SCIENTIFIC NOTES. 
201 
that this caterpillar is given to variation. I see no mention of the 
fact, either in Newman, Kirby, Buckler or Stainton. It has now 
turned into a pupa on the top of the soil in the pot. — I d. 
Sept 6771 her nth, 1891. 
Generic nomenclature and the Acronyctid^. — My “assump- 
tions ” {ETit. Record, p. 106) as to the action of the Editor of the Record, 
I took from what Mr. Lewcock had written before, that that gentleman 
disclaimed the authorship of Cuspidia aceris because the Editor had 
himself substituted Dr. Chapman’s generic name for Acro 7 iycta. If it 
w'as not so, will the Editor please tell us who was responsible for the 
appearance of the name in ETit. Record, 1890, p. 167 ? If I remember 
rightly in the report of the City of London Society elsewhere the 
species appears under AcroTtycta. — T. D. A. Cockerell. [Mr. 
Cockerell is entirely wrong, (i). I did not “substitute” Cuspidia (or 
Ac 7 ’ 07 iycta. (2). Mr. Lewcock neither suggested nor wrote that I did 
so. (3). Mr. Lewcock disclaimed responsibility because others had 
used Cuspidia before it appeared under his name and because it was 
well-known the names were Dr. Chapman’s, and not because I “ sub- 
stituted ” Cuspidia for Acronycta. (4). The name Cuspidia could have 
occurred at Record, i., p. 167, in one of two ways — either Cuspidia 
was in the report, or, the report was without generic names and I 
added it. — E d.] 
“ Dr, Chapman’s recently proposed division of the genus AcroTiycta is 
adopted in The British Noctuce aTtd their Varieties, and if the genus is 
to be divided at all we hope it will stand, as it is the result of a very 
painstaking and careful study of the group on Dr. Chapman’s part, and 
as it seems to us superior to any division which had previously been 
suggested.” — G. T. Porritt, The Naturalist, p. 278. 
Use of spots on larva of Ch^rocampa euphorbia. — I was 
interested when on the “ Landes ” with what I did -not see of Chcero- 
ca 77 ipa euphorhice. A Euphorbia (para/ias?) growing on the shore had 
been eaten by it, and in one place there was much fresh frass. I could 
not find the larvae, but I thought once I had done so, the stem of the 
Euphorbia had the leaves so eaten off, as to leave their bases as round 
coloured spots, and these, C. euphorbice obviously mimics, and thereby no 
doubt hides itself. This conclusion is very different to that to be drawn 
from its appearance in Capri, where I saw it two years ago. There it 
fed openly and most abundantly on a Euphorbia, its aspect 
seemed to make it intentionally conspicuous as a warning to enemies. 
Can the same larva use the same markings in two such diverse manners, 
in different places and under different circumstances? — T. A. Chapman, 
Firbank, Hereford. 
Strange copulation. — On August 22nd, I found Charceas s,ra 77 ii 7 iis 
$ , m cop. with Noctua xanthographa g . — W. Mackmurdo, Wanstead. 
Action of Chloride of Potassium on Gonepteryx rhamni. — A 
friend who used to collect, showed me two specimens of G. rha 77 ini, 
which, after being kept for between two and three years in a bottle of 
chloride of potassium, developed the deep orange blotches at the 
c 
