14 
male, I believe, does not survive many hours, as I never caught one in the summer 
which was not luminous. They fly in swarms, and I have repeatedly taken two or | 
three species in the same swarm. They are most plentiful in gardens, though they 
are found everywhere. The Chinese ladies catch them and imprison them in a fine 
gauze net, and wear them in their hair.” , 
Mr. W. F. Evans said that Sir John Barrow’s experience was in favour of the 
luminosity of Fulgora. 
Mr. Newman remarked that his note on Mr. F. Smith’s former statement was con- 
fined to that part which referred to the Honduras fire-fly, z.e. to Fulgora laternaria, 
not F. candelaria. Nothing that had been adduced that evening had any bearing upon 
the luminosity of F. laternaria. 
Mr. Bates said that Fulgora laternaria was pretty common on the Upper Amazons; 
he had been aware of Madame Merian’s statement, and had observed the insect 
closely ; but he had never found it luminous, and, what was stronger than the negative 
evidence of any single observer, there was no rumour or idea existing amongst the 
natives to the effect that it was luminous. The natives were well acquainted with the 
insect, which was the subject of fables current amongst them ; for instance, a tale was 
told of one of these insects having emerged from the forest and attacked a boat’s crew 
of nine persons, eight of whom were killed by the poisonous creature, and the pilot 
only escaped by jumping into the river. But though the fly was thus reputed to be 
venomous, there was no story current of its being luminous. Mr. Bates himself was 
of opinion that Fulgora laternaria was not luminous, and (strange as it might seem) 
that the Honduras correspondent on whose statement Mr. F. Smith relied had 
attributed to the Fulgora what, in fact, was the luminosity of a Pyrophorus. 
Mr. Newman (on behalf of Mr. Butler, who was present as a visitor) exhibited a 
number of insects embedded in amber and gum-anime differing from those of which an 
account was given by Hope in the first and second volumes of the Society’s ‘ Trans- 
actions.’ The amber was from the Baltic, the gum-animé (which, by the bye, was a 
resin, not a gum) from the East Indies; one of the amber-insects was peculiar from 
having enclosed with it a globule of air and a globule of water. 
The President exhibited several new Australian Longicomia, presented to him by 
Mr. F. G. Waterhouse, of Adelaide, some of which were taken by that gentleman 
during the recent exploring expedition under Stuart; among the more interesting was 
a new genus, in some respects connecting those remarkable and isolated forms Bimia 
and Hesthesis. Also a considerable number of new species from Gawler, near 
Adelaide, part of a large collection for which he was indebted to Mrs. Kruesler and 
Mr. Odewahn; one of these had the appearance of a Malacoderm, for which, at the 
first glance, it might very readily be taken. It might, in fact, be regarded as another 
case of “mimetic resemblance”; but if so, there was this peculiarity about it, that the 
stronger insect was here imitating the weaker, which seemed not quite consistent with 
the theory that the imitated form was copied with a view to the protection of the 
imitating. 
Mr. A. R, Wallace said that the case was quite consistent with the theory of 
mimetic resemblances, and that that theory did not depend upon the relative strength 
or weakness of the imitated or imitating forms; an insect might be very weak in 
structure, and yet be a proper subject for mimicry; many insects of weak structure 
were extremely abundant, were, in fact, dominant species; such species no doubt 
possessed some protection against their enemies with which we were unacquainted, 
