The Bionomics of South African Insects. 398 



Society of Loudon, and of arranging an abstract which is 

 printed in the Report of the British Association at Bradford, 

 1900, p. 795. 



But, above all, I wish to express my thanks to Mr. C. J. 

 Gahan and Mr. G. A. K. Marshall for their kind advice and 

 assistance in the attempt to arrive at sound conclusions. 



The groups about which there seems to be no doubt at 

 all — conspicuous, constantly refused by insect-eaters, and 

 liable to be mimicked by other Coleoptera — are the 

 following : — 



1. Erotylid^. Very apt to enter into conspicuous 

 combinations which are doubtless synaposematic with 

 other beetles. 



2. CocciNELLiD^E. Greatly mimicked by other beetles 

 and insects of other orders. Very commonly form synapo- 

 sematic assemblages (see p. 520). 



3. Malacodermid^, including the Lycinm, LampyriniB, 

 and Tclc'phorinm. Greatly mimicked by beetles of other 

 families, and also by insects of other Orders (see pp. 515- 

 518). 



4. Melyrid^. Some of the species converge at towards 

 Lycinse, and Tclcphorinie ; others characterized by the 

 possession of thoracic glands, which are exserted when the 

 insect is irritated. 



5. Canthahid^. Undoubtedly a distasteful group 

 with conspicuous warning coloration. Some of the species 

 are synaposematic with other beetles, and with Aculeate 

 Hymenoptera (see pp. 516-518 and 525-527), while 

 others afford models for mimicry and synaposematic 

 approach (pj). 518, 519). 



6. ChrysomeliD/E. The sub-families, Galcrucimv and 

 Hisjnmv are especially largely mimicked by other beetles, 

 and fall into synaposematic combinations. The Chryso7nc- 

 lin^, EumolpinfL\ etc., also enter into combinations which 

 are doubtless Mlillerian (synaposematic). The Megalopin^, 

 however, may be mimetic (pseudaposematic) rather than 

 synaposematic. 



Concerning the last-named family, Mr. Gahan writes to 

 me, March 3, 1902 :— 



" In reference to my previous paper on Diahrotica 

 [Trans. Ent. Soc. Loncl., 1891, p. 367], there are a few 

 facts since published in a paper by F. M. Webster * On the 

 probable origin, development, and diffusion of North 

 American species of Diahrotica.' 



