THE GUESTS OF ANTS AND TERMITES. 87 
of this doubtful species. Dr. Kriiper caught it in great numbers from 
the beginning of March to the end of April on the Parnassus, but 
never sent me a case thereof, perhaps never found one himself, so that 
I was quite unable to send the case of this species to Milliére which 
he none the less describes! His description from the Greek form 
states that the forewings are ‘a pointe apicale prononcée,’ whilst the 
apex of pulla is ‘arrondié.’ I do not attach much importance to this, 
as the wing-form of the same species varies, and also, if this were not 
so, every Fumea and Psyche known to me has in general a rounded 
apex. I only find that the Greek examples are somewhat more densely 
scaled, therefore of a deeper black than my specimens (of pulla) from 
Germany, France, Switzerland, and, in part, from Hungary and Castile. 
Fresh specimens from Castile are still darker, also somewhat smaller.”’ 
My first sight of this insect was a specimen from Greece, sent by 
Staudinger to Chapman, and I observed at once that it could not possibly 
be Hpichnopteryx pulla. Chapman had already critically examined it 
and discovered that it had anterior tibial spurs, and, therefore, not 
only could not possibly be a form of FH. pulla, but was referable to 
Rambur’s genus Psyehidea. An examination of the British Museum 
material showed a long series of large pulla, under the name of var. 
graecella, but mixed with them three examples from Greece, exactly 
like the one I had previously seen, and evidently belonging to 
Psychidea. In this series are two examples from Hyéres, caught by 
Yerbury, and one of these (much rubbed) has a very pointed forewing. 
There can be no question I think that these two Hyéres examples are 
not graecella, but Iam at the same time not altogether satisfied that 
they are H’. pulla. With all due deference to the opinion of such a great 
authority as Staudinger I would urge that Milliére is quite right, that 
graecella has more pointed forewings than pulla, and that it is 
abundantly distinct. Itis possible, though, that Milliére’s examples from 
south France were not identical with the Greek ones, that they were 
similar to the examples from Hyéres in the Brit. Mus. collection, and 
that the case he describes as that of graecella is consequently that of a 
species abundantly distinct from that of which he describes the imago, 
very possibly not even congeneric. If the British Museum qraecella 
are a fair sample of the insects in the various continental collections 
passing under this name, one is able to understand why most 
systematists make graecella a var. of HE. pulla, as most of them are 
typical KF. pulla; but there can be no doubt that the yraecella from 
Greece sent out by Staudinger are an abundantly distinct species, and 
one is astounded at Staudinger doubting its specific distinctness. The 
anterior tibial spur is a character that will settle any doubt in a 
minute. One would like to see the life-history of the doubtful Hyéres 
examples solved, we rather suspect them to be distinct from H. pudla, 
as they are apparently different from the examples of FH. pulla 
obtained at Cannes, Alassio, and elsewhere on the Riviera in March 
and April. 
The Guests of Ants and Termites. 
By E. WASMANN, 8.J. (translated by H. DONISTHORPE, F.Z.8., F.E.S8.). 
(Continued from p. 75.) 
Active mimicry, 7.ec., the imitation of the host’s movements, 
especially of its antenne, can be added to passive, @.e., the imitation of 
