1912.] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 303 
larva bears to an ant, while Kirby® says it is from the extraordinary 
appearance of the larva that the species derives its name of lobster 
moth. 
Thus the larva of Stauropus is supposed to mimic more or less 
closely, objects in both the vegetable and the animal kingdoms, 
and within the limits of the latter, representatives of five orders 
(not to mention ants carrying prey nor double ants), belonging to no 
fewer than three classes of the phylum Arthropoda. It is evident 
that the predaceous foes of Stauropus, had they only the imaginative 
powers of its human observers, could have a banquet of many diverse 
courses, each of which would be merely Stauropus in disguise. 
Poulton says: ‘I should not, however, have ventured to speak 
so plainly of the meaning of the various details in the defensive 
attitude of the larva if I had not been able to rely upon the best 
support attainable—the support yielded by direct experiment.’’’ 
He would have been approximately correct if he had said the poorest 
support attainable, but let us see what the support is. A marmoset 
and a lizard were offered one Stauropus larva each; they showed 
caution in attack, but each ate the larva. Rather a slender basis, one 
would say, for four pages of argument on the special defence of the 
creature. 
The continuation of the argument—defence against insect enemies 
—is even more far-fetched. When irritated the larva displays 
black patches on certain segments, and Poulton thinks “‘it is clear 
that the black marks exposed by the larva are calculated to suggest 
to the approaching enemy [parasite] that the individual [larva] in 
question is already occupied.” Super-parasitism is too common an 
occurrence to warrant the belief that parasitic insects are warned 
away by any visible signs of preoccupation. 
The tussock moths (Orgyia antiqua and O. pudibunda) are supposed 
to be protected by the fine hairs of the tussocks which come out 
easily in immense numbers. Poulton says: ‘‘This interpretation 
is entirely due to experiment. A larva of O. antiqua was introduced 
into a lizard’s cage and, when attacked, instantly assumed the defen- 
sive attitude. An unwary lizard seized the apparently feasible part 
of the larva: most of the tussock came out in its mouth, and the 
lizard seemed greatly troubled by the fine hairs and did not touch 
the larva again” (p. 590). An Orgyia pudibunda larva was killed 
but not eaten by another lizard. 
48 The Butterflies and Moths of Europe, 1903, p. 46. 
9 Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1888, p. 585. 
