1730 The Zoologist — July, 1869. 



but this is no excuse for passing over as of small value the very pre- 

 cise statement respecting the different food of the larva, the latter being 

 moreover recognisable by the number of blue spots on the sides of the 

 body. It should have struck King that, in every description of the 

 large Cirabex larva which fed on the alder, mention was always made 

 of the round blue spots on its side, while, on the other hand, when- 

 ever the large savvfly larva feeding on the willow was sjioken of, the 

 said blue sjjots were always absent from the description. 



Riitzeburg was the first writer who concluded that the species, the 

 larva of which always had blue markings on the side, and at tlie same 

 lime always fed exclusively on the alder, ought to be separated from 

 the other large Teuthredos — Cirabex variabilis (still used in its col- 

 lective meaning), axillaris, &c. : he described it in his * Forstinsecten' 

 under the name of Cimbex Humboldtii, and in this, which we con- 

 sider a correct view of the case, he has been followed by Messrs. 

 Zaddach and Brischke in the work quoted at the head of this 

 paper. 



The reader n)ay now justly remark, if Ratzeburg was the first whose 

 acuteness distinguished the species in question from its allies, why is 

 the name Cimbex Humboldtii, given to it by this author, passed over 

 in favour of that bestowed on it by Schrank ? is it quite certain that 

 the insect named by Schrank Tenthredo connala was our species ? 

 I admit that 1 have not had an opportunity of seeing his ' Beitrage 

 zur naturgeschichte,' (Leipzig, 1776), in which the name of connata 

 first appears, also that his diagnosis in the Enuu). Ins. Auslriae, 

 p. 322 — 'Tenthredo, antennis clavatis, nigra; abdomiue fasciis flavis' 

 is not quite satisfactory; but, in the first place, the addition — "Habitat 

 in alno" supplies a more truly distinguishing characteristic, and, 

 secondly, 1 am content to follow the lead of Professor Zaddach, whose 

 clear and acute jiRlgmont is accompanied by a most comprehensive 

 acquaintance with literature, 



1 should be most happy if I might one day be fortunate enough to 

 make known the life-histories of the other species which were included 

 by King and Hartigin their C. variabilis. However, when I reflect that 

 I have endeavoured to rear this species from the larva during more than 

 twenty years, and that it was only in 1862 that I first succeeded in 

 getting an imago fron) the cocoon, — and calling to mind how scarce 

 the larvae of most of the Cimbices are, — how solitary they live and 

 how long a time the larva remains unchanged in the cocoon (and this 

 is the chief hindrance in rearing them), I fear I should have to look 



