106 J. C. W. KersHaw, 
where it is popularly known as the “Candle-fly”, from an old idea 
that its snout was luminous, which is not the case.!) The adults 
feed almost entirely on Longan (Nephelium longana CAaus,., N. O. Sa- 
pindaceae) and on the Mango-tree (Mangifera indica Lisw., N. O. Ana- 
cardiaceae), but chiefly on the former, where a dozen or more may 
often be found on one trunk, and both nymphs and adults prefer 
to suck the thick bark of the trunk and larger boughs. The nymphs 
will, however, feed on various plants, some of which are enumerated 
later. Batches of eggs are probably laid as early as the end of March, 
and certainly at the beginning of April, but my Candle-flies laid at 
the end of the latter month. The male is a very long time courting 
the female; the latter sits on a tree-trunk, her head pointing up- 
wards, while one or two males sit close on either side and slightly 
below her. The males do not fight, but now and again, one sidles 
threateningly towards another, whereon the latter quietly retreats, 
after which they resume their former station. But they are jealous 
1) It is now pretty generally conceded that the Fulgoridae have no 
power of emitting any light, at least while living, though as late as 1898 
PACKARD cited Fulgora in the category of Insects with phosphorescent 
organs (15). The story of the luminosity of the larger Fulgoridae appears 
to have originated with GREW who stated (7) that two or three specimens 
of Fulgora laternaria fastened to a stick would give sufficient light to 
travel with in the night; soon after, Mrs. MERIAN declared that some of 
these insects, on escaping from a box in the night, flew around, appearing 
like flames, the light each gave being sufficient for her to read a news- 
paper by (13). Her statement seems to have been the chief authority 
for the long continuance of this belief, the account of which the native 
tribes of Guiana treat as fabulous (9). The matter was for a long time 
fiercely discussed (4, 8, 10, 14, 22), but in light of the fact that observers 
such as KERSHAW (in this paper), CANTOR (10) and FLETCHER (6), in 
China, PRyEr (18) in Borneo, PiFFARD (17) and CHAMPION (3) in South 
America, to mention only a few, have never found the slightest trace of 
luminous power either by day or by night, the negative side may be 
safely taken for granted. As early as 1792, OLIVIER doubted any lumi- 
nosity (14a), and stated that in the south of France he had often found 
large species of Cicadıdae entirely phosphorescent after their death, 
and this well known fact, that many animals become phosphorescent after 
death, may explain GREW and MERIAN’s account. Still, it does not accord 
with the statement of the latter that the Fulgoras were alive and flew 
around the room while luminous, so that the only reasonable explanation 
lies, in my opinion, in the early and long continued confusion between 
the larger Fulgoridae, which look as if they ought to be luminous, and 
the Coleopterous Fireflies with are actually so. G. W. K. 
