1871.). 231 
been altogether neglected. The papers upon the ova of certain species of Acidalia 
and Hnnomos, published by Mr. Hellins in this Journal, prove what good characters 
are afforded, in some cases, at least, by the form and size of the eggs. That the 
differences of form should give some assistance in determining the position or 
family of certain species, it is my object in this note to suggest ; and as instances, 
I will select the cases of Asteroscopus nubeculosa, A. cassinia, Diloba ceruleocephala, 
and Demas coryli. The majority of, if not all, British authors have considered that 
these species should be placed among the true or false Bombyces, but Herrich- 
Schiffer, and some other European entomologists, have thought that their true 
position is among the Noctuw. What aid then does the form of the eggs of these 
moths give us in trying to determine the question? The Notodontide, in which 
family Asteroscopus and Diloba are generally placed, have smooth eggs, with scarcely 
any sculpture, and not at all resembling the usual Noctua-type of egg, but these 
two genera have ribbed eggs (as have the majority of the Noctuw)—that of Diloba 
especially resembling in shape the eggs of some of the Bombycoide. With the 
egg of Demas I am not acquainted, but it probably differs in form from the eggs 
of the Liparidw, and resembles the Noctua-type. 
There is nothing, I believe, in the structure of the larvee of these three genera 
which would forbid their being placed among the Noctue; while the perfect insects 
resemble Noctwe far more than they do Bombyces, the stigmata and some of the lines 
—so characteristic of the Noctuww—being, except in A. cassinia, well defined. Why, 
therefore, these four species should be retained in the position they at present hold 
in the list of British Lepidoptera, I cannot, for my own part, see. 
Herrich-Schiffer places Demas and Diloba in the Bombycoide, and Aséeroscopus 
in the Orthoside, between Trachea and Tethea.—F. Bucuanan WHITE, Perth, 20th 
December, 1870. 
On the food-plant of Homeosoma saxicola.—With reference to Mr. Howard 
Vaughan’s note on the food-plant of this species, I may mention that some larva, 
very probably belonging to this species, found by me in Galloway, fed in the heads 
of Matricaria imodora, Senecio Jacobea, and Achillea millefoliwm.—Ib. 
On the sound to be produced by Halias prasinana.—Sceing in the “ Annual”? for 
this year a notice of the squeak said to be produced by this moth, I take the liberty 
of writing to state my belief that the insect (dor, or both) does squeak, and 
with more reiteration than a bat. Some years since, when at St. Catharines, 
Argyleshire, I heard a strange twittering in the air, which, to the best of my belief, 
proceeded from two specimens of prasinana which came fluttering down from the 
foliage.—A. H. Swinton, 7, Portsdown Road, Maida Hill, January, 1871. 
*,* Mr. Swinton has dissected specimens of the insect, and sent us drawings 
and descriptions of a structure between the thorax and abdomen, by which he 
"believes the sound to be produced. As there is no apparent external tympanum, 
such as exists in Setina, &c.,and as the dissections were made from dried specimens, 
_we have not re-produced them, but urge upon him and others the advisability of 
< amining the living insect during next season, so as to set the question at rest.— 
_ 
