^ xxii ) 



had in fact seen many more specimens of it taken in Britain 

 than oi juveiicus, though it is probably by no means so com- 

 mon as noctilio, and it is at least possible that in all cases, as 

 certainly in some, its occurrence is simply due to the impor- 

 tation of American timber containing egcs or larvae before it 

 was shipped. 



The 9 of cjan^us is easily separated both from juien<:us 

 and noctilio by the great length of it-s ovipositor, of which 

 about a half projects beyond the dorsal apex of the abdo- 

 men, so that in this respect it rather resembles our common 

 black and yellow Sirex, the well-known giga^. L. It diSers 

 also hova juvowu^ and agrees with nociilio in having entirelv 

 black antennae, these in both sexes of juiowus being testa- 

 ceous at the base. The S is distinguishable from that of 

 noctilio by the colour of the abdomen, being testaceous prac- 

 tically up to the apex, and in this character it agrees with 

 juvencus o, nor could Mr. Morice at present suggest any 

 satisfactory way of separating it from the latter, though the 

 $ $ of the two forms differ so much that he could not believe 

 them to be mere varieties of one species. 



He also mentioned that on Sunday last (April 29th) he had 

 been surprised by the prematiire emergence in one of his breed- 

 ing-cages of a $ Phymatocera aterrima, which on the same day 

 laid seventeen eggs in a stem of its proper plant (Solomon's Seal). 

 He procured this stem by a stroke of good luck from a plant 

 which had been forced in a greenhouse ; his own plants, growing 

 in the open air. were as yet hardly out of the ground at all. 



He had watched the whole process of oviposition very 

 carefully through a powerful lens, being desirous of correcting 

 or confirming certain details of the account which he gave of 

 the oviposition of this species in Proc. Ent. Soc. Lond. for 

 1911, as to some of which Dr. Chapman's later observations 

 (Trans. Ent. Soc. 1914, pp. 173-184, and Ent. Rec. 1915, 

 pp. 145-119) were not exactly in accordance with his own. 



He had stated that between the formation of each pocket 

 and the la^nng of an egg in it the terebra was lifted altogether 

 out of the stem and afterwards introduced into it afresh. In 

 the present case, as in those described by Dr. Chapman, this 

 had not happened. The apex of the terebra never actually 



