DEILEPHILA EUrilORBI.E IN ENGLAND. 315 



Euphnrhia par alias. He brought them home and entrusted the pupne 

 to my care, for they turned very soon after capture. Three died in 

 pupating, one died during the winter, and nine came out perfect 

 specimens, three of wliich are now in my cabinet. For fuller infor- 

 mation I refer your readers to the ' Entomologist,' vol. xxiii., pages 18 

 and 319. — J. Seymour St. John, 42, Castlewood Eoad, Stamford Hill. 

 Julij '■list, 1893. [We were fully aware of the reports referred to by our 

 correspondent, but at the same time venture to suggest that the state- 

 ment in the ' Current Note' referred to is substantially correct. In the 

 face of what is known of this species in Britain, the statement ' this 

 very rare insect in Britain has this year re-appeared. A young friend 

 this autumn came upon thirteen nearly full-fed larvfe,' &c. (' Entomo- 

 logist,' xxiii. p. 18) wants considerable amplification. Who is ' the 

 yomig friend ' ? What has he to say about the coming upon ' thirteen 

 nearly full-fed larvae ' ? Mr. St. John has to rely on the statement of 

 a 'young friend,' and this makes all the difference. If he had taken 

 the species himself it would have been another matter. Mr. St. John 

 further states that ' the ten pupae ' (which successfully changed from 

 these larvffi) ' were entrusted to my care,' so that he evidently never 

 had the larv£e, an important item, considering how easy pupae are to 

 obtain. Mr. St. John exhibited three of the nine specimens reared, at 

 the meeting of the Ent. Soc. of London, as ' bred from larv« found 

 feeding on Euphorbia paralias on the Cornish coast, in September, 

 1889' (Trans. Ent. Soc. of Lon., 1891, p. xxxi.) He records having 

 searched for the larvffi himself in July, 1890, ' on the spot where they 

 were found the previous autumn ' but ' failed to discover any trace 

 whatever of larvae, young or middle aged.' Mr. St. John must forgive 

 our scepticism, but until we know something of the captor of these 

 larvas, we shall, in common with most British lepidopterists look on 

 Mr. St. John as a probable victim in the matter. It would be 

 interesting, however, to know the present whereabouts of these nine 

 specimens which have been recorded, so that at any rate they may be 

 distinguished from those that were sent on their wanderings last 

 winter. We notice that Mr. St. John mentions nine specimens as 

 being reared, in the paragraph above, but m September, 1890, he only 

 mentions eight as having been reared, and one that looked like passing 

 a second winter in the pupal stage. — Ed.] " 



Copy of Mr. Fry's letter : — 



"51, Stamford Hill, N., 2nd October, 1893. 



"Dear Mr. Hanbury, — I am surprised to hear that a doubt has 

 been thrown on the genuineness of the specimens of D. eiqyhorbm that 

 were bred by Mr. St. John from the larvae that I found in 1889. The 

 details of my capture are as follows : — I was staying at New Quay, 

 Cornwall, with my parents in August of that year. In a little sandy 

 bay at the foot of the cliff, about two miles away, I found eighteen or 

 nineteen of these caterpillars feeding on the Sea-spurge, which grew in 

 one spot plentifully. Most of the specimens were full fed, but a few 

 were only half fed. Five or six of my larvae died, the remaining 

 thirteen, as you know, pupated, forming loose cocoons with the sand. 

 You will doubtless remember that in the first instance I brought them 

 to you, not knov/ing what I had found, and it was by your advice that 



