1 Aprin, 1898.] QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL. 315 
to the function of piercing comparatively hard substances that had been 
attributed to it by Thozet. This he made known in a special memoir entitled 
“Les Lepidopteres, 4 trompe perforante, destructeurs des oranges,” that was 
communicated by Emile Blanchard to the French Academy of Sciences, on 38rd 
August, 1875, and printed in the annals of that society (vid. Compt. Rendus 
61, Paris, 1875, pp. 397-400, and Plate). 
H*, Darwin also on his part described this strangely fashioned piercing 
organ of Ophideres in the “ Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science” for 
1875, and wrote on 22nd August to A. Thozet, “congratulating him on his 
discoveries,” remarking that they supported his own observations on the habits 
of Phalenes that perforated the nectaries of certain flowers. 
M. Kiinckel d’Herculais’ paper, that created very great interest amongst 
scientific men, is reprinted in the “ Annals and Magazine of Natural History” 
for 1875 (wid. 4 Series, Vol. XVL., pp. 372-4, 1875), and also summarised in the 
“ Gardeners’ Magazine” for the same year. It was also incorporated in an 
able paper read before the Paris Acclimatisation Society by Mons. Aime 
Dufort shortly afterwards. Dufort’s paper has been made known to Australian 
readers, for, having been translated into English by the editor of this Journal, 
A. J. Boyd, and communicated to the Queenslander, it appeared in its issues of 
14th July and 21st July, 1877. 
Prior, however, to the important discovery being made known in the 
colony, another Rockhampton correspondent (G. L. Pilcher) had also publicly 
disputed A. Thozet’s contention, in a letter dated 23rd March appearing in 
the Queenslander, 7th April, 1877; and his views on this subject, having been 
meanwhile communicated to a well-known British entomologist, found 
expression also in “ Cistula Entomologica” of 1877, pp. 237-40. 
W. H. Miskin, as referee to the Queenslander.on entomological topics, 
again impugned the accuracy of A. Thozet’s observations in the Queenslander 
of 11th May, 1878, without comment, however, on the confirmatory discoveries 
on the part of d’Herculais and F. Darwin. Thozet, however, found a local 
champion in Robert Grieve, who also wrote to the Queenslander on ‘‘ The 
Enemy of the Orange,” narrating similar observations made in the vicinity of 
Brisbane to those that the former had made at Rockhampton. 
In 1879 Dr. R. B. Read, of Sydney, published his independent researches 
on “‘ Lepidoptera having the Auntilia terminated in a Teretron or Borer,” in a 
paper, already quoted, read before the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 
and appearing in Vol. IIT. of its “Proceedings” (op. cit., pp. 150-154, 1879). 
In this appears an excellent figure of the distal extremity of the proboscis of 
Ophideres fullonica and O. salaminia. 
Again, the present writer discussed the whole subject fully in 1889, in an 
article entitled ‘Orange Moths—Fam. Ophiderine,” appearing in his Report | 
on Insect and Fungus Pests (op. cit., pp. 101-104, Brisb., 1879). 
Finally, the same theme is briefly dealt with from another point of view 
by A. Sidney Olliff and H. Forde in A. W. Scott’s “ Australian Lepidoptera 
and their Transformations” (op. cit., Vol. II., Part L., pp. 6-7, 1890). 
DESCRIPTION OF PLATES. 
Pirate XVIII.—Othreis fullonica, L. Male and female. (Original.) 
ie XIX.—Menas salaminia, Oram., and Argadesa materna, L. Male and female. 
(Original. ) 
5 XX.—Othreis fullonica, L. Caterpillars from life. (Original.) 
XXI.—Othreis chrysalis, Natural mode of occurrence and isolate. (Original.): 
4) XXII.—Foliage of Menispermaceous food plants of Ophiderine. Dimensions 
reduced. (Original.) 
(1) Stephania hernandicefolia, Walp. 
(2) (2) Linospora smilacina, Benth. 
(3) Stephania aculeata, Bail. 
(4) Pericampylus incanus, Miers. 
