COLEOPTERA AT FRECKENHAM AND BARTON MILLS AGAIN. 199 
that these butterfles would, with the rest of their relatives, have stayed 
in hibernatien until the following February or March, when they would 
have come forth to feed and to pair, and to oviposit, until by the middle 
or end of May they completed the span of their existence. Their eggs, 
laid in February, March, or April, would mark the first stage of the 
succeeding summer—and in my view the only—emergence, which in 
Cyprus, apparently, is on the wing as early as the end of May. This, 
at any rate, is how I should account for Mr. Turner’s facts. 
The condition of the food plant during the summer months has an 
important bearing on the question of the single-broodedness or other- 
wise of G. cleopatra. In most of the areas where I have worked the 
food plant is Rhamnus alaternus—an evergreen. Its period of annual 
growth is short, and in my experience ceases as soon as the sun is 
powerful enough to burn up the countryside, say at latest by the end 
of June. After that the leaves become hard and dry; and I should 
say they would be utterly impracticable as food for a Pierid larva until 
the next period of growth supervened. 
So far as I can gather, the lepidopterists who hold that G. cleopatra 
produces two or three broods per annum, base their views on the time 
of appearance of the butterfly, and on-that only. In the case of such 
a genus as Gonepterya, with its known habits of hibernation, I suggest 
that ‘time of appearance ”’ is not of itself a sufficiently sound basis on 
which to form a conclusion. What we want is evidence of the copula- 
tion of butterdies of the summer emergence during say late June or 
July, of the deposition of eggs by such butterflies, of the discovery of 
such eggs, or of larve, on the food plant in July or August, or of pupe 
in the late summer or autumn. In other words we want facts; we 
want proof that anything beyond one brood is, or ever has been, pro- 
duced. It may be that when we are certified of the facts some new 
names will be useful to connote the biological actualities : but I suggest 
that until such actualities are established the conferring of names on 
unidentifiable insects can only serve to hamper the progress of students 
of the living insect, to the detriment of our science. 
Coleoptera at Freckenham and Barton Mills again. 
By H. DONISTHORPE, F.Z.S., F.E.S. 
Having made several successful visits to Freckenham and Barton 
Mills [vide Hnt. Record 30 28-29 (1918); Hnt. Mo. May. 54 55-56 
(1918) ; Hnt. Record, 32 158 (1920)| previously, I determined to go 
again, and accordingly I spent some five days, from September 29th 
last, collecting in that district. 
A number of Lycoperdons were collected from both localities and 
brought home. ‘These I have put on damp sand in large glass bowls, 
tied over with muslin, and hope to breed out some of the ‘ puff-ball ” 
species later on. 
At Freckenham several specimens of Coenocara bovistae were taken 
crawling on the outside of large puff-balls. Psylliodes chiysocephala 
occurred in vast numbers by sweeping a field of turnips in flower, but 
unfortunately neither of the two well-marked aberrations were found. 
In the sand-pits mentioned by me (antea p. 153) before, and where so 
many species usually found at the sea-side turned up, Broscus 
cephalotes was present, adding. to the number of such species. 
