34 



The Naturalist. 



For many years the species has been a bone of contention, or 

 rather a source of argument for the entomological investigators of 

 this and continental countries, and of late the subject has again 

 become very prominent, from the fact of its being brought before the 

 notice of the Entomological Society of London by no less a person 

 than J. W. Dunning, Esq., whose paper on the subject will ever 

 remain a monument of scientific knowledge and research, as well as 

 a proof of the author's industry in working out his subject. I shall 

 be indebted to this article, of which the author kindly sent me a copy, 

 for some of my remarks, but as I have taken the insect, I can possibly 

 speak with more freedom than a person who has never seen it alive. 



In 1791, the French naturalist, Olivier, described an insect 

 supposed to be identical with our own, and placed it in the order 

 Neuroptera, amongst the caddis-flies {Vliryganed)^ and his theory was 

 adopted by our own Curtis and Stephens for many years after ; but 

 in 1835, Professor Westwood expressed a doubt about the species 

 belonging to the caddis-fly group, and in fact pronounced the insect 

 to be Lepidopterous. From the above date to the present day there 

 have been some persons who hold the caddis-fly theory, and others- 

 much the larger number — who stick to the insect's Lepidopterous 

 characteristics, all of which are fully explained and disposed of in 

 Mr. Dunning' s clever article, to which I refer my readers, if they 

 wish to enter into the scientific depths of its history, and revel 

 amongst the dry bones " of our much loved pursuits. 



It will, perhaps, be asked whether the caddis-fly or moth theory is 

 best proved by the arguments adduced in the investigation, and also, 

 whether the insect in question is such a connecting link between the 

 two classes that it is with difficulty its separation from either is 

 effected ? It is quite true that it has one or two peculiarities in 

 common with the caddis-flies, as the aquatic habits of the larva, etc., 

 but its Lepidopterous characteristics are many, in the possession of 

 which it cannot reasonably be referred to the former group. The 

 aquatic habits of the larva would speak in favour of the caddis-fly, 

 more especially if it were the only instance of the kind we find 

 amongst the Lepidoptera of Britain, but it does not stand alone, 

 C. Lcmmta, P. stratiotalis, and the China-marks have all aquatic 

 larvae, and their claim to the Lepidoptera is seldom, if ever, questioned, 

 and not only so, but the insect under consideration has many pecu- 

 liarities which we look for in vain amongst the caddis-flies. 



(To he continued.) 



