o/'RhipipLorus paradoxus. 193 



that of the wasp. I have found two eggs so situated in nests 

 in whicli I could see no trace, unless this was one, of Rhipi- 

 pliorus. I have seen two young larvaj of similar size in the 

 same cell ; yet afterwards one of these must have disappeared, 

 removed probably by the wasps, and not devoured by the 

 other grub, whether that may have been a, Rhipiphorus or not. 

 I may mention an exaggerated, because abnormal, instance of 

 more than one egg being in each cell. I had ];laccd some 

 pieces of wasp-comb wnth many wasps clustered about them 

 in a box, and so made an artificial nest. After a period I 

 found every otherwise unoccupied cell with two, tliree, or 

 more eggs in it, several with as many as twenty. The cause 

 of this I cannot explain. Whether I had so diminished the 

 amount of comb that there were not sufficient cells for the 

 queen to deposit her eggs, one in each, or whether I had de- 

 sti-oyed the queen, and some of the workers had assumed 

 queenly functions, which is said sometimes to occur, and the 

 latter had not the same accurate instincts as a true queen, I 

 am unable to say. But whatever may have been in a morbid 

 instance the cause of this multiplicity of eggs in the same 

 cell may fairly be assumed to be a possible cause in a 

 healthy nest. 



ily argument, so far, is rather against the supposition that 

 the Rh t'pip/iorus-t'gg is laid m the cell with that of the wasp, 

 on the theory of the latter being the prey of the former (Mr. 

 Smith's view). On Mr. MuiTay's hypothesis, the egg of 

 R/tij)iphont3 might be laid in a cell by itself; but, if laid in 

 one with a wasp-egg also, we must suppose that the latter, 

 either before or after it is hatched, is removed by the attendant 

 wasps, or falls a prey to the young Rhijjqy/torufi-laYyii. In 

 either case it is a necessary result of the theory tliat the larva 

 oi Rhipipjhorus should be found occupying a cell among the 

 wasp-larvaj. No one has ever pretended to have found a 

 RInjuphorus-lsirYSi so situated, though it has often been looked 

 for. I pass over as untenable Mr. Murray's suggestion that 

 some of his wasp-larva were Rhipiphori] I have myself 

 searched in vain for such a larva in nests infested by R/tipi- 

 phori. I shall leave Mr. Smith to show (which I know he 

 has the means of doing) that a larva of Rhijnphorus so situated 

 differs sufficiently from that of the wasp to be readily detected, 

 though I think 5[r. Stone's remark, that " the larva is a sin- 

 gular-looking one," Avould of itself sufficiently establish this, 

 especially when we take into account the fact that he nowhere 

 hints at any possibihty of confounding it with that of the 

 wasp. 



The remaining difficulty in the way of supposing the larva 



