MYRMECOPHILOUS NOTES FOR 1916. 51 



parent beetle on to the brood of the host. Eggs that were formerly 

 supposed to be those of the beetle were really only those of the ants, 

 and naturally when very young Lomechttsa larvse were observed, they 

 were thought to have hatched from these supposed eggs. It is not 

 astonishing that such mistakes should have arisen; in 1909 I recorded, 

 " On May 10th, I noticed a Lomeclmsa in a small nest of F. sanguinea, 

 from Woking, laying eggs on the ant's eggs in the nest." [Ent. 

 Rec, 21, 287 (1909)] . Eggs were not actually seen laid (Wasmann 

 has recorded similar observations), but no doubt the beetle was on the 

 point of producing offspring, and I missed the important part, or did 

 not wait long enough to complete the observation. Father Wasmann 

 is much to be congratulated on his most interesting discovery. 



Amphotis marginata F. The insect referred to in my last notes 

 [Ent. Rec, 28, 34-5 (1916)] was fed by the new nmbratus ? ^ 

 and remained quite at home in the nest. On May 11th, I introduced 

 a smaller specimen (from Woking) for company, but they never paid 

 any attention to each other, probably being the same sex. There is 

 not any external difterence that I can see in the 3' and ? of this 

 beetle. I have dissected a number of specimens, and the J ^ and 

 5 5 are both of all sizes. On July 1st, the old beetle was killed and 

 cut up by some ^ ^ ; this was probably the work of the Deal ants 

 introduced in May and June, or fresh ^ ^ from Woking introduced, 

 late in June. This beetle had lived for nearly two years in the nest, 

 having been introduced on August 25th, 1914. Having secured such 

 a very large number of Amphotu at Woking (referred to above under 

 fuliginoma) I had hoped to obtain the larvte, and also breed the beetle 

 from the egg ; but in this I was disappointed. 



A number of pieces of wood from the gate post, tunnelled and 

 hollowed out, were placed in the fnliginosin^ observation nest, and in 

 these most of the beetles usually rested. Over 100 Amphotis in all, of 

 all sizes varying from 3-8mm.-6-2mm. in length, were introduced. 

 (Fowler gives the length of this beetle as, 4*5mm., and Ganglbauer, 

 - 4-4-5mni). They were frequently fed by the ants (the latter consuming 

 large quantities of honey), also feeding on flies and other prey given to 

 their hosts. When a bluebottle was introduced and had been killed by 

 the ants, the Amphotis would emerge from their hiding places and 

 swarm all over it, pushing the ants aside, and completely enclosing it 

 in a struggling mass of beetles. Unfortunately during my absence for 

 a few days in August the nest was left uncovered, the 5 and" 

 g ^ escaped, probably through the open window, and also very many 

 of the beetles. Although this nest had been under constant observation 

 since May, no copulation between the beetles was ever noticed, no eggs 

 appeared to be laid and no larvte were seen. I had continually taken 

 out the bits of wood, and carefully examined them, as also the whole 

 of the nest. As there were now only some 30 beetles left, and no ants, 

 I removed them and placed them in a single chamber plaster nest, 

 without any wood. They were fed with flies, honey, etc., but gradually 

 died off from day to day. The last two alive I introduced into the 

 tunbratiis nest, where they are alive and well to-day. 



The British Collection of Ants in the National Collection. 

 In 1916 I thoroughly overhauled and rearranged all the British 



