This page has been validated.
Chap. X.
Insects.
277

unique as far as known to Mr. Wollaston, of the head of the female being much broader and larger, though in a variable degree, than that of the male.Fig. 10. Taphroderes distortus (much enlarged). Upper figure, male; lower figure, female. Any number of such cases could be given. They abound in the Lepidoptera: one of the most extraordinary is that certain male butterflies have their fore-legs more or less atrophied, with the tibiæ and tarsi reduced to mere rudimentary knobs. The wings, also, in the two sexes often differ in neuration,[1] and sometimes considerably in outline, as in the Aricoris epitus, which was shewn to me in the British Museum by Mr. A. Butler. The males of certain South American butterflies have tufts of hair on the margins of the wings, and horny excrescences on the discs of the posterior pair.[2] In several British butterflies, as shewn by Mr. Wonfor, the males alone are in parts clothed with peculiar scales.

The use of the bright light of the female glow-worm has been subject to much discussion. The male is feebly luminous, as are the larvæ and even the eggs. It has been supposed by some authors that the light serves to frighten away enemies, and by others to guide the male to the female. At last, Mr. Belt[3] appears to have solved the difficulty: he finds that all the Lampyridæ which he has tried are highly distasteful to insectivorous mammals and birds. Hence it is in accordance with Mr. Bates' view, hereafter to be explained, that many insects mimic the Lampyridæ closely, in order to be mistaken for them, and thus to escape destruction. He further believes that the luminous species profit by being at once recognised as unpalatable. It is probable that the same explanation may be extended to the

  1. E. Doubleday, 'Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.' vol. i. 1848, p. 379. I may add that the wings in certain Hymenoptera (see Shuckard, 'Fossorial Hymenop.' 1837, pp. 39–43) differ in neuration according to sex.
  2. H. W. Bates, in 'Journal of Proc. Linn. Soc.' vol. vi. 1862, p. 74. Mr. Wonfor's observations are quoted in 'Popular Science Review,' 1868, p. 343.
  3. 'The Naturalist in Nicaragua,' 1874, pp. 316–320. On the phosphorescence of the eggs, see 'Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.' 1871, Nov., p. 372.