﻿132 tHE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



of such specimens, I shall feel immensely indebted to them, and 

 think I can promise that such kindness will not be wasted. Now 

 this appeal I could not well make without first showing " cause 

 why"; but I hope that the preliminary results to be detailed will 

 be held to constitute sufficient justification for my request, and to 

 exonerate me from my charge of presumption in making it. 



I might also add that it is not my wish to stop short at the 

 colours of the lepidopterous imagines, but I hope further to 

 examine somewhat the colours in Coleoptera, Neuroptera, &c, and 

 also in the larva of Lepidoptera. This last will be an especially 

 interesting investigation in every way. For instance, will there be 

 found a clear relation between the chemical character of the 

 larval and imaginal colours in each species ? or will the larval 

 colours in any genus be related inter se, as those of the imagines, 

 but independent entirely of the latter ? and what differences may 

 not arise from the fact that in the imago of the Lepidoptera the 

 colours are on scales, whilst in the larvae on hair and skin, in the 

 Coleoptera on horny elytra, and so on? These hints are merely 

 indicative of the interest presumably attaching to such an enquiry. 



(To be continued.) ■$"$" 



ENTOMOLOGICAL NOTES, CAPTURES, &o. 



On the Identity of Dianthcecia carpophaga and D. capsophila. 

 — In the March number of the Ent. Mo. Mag. Mr. W. F. H. Blandford 

 shows good reason for sinking D. capsophila, Dup., as a species, and reducing 

 that insect to its proper rank as a local form of D. carpophaga, Bork. At a 

 meeting of the South London Entomological and Natural History Society iu 

 1888, 1 read some notes on D. nana,llott. {= conspersa,~Es\).), andD.compta, 

 Fab., and at the same time made some remarks on the probable consan- 

 guinity of those insects. In the discussion which followed, other species of 

 Dianthcecia were adverted to, and I incidentally expressed an opinion that 

 D. capsophila and D. carpophaga were specifically identical. This view I 

 had long entertained, and the better I became acquainted with the various 

 forms of the latter insect, so much the more was I convinced that capso- 

 phila was only a specialised form of it. Four or five years ago, Mr. Blandford 

 very kindly gave me two specimens of a Dianthcecia he had obtained in South 

 Wales. As regards colour these specimens are not exactly like any example 

 of D. capsophila or D. carpophaga in my series of these insects; but as 

 Mr. Barrett has pointed out (E. M. M., 90), there is not the slightest differ- 

 ence in the character of markings, and in this respect they agree with both 

 capsophila and carpophaga. This is a fact which Mr. Blandford may 

 remember I called his attention to when he compared his insect with my 

 Dianthceciae. It should be added that there is no character in the larva 

 of capsophila which will serve to specifically distinguish it from that of 

 carpophaga. — Richard South. 



Dianthcecta cucubali, &c, in August. — I find, on referring to notes, 

 that whilst in Gloucestershire, on the Cotswolds, last season, I took at 



