THE YOUNG LARVA OF LIPHYRA BRASSOLIS. 89 



owing to their pale colour, but which are frequently reduced to 

 mere dots or streaks by the extension of the marginal black 

 border. The black dots in the centre of the second row of spots 

 vary considerably in size, being sometimes mere dots, at other 

 times becoming decided quadrate spots, and sometimes appear- 

 ing also in the spots of the first row. 



In any given locality where the species occurs it is generally 

 found that the stamp of the local variety, whatever it may be, 

 exercises a predominating influence over most of the specimens 

 taken there. The local variety in its most pronounced form is 

 not usually the most abundant. Often do we find the great mass 

 of our captures are individuals showing a strong affinity to the 

 standard of the local variety, but embodying therewith a leaning 

 towards one or other forms of the species, with occasionally a 

 more decided approach to such forms. 



In this way, I believe, the type form of aurinia is perhaps the 

 most widely spread in Britain. In almost every locality therein 

 from which I possess specimens, an approach to the type 

 shows itself in some individuals. Earely pure, I admit, in 

 many places, but coloured more or less by the local race. 

 Most decided in northern England and southern Scotland. 

 Less so in southern Ireland, the south-west of England, and 

 south Wales. Still less so in central Ireland. Least of all, 

 perhaps, in south-eastern England. Some specimens from 

 Saxony are very markedly of this form, though var. artemis 

 perhaps prevails more in many continental localities. 



(To be continued.) 



THE YOUNG LARVA OP LIPHYRA BRASSOLIS, Westw. 

 By T. a. Chapman, M.D., F.E.S. 



Referring to my note as to an error in connection with this 

 larva ('Entomologist,' 1903, p. 36), it appears from a letter just 

 received from Mr. Dodd that there is no immediate chance of 

 the problem being cleared up. In my note, I acted on Mr. 

 Dodd's definite statement that the larva described was that of a 

 moth, and not that of L. hrassolis. It now, however, appears 

 that he only infers this to be a moth because it resembles 

 another which he knows to be a moth and is in fact not very 

 distantly related to Tinea. Of the larva before us he knows 

 nothing, except that it eats the ant larvae, precisely what he 

 tells us of L. hrassolis. He does not know what becomes of 

 it. He does not know the larva of L. hrassolis in the younger 

 instars. 



Now this larva before us is certainly not a micro, except 



