NOTES, CAPTURES, ETC. 217 
Unfortunately the majority of these pups failed to produce imagines ; but 
the results, so far as they go, are satisfactory, and tend to prove that the 
“Dover form” of C. suffwmata is as amenable to the law of hereditary 
transmission as are several other forms of species which I have reared at 
various times :-— 
189 le 1892. 
A. Typical 2 x typical 3. Result, 3 gf’ and4 ? specimens of type 
form. 
B. Black-banded silvery ? x typical Result, 5 9 specimens type form, 2 9 
By\e of variety. 
C. Typical 2 x crippled typical #. Result, 2 ? specimens type form. 
I think there is little doubt that if a larger number of brood B had emerged, 
the proportion of specimens of the varietal form would have been greater.— 
Rrewarp Sourn; 12, Abbey Gardens, St. John’s Wood, N.W., June, 1892. 
Aporia craTze!.—In‘ The Field’ of June 25th, p. 949, an editorial 
note appears, in reply to a correspondent, as follows :—** No; the name of 
Pieris crategi is not changed, and the butterfly was last year taken in 
limited numbers in North Kent, but is now very rare in England.—Kd.” 
This note somewhat surprised me, as I was not aware that this species had 
been taken since Mr. Briggs’s capture at Ramsgate, on June 9th, 1888. 
A note of mine therefore appeared on the subject in ‘The Field’ of July 
9th, p. 17, asking for further information of the captures last year, and 
by whom they were seen, and if they were recorded. The following was the 
answer I received :—‘‘ We can assure our correspondent that a series of 
Aporia crategi were taken in North Kent last year, and others left to con- 
tinue their existence. We therefore cannot agree with his remark that the 
species is apparently extinct. For some years several entomologists rather 
readily jumped to the same conclusion, but the species reappeared. — Ed.” 
The above cannot be considered in any way a satisfactory answer, and if 
A. crategi was actually taken last year, as stated, why not record the fact 
by stating by whom the captures were made, with dates of capture, and a 
more precise locality, as North Kent embraces a considerable area of 
country, fully seventy miles in extent. Such a vague record is scientifically 
worthless. Why are entomologists often so reticent in the matter of 
localities? I do not imply that it is wisdom to make public the precise 
spot where a good thing can be taken, as it would speedily be a dealers’ 
resort ; but a district might be given in the case of important and interesting 
captures. The appearance of A. crategi again in this country would be 
most interesting news to many, if not all. I hope therefore that some 
reliable information may come to hand respecting the reported captures 
made in North Kent in 1891.—F. W. Fronawk; August, 1892. 
Ova oF SMERINTHUS POPULI DEPOSITED IN CLusteRs. — When at 
Barnes, on June 7th last, I found sixteen eggs, which have since produced 
larvee of Smerinthus populi. The eggs were, however, neither green in 
colour nor deposited singly on the under side of a leaf, as is usual with 
this species. They were placed, evidently by a crippled female, in two 
groups on a brown dead twig, which had grown from the stem of a balsam 
poplar, and the eggs were, like the twig, brown in colour.—ALFrRED SIcH ; 
Villa Amalinda, Burlington Lane, Chiswick, July 20th, 1892. 
I found eighteen ova of S. populi on one small leaf. — J. Lewis 
Bonnore ; Harrow, July 31, 1892. 
ENTOM.—SEPT. 1892, x 
