Insects. 5165 



April, having come out to see the Review, of which he saw and heard much more than 

 the House of Lords. — Alex. Wallace; 5, Green Terrace, Clerkenwell, May 3, 1856. 

 — [Intelligencer^] 



Melilcea Alhalia (" only in the south," according to the ' Manual ') is abundant in 

 one locality in South Staffordshire. I shall be happy to send specimens to any ento- 

 mologist who may think them worth applying for. — /. Hardy ; 43, Radnor Street, 

 Hulme, Manchester, May 6, 1856. — [Id.] 



Daplidice and Lathonia. — In reference to your note at page 5147 of the 'Zoolo- 

 gist,' I find that your remarks on Lathonia and Daplidice do not bear the construction 

 which I unintentionally put' upon them. I am very sorry to have made the mistake. 

 — E. C. Buxton ; New Brighton, June 17, 1856. 



Notodonta not double-brooded. — As Mr. Crewe is still of opinion that his four eggs 

 of Notodonta camelina, laid in May, which produced moths in his cage in August, 

 " prove incontestable that the insect is double-brooded," of course it would be useless 

 to argue the matter further. I must beg, however, that he will answer a no doubt 

 very simple question for me. Two or three years ago I had a brood of N. camelina 

 hatched iu May (about fifty larvae) : all were full-fed in July, and in two or three weeks 

 about a dozen moths appeared: now I can well understand that, according to the 

 double-brooded theory, these specimens were the second brood ; but as the greater part 

 of the pupae remained in that state all the winter, and produced moths the following 

 spring, I am quite at a loss to know which brood these latter specimens are to be re- 

 ferred to: will Mr. Crewe kindly inform me? Mr. Crewe says, " Every entomologist, 

 I believe, allows that Notodonta ziczac, N. dromedarius, N. dictaea and N. dictaeoides 

 are double-brooded," and " Why should not the same result, most naturally, take place 

 with camelina?" I really don't understand such argumeut as this. If these four 

 species were double-brooded, which I beg most distinctly to deny, I cannot see what 

 effect it would have on the camelina question : these species are not very closely allied 

 to camelina, but cucullina and Carmelita are, yet Mr. Crewe dare not venture to 

 assert they are double-brooded : this sort of argument can therefore be used both ways, 

 and after all amounts to nothing. Mr. Crewe mentions an instance of an autumnal 

 specimen of Clostera reclusa : nothing is more likely, as the larvae of this species are 

 often full-fed very early in the summer, but I have had this insect in the pupa state 

 from July till the following May, so the early ones do not always come out in the au- 

 tumn of the same year. With regard to Mr. Crewe's concluding remarks, at p. 5149, 

 I must be allowed to say that he first cast doubts on my assertions at p. 4899, so in 

 this case it is the country entomologist who commenced the dispute. I cannot ima- 

 gine that endeavouring to ascertain the truth, or correcting error, will ever damage 

 Entomology or any other science, but, on the contrary, do it the greatest benefit. I 

 am confident that my statements respecting the economy of camelina will be sup- 

 ported by every entomologist in the country competent to form an opinion, and am 

 sure that, when Mr. Crewe has been an entomologist a few more years, he will find 

 that four eggs will not make a brood any more than one swallow will make a summer. 

 — E. Shepherd; June 13, 1856. 



Notodontce not double-brooded. — I cannot agree with Mr. Crewe that the Noto- 

 dontae are double-brooded, in the proper sense of the term,— that is, that in a slate of 

 Nature there is a brood of moths in the spring from which an autumnal brood is regu- 

 larly produced, the larvae of which furnish the brood which appears in the following 

 spring. That specimens of some of the species occasionally appear in the autumn I 



