176 



ARDOR OF THE MALES. 



The ardor of the males of Thalessa has often been commented upon. 



Mr. W. H. Harrington, in the Canadian Entomologist for November, 

 1887 (Vol. XIX, p. 206), recounts, un'ler the head "The Nuptials of 

 Thalessa," a series of interesting observations made in June, 1887, and 

 which showed that the males, having issued first, awaited the females, 

 and were able to locate the spot at which a given female would emerge 

 some time before she made her appearance. In one instance which he 

 records, a particular spot was crowded with males for two days before the 

 female emerged, and even then she was assisted by the removal of the 

 bark by the observer. The males, in waiting, make eveiy efibrt to reach 

 the female, inserting the tips of their abdomen into crevices in the bark. 

 On emerging the female is instantly seized, the legs of the male clasp- 

 ing the yet unused wings and abdomen, thus preventing her from flying. 



DOES THE FEMALE OVIPOSIT IN EXPOSED LEPIDOPTEROUS LARV^? 



In a communication to the Country Gentleman of July 12, 1883, page 

 561, Prof. J. A. Lintner raised the question as to whether this insect 

 was really constructed for preying as a parasite upon internal borers or 

 whether it did not prey upon exposed larviie. He wrote as follows : 



The question is therefore raised, Are the commonly accepted habits of the "long- 

 stings" correctly given? Has any one actually seen them in the act of probing the 

 burrows of a Tremex? Such an operation has never come under my observation, 

 while probably all field entomologists have repeatedly found them fastened by their 

 ovipositor firmly inserted in apparently solid wood. I recall an instance observed by 

 me several years ago, when what I think must have been Rliyssa lunator, was earn- 

 estly engaged in placing its eggs in a colony of a species of Datana, feeding upon a 

 branch of hickory, in the following singular manner : Its ovipositor was bent beneath 

 it, extending between its legs, with its tip projecting in front of its head, enabling it 

 with perfect ease to select one caterpillar after another for the reception of its eggs. 

 Why would not this be a much better method of using the loug ovipositor than the 

 one generally ascribed to it ? There would certainly be no hap-hazard work in such 

 oviposition, or any waste of material. In the instance above recorded each thrust 

 told, as was seen in the well-known alarm-jerk of these larvte, at once commuuicated 

 from the victim to the entire group. Unfortunately the importance of the observa- 

 tion was not known to me at the time, and no further attention was given to it. 



Quite recently, desiring to learn whether I'rofessor Lintner had ob- 

 tained any further evidence to justify so singular a statemeut, we ad- 

 dressed him and he informed us that he had no further experience other 

 than that given in his forthcoming report, of which he kindly sent us ad- 

 vance proofs, and in which he quotes asimiUxr observation narrated by 

 Mr. J. S. Woodward, secretary of the New York State Agricultural So- 

 ciety, after repeating his own experience as we have quoted it. The 

 trouble is that in both INIr. Lintuer's and Mr. Woodward's observations 

 memory is the sole guide and there has been no positive identification of 

 the species, and, though we have a high regard for the observational pow- 

 ers of both these gentlemen, it seems to us that both must be in error, be- 

 cause a study of the structureof the ovipositor in Thalessa shows clearly 



