76 MR. A. MUIIRAY ON AN UNDICSCUIUED 



phorescenfc. But supposiug the hirva of the Firefly to be phos- 

 phorescent and to live in the trunks of rotten trees, it may very 

 well be that they have been often seen in the day-time, and their 

 phosphorescence not observed. Entomologists may go into the 

 woods at night with nets and lamps to catch nocturnal moths ; but 

 we doubt if any one ever went to break up rotten trees. That 

 could be as well done and the captures as well made in the day- 

 time, and Avould consequently only be done with a purpose, and 

 that the purpose of settling this very question, an idea which, so 

 far as I know, has not yet occurred to any one possessed of 

 the requisite facilities — that is, living in the American tropical 

 countries, 



- Ojie important means which probably exists of determining 

 its larva has thus never been put to use ; for I can find no mention 

 anywhere of a phosphorescent larva belonging to, or resembling 

 those of, the Ehxteridje, or any other thau the Grlowworm. There 

 has, indeed, been described a supposed larva of the Firefly. 

 Erichson (Wiegmann's Arch. 184-1, p. 86) describes in a few 

 words a larva which he thinks may be referred with doubt to the 

 .Pyrophorus noctilucus, but he says nothing of phosporescence ; 

 indeed his specimen would be dead, and either pinned or preserved 

 in spirits, and consequently could not show it. Moreover the 

 descx'iption, according to Candeze and Chapuis, comes nearest to 

 the larva of Alans oculatus (see Plate I. fig. 8, which is copied 

 from their figure of that species) ; and this, as will be seen from the 

 figures, is widely separated from the present larva. So far as our 

 materials go, therefore, tlie inference to be drawn from them is 

 opposed to this species belonging either to the Fireflies or the 

 Grlowworms. I am bound to say, however, that I do not think 

 Erichson's reference can be taken as of unich weiglit. It was 

 obviously a mere guess as to the relationship of an unknown 

 larva ; and if we put it aside, we shall immediately see that, while 

 there are some points in the present larva which may be used aa 

 arguments in favour of its being perhaps the larva of the Firefly, 

 there are others which seem more opposed to it. 



I shall now give an account and description of the larva in 

 question. It has been seen by at least three gentlemen, whose 

 accounts all correspond. 



It was first seen by Mr. Fry himself, on returning to Rio one 

 evening when night had fallen. He was accompanied by a friend, 

 and both were on horseback. His eye was caught by a brilliant 



