286 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 
larva is certainly that of Acronycta Alni, much shrunk owing 
to the exhausting operations of the parasites preying on its 
vitals. The parasites are a species of Anthomyia, probably 
that called Musca Larvarum by Linneus. The other insect 
is Ricinus Canis, the common dog-tick; of course it has no 
connection with the Acronycta—WL. Newman. 
Henry J. Slack.—Moth with Perforating Maxille.—Last 
year Mr. McIntire presented to the Microscopical Society a 
slide containing the antlia of an unknown moth, with the 
extremity adapted for perforation. The ‘Comptes Rendus’ 
for August 30th, 1875, gives a paper by M. Kiinckel on 
“ Perforating Lepidoptera,” with figures of the auger-like 
proboscis of Australian Ophideres. The paper refers to an 
account given in the ‘Capricornion,’ published at Rock- 
hampton. I can learn nothing of this magazine, which I 
suppose from its name is issued in tropical Australia. I shall 
be much obliged if you can tell me whether any English 
moths have perforating proboscis, or any others you may be 
acquainted with. I fancy that, as many entomologists are 
not microscopists, such a piece of apparatus may have been 
overlooked. The mounters of objects usually select insects 
easily obtained, and we may have some like the Ophideres in 
the respect mentioned. The Ophideres are reported to attack 
oranges.—H. J. S. 
[I have not seen the paper in the ‘Comptes Rendus’ to 
which my correspondent refers, nor do I know any instance 
of an English moth possessing perforating maxille ; still I am 
by no means disposed to deny or doubt the existence of such 
a structure. Turning to Westwood’s ‘ Modern Classification,’ 
I cannot find any notice of this peculiarity ; and I think that 
most industrious and praiseworthy compiler would scarcely 
have overlooked, or failed to repeat, such a record, had one 
existed prior to 1840,—the date of his great work. Notwith- 
standing this apparent absence of record, there is nothing 
improbable in the statement. I must here call attention to 
the universal belief, repeated by Westwood (Classification, ii. 
498), that “the mouth of Diptera is formed only for imbibing 
fluid matter;” and contrast this with what I have stated to 
be the truth, as shown by Miiller, Bowerbank, Deane, 
Bennett, and a host of others, and corroborated by my own 
observations, that all those Diptera, supposed to frequent 
