1890. 



THE YOUNG NATURALIST. 



73 



solved in naptha with success. It adheres readily, soon sets, and is 

 not affected with damp. The materials can be obtained in any oil or 

 Chemist's shop. — F. Milton, Stamford Hill, N. 



ON THE PROBABLE ORIGIN OF DE1LEPHILA 



GALII. 



BY C. H. BRIGGS, F.E.S. 



Mr. Tugwell in the March number of the Young Naturalist has 

 executed a sort of ' volte face,' for finding that the records of the 

 imagines clearly prove that Galii did not appear in Kent until after it 

 had appeared in other places in England, Scotland aud Ireland, he 

 abandons his former position (which was solely based on the record of 

 imagines) and falls back on some hitherto unrecorded details of the 

 larvae found by himself at Deal. 



But as Galii larvae, practically speaking, are only to be found on 

 Sandhills, this course withdraws from the discussion the records from 

 almost all other parts, as larvae neither were, nor were likely to have 

 been noticed in them. No comparison therefore can be made. As re- 

 gards the Suffolk sandhills, which (including Yarmouth), perhaps rank 

 next, entomologically, after the Deal and Wallasey sandhills. Mr. J. 

 A. Cooper, records (Ent. xxi. p. 257), that during the last week in 

 August, he found the larvae commonly, and says " from the traces about 

 they must have been there in great numbers many no doubt having 

 pupated. Mr. Tugwell has shewn nothing so early as this from Deal 

 or Kent. 



But Mr. Cooper, working down towards Kent to Shoeburyness, 

 where, if Mr. Tugwell's Kentish invasion theory is good, things should 

 have been more advanced than in Suffolk, says, " I have since taken a 

 dozen more at Shoeburyness," but mentions no signs of any having 

 pupated. Mr. Tugwell's theory may be true, but it is certainly unsup- 

 ported by, if it is not entirely hostile to, all the records : in fact it 

 lands him in the awkward assumption that Galii must have arrived in 

 Kent first because it was recorded there last. 



I agree that the date of capture gives no proof of the exact date of 

 appearance, or rather emergence of the imago in any place, but we 

 must apply this fact fairly and in all instance ; not in one case only to 



