MISCELLANEOUS NOTES. 963 



the stem of the leaf, humps itself up and hes hmply down the leaf. The hump 

 now forms the bulk of the mass with the drip and drop at the lowest point, 

 whilst the lighter coloured tail portion represents the dried port'toa at the top' 

 of the leaf. 



But has nature in this case acted in the most intelhgent way ? The protec- 

 tion is of course against birds, which would not touch their own excrement. 

 Could not the caterpillar obtain equal safety by simply concealing itself under 

 the leaf during repose. 



What should one think of a sentry, who, having a "better 'ole" close at hand, 

 camouflaged himself from top to toe, as a shattered stump for example, and 

 proceeded to stand on his head in the open. Have we here an example of the 

 Russian proverb " Natoora doora " (Nature is a fool). 



And in any case is such artistic perfection really necessary for the survival 

 of the fittest ? Are birds such intensely close scrutinizers ? Would not a 

 superficial resemblance suffice to protect the creature ? Might it not even 

 protect it better ? For to be deceived by the super-excellence of the mimicry 

 a bird would have to approach so close that an involuntary movement on the 

 part of the caterpillar might betray the deception, whereas a rough general 

 resemblance would be quite enough to discourage a bird from approaching. 



The case presents even more matter for speculation. The mimicry is double — 

 the actual resemblance, and the posture of the larva. Did the two evolve 

 ' pari passu ' or consecutively ? If the latter, which evolved the first ? Probably 

 the resemblance to a bird 's dropping, for many larvae resemble birds' excreta 

 in the early stages and take on assimilative coloration later. Perhaps we must 

 assume that the head downward posture is natural to this species. And yet 

 another difficulty presents itself. Why such an elaborate method of protection 

 for the creature in repose, while at the same time rendering it more conspicuous 

 ■v^hen feeding ? 



In fact the more one considers the case the more one finds matter for puzzle- 

 ment and wonder. I trust what I have written may interest some of your 

 readers to hunt up this species, breed it out and contribute further information. 



A. NEWNHAM, Lieut.-Col., 

 Villa Lanceray, I. A. (retired). 



Chemin de Fabron — Nice. 



No. XXIX.— EARWIGS FROM MESOPOTAMIA AND N. W. PERSIA. 



Though I am in no sense a speciahst in the Dermaptera it seems worthwhile 

 to put on record the following species of the group captured in Mesopotamia 

 and N. W. Persia in order to make as complete as possible our knowledge of the 

 fauna of these countries. My own specimens have been determined by Prof. 

 Borelli of Torino who is unable at present to record them, and I have compared 

 with them a number of specimens taken by Capt. W. E. Evans, R.A.M.C., at 

 Amara, which have been lent to me for the purpose. 



Forficula anricularia, L., July 1919, Qazvin, N. W. Persia; common. 



Euborellia annulipes, Lucao, 13th September 1917, Baghdad, 10th March 1918, 

 Amara, under clods of earth. Immature specimens apparently of this species, 

 December 1918, Qizil Robat, under clods (W. E. E). 



Labidura ribaria, Pallas, 27th June to 27th August 1918 (W. E. E.), Amara, 

 common at light 5th August 1918, MendaU. The varieties inermis and rmngoUca 

 were present with the type form. This is without doubt the species referred 

 to by Lt.-Col. F. P. Connor, in his interesting note Journ. B. N. H. S. XXVI. No. 

 2, as carrying off a moth in its forceps from a mess table. 4th April to 14th July 

 40 



