11)8 :\ii-. II. Scott o/t 



only in passin;;, or who lias ridden for some hours anion^j 

 the precipitous mountains, dense foi'csts, and countless 

 swift streams of such an island as Dominica, must admit at 

 least the possibiHty of fresh tinds being made in them. 



Assuming the l^altostominne to be a natural group, then 

 this group not only contains all the Neotropical representa- 

 tives of the family {Paltosluiiia. Kc'lIo(/(/i/ia, and C'ttri/pira), 

 but is also represented in South Africa by the only Blepharo- 

 cerid known from that rej>ion {Kelluycjina barnurdi, Ed- 

 wards, op. cit.), and in New Zealand by the genus Neocuru- 

 pirn, Ijaufb (op. cit.). 



Affinities of the Larva. — The Pallostoma-laYva., though 

 agreeing with that of Curupira (as described by F. Miiller) 

 ill its short J2-jointed anteinue, in having the dorsal surface 

 spinose, and in having only one pair of lateral jirocesses on 

 the sixth segment, yet differs from it in having tlie branchial 

 filaments disposed in tufts, not in series. It differs more 

 widely from the Cu7-upira-Y\ke larva from New Zealand 

 described and figured by Chilton {op. cit.), and considered 

 by Bezzi {op. cit. 1914) to be the larva of Neocurupira^ for 

 that larva not only has the branchial filaments disposed in 

 series, but also has two pairs of lateral processes on tlie 

 sixth segment. 



On tiie other hand, the Pa/tosioma-]ar\ii has several 

 points of resemblance with that of the South-Africau 

 Kelluggina harnardi. There would be nothing surprising in 

 this, as both forms belong to the same group, were it not for 

 the difficulty that, according to 13ezzi's tables of larval 

 characters {op. cit. 1913, pp. 76-80), the larva of K. bar- 

 ntirdi falls next to that of BlepJiarocera fasciuta, Westw. : 

 this being a member of a genus which difl'crs widely from 

 Kellugyina and Paltostoma in venation, in possessing dichoptic 

 eyes, &c. Bczzi, remarking in a footnote {op. cit. 1913, p. 78) 

 tliat the Kellogt/inaAarva. falls in a grouj) different from that 

 to which the perfect insect appertains, suggests that the 

 Inrva described as that of K. barnardi may really belong to an 

 unknown species of a different genus. Jiut, after examining 

 the South-Africau material presented to the Cambridge 

 Museum, I find this not to be the case. From one of the 

 pupaj 1 have dissected a J fly which is undoubtedly K. bar- 

 nurdi, thereby settling the determination of the pu| le. Also 

 the only larva which I possess lias the i)upal rcsjiiratory 

 horns already formed beneath its skin, and these agree in 

 form with those of the pupte : so there should be no reason- 

 able doubt as to the identity of the larvae. Therefore, the 



