42 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



distributed in the locality ; and though carefully sought for eight 

 successive autumns, not a single specimen was taken. It is further 

 to be observed that the one larva taken by Mr. Sidebotham, and that 

 by Mr. Meek, were both captured at the orvjinal locality and prior 

 to 1864. 



" In the other reply Mr. S. Norman refers me to Entom. vol. ix. 

 232. Mr. Norman states there that he found a pupa, but did not know 

 what it was, until it emerged the following May ; and in his more 

 recent communication adds, that he found it under loose bark on 

 n-illow. This seems strange, as every record gives poplar as the food 

 of anachoreta. Is Mr. Norman quite sure that he did not mistake 

 Clostera curtnla for anachoreta ? Until this be clearly ascertained I 

 cannot attach much value to this communication. Since I wrote in 

 1881 I have again carefully examined the pages of the ' Zoologist,' 

 ' Entomologist,' and the ' Ent. Mo. Mag.,' with the result that (putting 

 aside Mr. Norman's statement as doubtful, and the announcement of 

 a single larva having been bred in confinement) no mention of the 

 capture of anachoreta in any stage has been recorded since 1864, a 

 period of twenty-three years. 



" I said, in the commencement of this paper, that I did not believe 

 anachoreta to be an indigenous British insect years ago. Still less do 

 I believe it to be so now. All who had the opportunity of breeding it, 

 after its discovery in 1859, must agree with me in saying that it was a 

 most prolijic insect. I myself have had three broods within twelve 

 months, and, as mentioned above, the larvae multiplied to such an 

 extent that collectors grew tired of it, and ceased to keep up the breed. 

 Now, from about 1854 to 1864 was one of the most (if not the most) 

 energetic periods in the history of British Entomology (Lepidoptera). 

 At no time, during my forty years' experience, has there been a more 

 numerous or more skilled body of collectors, larva hunters, pupa 

 diggers, &c. And yet I am asked to believe that an ' indigenous ' 

 British insect, which has two or three broods in the year, whose larva 

 is easily detected, and whose food is found all over the country, could 

 have eluded the searching gaze of hundreds of keen-eyed collectors 

 before 1859, and finally have turned up in 07ie spot in England, with a 

 reduced family of eleven ! Again, is it credible that an indigenous 

 insect so prolific as anachoreta, and whose larva could so easily be 

 found by a practised hand, should so completely disappear after 1864 

 (when the home-breeding ceased) that no record of its capture, either 

 as imago, pupa, or larva, can be found up to the present time, a period 

 of twenty-three years. This statement is of course subject to cor- 

 rection. But unless it be very considerably modified, I unhesitatingly 

 express my conviction that Clostera anachoreta is not a British insect. 

 It may be asked by some of your readers who may trouble themselves 

 to read these lines, ' Is it not a fact that some insects will reappear 

 after long intervals?' To which I reply undoubtedly, but not, I 

 venture to think, under the conditions above referred to. If it be 

 further asked, ' How then do you explain Dr. Knaggs's discovery ? ' I 

 answer in one word, ' importation.' Anyone acquainted with my friend 

 and correspondent Dr. Kriaggs would not dream of even hinting at his 

 taking part in any such transaction ; but that C. anachoreta, in one or 

 more of its stages, was ignorantly or intentionally introduced into this 



