NOTES ON COLLECTING, ETC. 
297 
was still more peculiar, for T took down two females on a suitable day, 
both having emerged on the same morning, with this result, that, while 
one female attracted a large number of males, the other only attracted 
two or three during the whole morrnng. I noticed that the attracting 
female was very restless, that she usually rested with her abdomen 
distended in a peculiar manner, and that on the approach of the male, 
when he began to buzz about the cage where she was confined, she 
became much excited. On the other hand, the unattractive female was 
perfectly quiet and apparently in a sleepy state. Not till the flight was 
nearly over did she show any signs of restlessness, or rest with her 
abdomen extended in the manner I have mentioned, and not till then 
did she attract a single male, but when this began, she attracted two at 
once. I gather, therefore, that in this species, the females are only 
attractive when they are in the humour for pairing. The pairing of 
these insects is most extraordinary. If you allow the male to enter the 
cage where the female is, he buzzes about for a moment, then he does 
not alight, but backing towards the female they pair, and the male 
almost instantaneously drops as if lifeless, suspended, of course, by the 
female. The contrast between the apparently lifeless body, thus 
hanging, and the insect that a moment before had been buzzing about, 
its wings moving with extraordinary rapidity, a simple mass of vitality, 
is something to be remembered. My next experience w'as a failure. I 
attempted to “ semble ’’ with 6*. culiciformis^ when I quite expected to 
be successful. I went to get the pupae but w’as too late, and only 
secured one, which emerged directly after I obtained it, and proved to 
be a fine female. The morning was bright and sunny, and she buzzed 
about freely, but not a single male came. I can only understand this 
by assuming that the males were over. I saw one or two which I think 
were females depositing, but it seems strange that all the males should 
have died so soon. — A. Robinson, i. Mitre Court Buildings, Temple. 
October, 1891. 
Double-broodedness of Cidaria silaceata. — I think Mr. Tutt is 
wrong in assuming this species to be double-brooded on such slight 
evidence. Numberless cases of autumn emergence of early summer 
species occur ; but before we can conclude they are truly double- 
brooded, it will have to be shown that the ova are properly developed 
in the female, and that the larvae would feed up and pupate. I never 
bred the insect till this year, and they have been emerging slowly ever 
since. My friend, Mr. Gardner, who has reared it frequently, tells me 
that his experience is the same, and that some of them always emerge 
in the autumn. I notice a specimen is out to-day. — John E. Robson, 
Hartlepool. November 22nd, 1891. 
Under ordinary circumstances, perhaps it would be unwise to suppose 
that Cidaria silaceata is double-brooded, on the mere fact that I 
happened to capture a fair number of what was undoubtedly a second 
brood of this species in the Isle of Wight in August, 1889, but this 
personal knowledge is supplemented by the information of many 
correspondents and friends in the South of England who all treat it as 
a distinctly double-brooded species, and not only so, but speak of its 
strong tendency to seasonal dimorphism. The first brood in the south 
consists usually of fairly large specimens, with the central band well 
broken in a majority of specimens. The second brood consists of much 
D 
