154 Mr. E. E. Austen on Cutiterebra. 
that the three female specimens mentioned on p. 384 of my 
former paper really belong to this species, but that those of 
‘Townsend must be referred to some other. 
It is very desirable that the types of the other species of 
Cutiterebra described by Bracy Clark, if still in existence, 
should be subjected to a re-examination, although of the 
seven species described and figured by him the identity of all 
but cuniculé is now established. Of these species C. puri- 
vora (=C. buccata, Fab.) and fontinella were described from 
specimens in Clark’s own collection ; cuntcul’, horripilum, 
and cautertum (=americana, Fab.) from specimens in the 
possession of John Francillon; while the types of atrox and 
detrudator, as already shown, formerly belonged to Westwood 
and are now preserved in the University Museum, Oxford. 
In all probability Clark was careless about his types, and 
had no idea of the value that nowadays is attached to typical 
specimens. At any rate in an original letter from Clark to 
Westwood, dated ‘ 7/11-42,” which I have had the privilege 
of inspecting among the Oxford papers, and which is a 
response to a request from Westwood to be permitted to 
examine Clark’s istride, Clark writes: “ having given to 
one or another of my specimens I have but few left.” Fran- 
cillon’s collection of insects was dispersed after the owner’s 
death by the sale held at King’s Sale Room, 38 King Street, 
Covent Garden, June 11-19, 1818. On p. 44 of the catalogue 
(“A Catalogue of the Very Superb and Celebrated Collec- 
tion of Foreign Insects of the late John Francillon, Esq. 
&e. &e.’’), I find included two specimens each of Cutiterebra 
cautertum and C. horripilum, which were doubtless the types. 
It may be worth while to add that on the previous page one 
specimen of Cstrus phobifer, Clk., is mentioned; and as 
Clark states in his description that the species was contained 
in the collection of his friend Francillon, this is no doubt 
likewise a type. I mention these particulars in the faint 
hope that the missing types may still be in existence, and 
that these lines may be read by someone into whose hands 
they have come. If so, I need hardly add that I should be 
extremely grateful if the fortunate possessor would communi- 
cate with me. 
In conclusion, 1 would point out that in characterizing the 
larva of Cutiterebra as being “quite thickly beset with 
variously shaped pointed spines and thorns’’ (Wien. ent. Z. 
vi. p. 11) Prof. Brauer is in error. The pupa-cases of 
