 
The first and second abdominal segments are rugulose, and 
there are generally some scattered punctures on the third. 
The male does not differ in colouring or sculpture from the 
female: the antennex, however, are as long as the body. 
A solitary parasite having, it would appear, a partiality for 
larve of the genus Mupithecia. 
The cocoon is a pale, dull, orange colour, almost smooth and 
slightly wrinkled ; it is found firmly attached to a leaf or flower 
of the food plant. 
In October, 1914, Major Robertson gaye me a considerable 
number of the cocoons of this species, the makers having preyed 
upon larve of Hupithecia expallidata taken by him at Chandlers 
Ford. One imago emerged on November 11th, four on Decem- 
ber 2nd, the remainder appearing between March 9th and 
April 28th, 1915. I have also bred the species from the larva of 
E. nanata (October 17th, 1914). 
(To be continued.) 
NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS. 
CaLLopnrys Avis AT CANNES.—In his notes on this species in the 
eurrent number of the ‘Entomologist’ (1916, p. 151), Mr. Rowland- 
Brown refers to my papers of 1910 and 1912, and quotes them 
correctly, but almost implies that I include Cannes with Hyéres as 
not furnishing Coriaria nuyrtifolia. This plant, however, is, accord- 
_ ing to my observations, and as stated in my 1912 paper, abundant at 
Cannes (or was), and I thought C. avis ought to occur there, but 
expressed my belief that nevertheless it did not, because it had 
never attracted any attention there; although Milliére, Constant and 
many less notable entomologists had worked there. I had spent 
several spring seasons at Cannes and ought myself to have seen it, if 
there. Mr. Rowland-Brown’s note is the first I have seen reporting 
the butterfly asoccurring at Cannes; yet he quotes two authorities 
for it, but without any further details. My not knowing of the 
Gieseking collection may be due to my not having visited Cannes for, 
now, a good many years, but I am probably not alone in this ignor- 
ance. Ishould feel pleased if Mr. Rowland-Brown would tell us about 
it, and especially the data it supplies as to C. avis. Mr. Morris’s 
observations, as being, I suppose, more recent and more fully and 
carefully made, it would also be very desirable to have on record. It 
would appear that my belief that C. avis does not occur at Cannes 
was erroneous, I think, it is obvious that I ought to have applied to 
this locality and the various entomologists that have collected there, 
the same views with which I began my paper in 1910, as to this very 
distinct and widely spread, if very local, butterfly having so long 
escaped notice.—H. Cuapman ; Betula, Reigate, July, 1916. 
Note on Dr. CHApMAN’s REMARKS UPON CALLOPHRYS AVIS AT 
Cannes.—Certainly I assumed from Dr. Chapman’s remarks on the 
food plant of Callophrys avis that he considered Arbutus, and not 
Coriaria myrtifolia, to be the food plant of the species on the Riviera. 
