86 
Mr. Clark’s Appendix to a Treatise 
This male being found in wild places and on heaths where cattle frequent in 
summer, is perhaps awaiting the appearance of the female flies a little later in 
the season. If this be true, it will reduce the genus by two species, and ren¬ 
der it more clear, simple and appreciable. I possess numerous specimens of 
this CE. “ ericetorum ,” and on examining them, find the termination of the 
abdomen in all of them without any stylus, see Tab. I. fig. 30, 31, of my 
“ Essay,” and conceive them, therefore, to be all males. I may further ob¬ 
serve, that in my later description of this insect, I was led at that period to 
conjecture that this tiy might possibly be the male of CE. Boris, but dared not 
affirm it, since Dr. Leach assured me he had one specimen in his collection 
with a stylus, which I now regard as a mistake; and having but little time to 
give to these pursuits, I left the subject in a doubtful state. It is necessary 
to add that fig. 31. of my treatise (where this insect is represented with a sty¬ 
lus to the abdomen) was given solely on the authority of Dr. Leach. 
Having thus expunged two species, I shall proceed to obliterate a third, the 
(E. Pecorum of Fabricius. Although some sort of grief, trouble or suffering 
appears to be allotted to every animal in the creation in its present condition, 
we have yet to learn that any naturalist, butcher or other person among the 
Laplanders has seen the larva of any CEstrus in the nose or fauces of these 
animals. The stag has them, it is true, in the throat, but then he has no in¬ 
fliction on his back or stomach ; and no animals appear to be tormented in 
both ways. However, let search be made as to this supposed nose-bot, which 
will be very easily done on the spot. It is true there are four species belong¬ 
ing to the horse, but they are all confined to one part only, viz. the stomach. 
As to the insect which Fabricius describes, it is pretty clear to me, if any one 
could show a specimen of it, which I never yet saw, that it would prove to be 
no other than a dark-coloured variety of the CE. veterinus of my enumeration 
(a colour they often assume), and answer to his description sufficiently well. 
I am almost sorry to commit such havoc as to destroy a fourth species, 
which I do with the more regret, as it, was designed to do me honour and to 
bear my name. This is another species of Dr. Leach’s creating (see CEstrus 
Clarhii, ‘CEstrideous Insects,’ p.2), which, on examination at the British Mu¬ 
seum, where it is still to be seen so ticketed, proved to be no other than a 
very light-coloured variety of my CEstrus veterinus, called by mistake nasalis 
