26 THE ENTOMOLOGIST’S RECORD. 
or mines in the succulent stems of Gentiana pneumonanthe, reaches its 
third instar, and then wanders, just as does L. arion in its fourth 
instar, and that in spite of anything we devised for its benefit (for I 
had the pleasure of rearing some of these larve so far, from eggs sent 
me by M. Gillmer), it shortly died, just as that of L. arion used to do. 
Tn dealing with larve, sent me as eges and as larve, by Mr. Powell, I 
had for some time a difficulty in understanding why Mr. Powell’s 
larvee were always in flowers and those I reared (so far only of course) 
always mined in low down succulent shoots. M. Gillmer knew them 
in the flowers, but had some idea this was not the right place, and got 
some to mine in the shoots, and he suppled me with plants with such 
shoots and with eggs. The larve mined in these shoots much as the 
larvee of L. vrion mine in the thick leaves of Sedum, but remained in 
the mines till in the 2nd or 8rd instar. The difference between the 
flower and the shoot is, however, in regard to the habits of L. alcon 
trifling. The larva enters the flower by boring a hole in it, and its 
favourite procedure is then to bore into the ovary and then act as a 
miner and devour the succulent ovules. Mr. Powell took a third stage 
larva, and placing it in a hopeful place in the field, had the pleasure, ~ 
with the assistance of M. Hervé Oberthtr, of seeing an ant, which he 
did not capture, but believes was the same as those captured, which 
proved to be Tetramorium caespitum, carry it off. They watched it for 
some distance, lost it once or twice amongst the grass, and after 
tracing it for a time finally lost it before it reached its nest. 
Thereafter he prolonged the life of a number of larve by letting 
them suck the juice of the pups of Formica rufa. 
Amongst the larve he sent me were three which are still (January 
1918) in observation nests of Myrmica scabrinodis, these nests are very 
weak, so that | am not very optimistic as to their future history. I 
hope to give some account of these larvee when success or failure 
declares itself. 
In dealing with Plebeius armoricana, later, Mr. Powell relates an 
experiment, the facts of which are new to me, and may be to others, 
but are well known to myrmecologists. He says, in a note, ‘‘ To take 
the ant (Formica fusca var. glebaria, Nyl.) we made a little crack or hole 
in the ant hill, if the ants were not moving about outside (during rain 
for example). The ants came out at once, savage, with their mandibles 
wide, then one placed over the opening made in the nest the open end 
of a glass tube, into which several ants would climb up. We found, 
in the result, that 1t was much better to wait until the ants had ealmed 
down before capturing them in the tube, because all those taken whilst 
they were still enraged died in a few minutes, asphyxiated, apparently, 
by the formic acid they had set free. I repeated the experiment several ~ 
times, always with the same results. If one takes the ants quietly, 
when they have calmed down, one may keep them a long time in a 
tube plugged with cotton,” p. 443. 
Mr. Powell’s notes on P. argus var. armoricana oceupy 41 pages, and 
give many and interesting details of the habits of the butterfly and the 
larve. There are several observations of the egglaying. Ulea nanus 
would seem to be its usual food plant, but U. ewropaeus is also accepted. 
There are two broods, the larve pass the winter in the unhatched eggs, 
and the butterflies appear at the beginning of July. Of the eggs laid 
by these July specimens some hatch and produce butterflies in Sep- 
