32 
that radiata is a distinct species, and they support their views by 
instancing the fact that rcidiata is double-brooded, whereas S. lubridpeda 
is not, but I think the fact of having bred a second brood of S. 
lubricipcda from Lincolnshire, should go far to dispel these views. 
Certainly my Lincolnshire larva? produced radiata, but only in a small 
minority, by far the greater number bred being typical. I have no 
direct evidence of S. lubridpeda being double-brooded in a wild state, 
although I took a larva as late as November 9th, 1879, and the perfect 
insect as late as July 15th. 1898, but both those seasons were noted 
for the late emergence of insects generally, and probably in each case 
they were retarded owing to the season. 
There is another point of speculation which has been raised, and 
that is the reason why radiata has only occurred on the Lincolnshire 
coast and in Yorkshire, and a suggestion has been made with some 
grounds of plausibility, riz., that specimens of radiata may have 
migrated from Heligoland, where radiata is said to be the type, to the 
nearest point on our shores, and that heredity still evinces itself. My 
own opinion would rather be that the climatic influence that produces 
radiata in Heligoland is in some degree the same that we find in our 
north-eastern counties. One of the earliest records of radiata in 
Lincolnshire that I am able to find, was as far back as 1887, the 
specimens were taken by Mr. Mossop, and I believe in very much the 
same locality as the most recent specimens have been found, and it 
would appear that any hereditary influence would become lost if 
climatic influence did not in itself produce the form. 
Before concluding I must thank those gentlemen who have so 
promptly furnished any information I have asked for, and my thanks 
are particularly due to Mr. Massey, who specially brought up his 
cabinet drawer from Manchester, in order that I might the better 
illustrate my paper, and without which my exhibit would not have 
been nearly so complete. 
POISONOUS PLANTS IN RELATION TO MEDICAL JURIS- 
PRUDENCE. 
(Read March 7th, 1899, by FRANK BOUSKELL, F.E.S., F.R.H.S., etc., Deputy 
Coroner for South Leicestershire). 
When we consider the number of poisonous plants there are, it is 
rather remarkable, how few have been used for purely criminal purposes; 
but on the other hand, a much larger number of plants have been the 
subject of Coroners’ inquiries, through having been administered or 
taken by mistake, or by pure accident. 
In considering the question perhaps it would lie as well to divide 
the cases to which we shall refer under three heads: 
(1) Those plants which have been used for criminal purposes. 
(2) Plants which have been used by mistake for culinary or medicinal 
purposes. 
