what appeared to be pupae hanging from the roof of the cave were seen. These could not be reached. A somewhat similar cave at Waipu, North Auckland, was visited, and two complete pupa cases and several incomplete parts were found. In addition, the region at Arapuni, near Putaruru, where the original specimens for study at Dublin were collected, was visited several times, and some experiments were carried out on the larvae. Some of the gaps in our knowledge of these peculiar insects were thus filled, but more work is necessary. Nomenclature F. W. Edwards (1933) agreed with Osten-Sacken that the New Zealand glow-worm belongs to the family Mycetophilidae, but its precise relationships have been the subject of much doubt. It was first described by Skuse as Bolitophila luminosa, on the usual evidence of the venation of the wings. Edwards altered the name to Arachnocampa on evidence of the form and habits of the larva, noting, however, that the classification of the Mycetophilidae had hitherto been based mainly on the venation of the wings. In 1926, Tonnoir and Edwards placed Arachnocampa in the Bolitophilinae in spite of what they stated was the known divergence in its larval structure and habits. By 1933, Edwards had studied the head of the larva, and on this evidence, concluded that Arachnocampa and Bolitophila are only distantly related, and that Arachnocampa closely resembled Ceroplatus. In fact, if larval characters and habits are to be the criterion, it seems that Edwards has made a strong case for transferring Arachnocampa to the Ceroplatinae. But there appears no good reason for basing the classification of the glow-worm on its larval characters, by which Edwards must have meant the externals of the head. Hudson disliked such a classification based on the characters of a larva with peculiar habits, and was not satisfied with the erection of a new genus Arachnocampa: he preferred Skuse's original term Bolitophila, based on wing venation, which is usual. In standard books dealing with various aspects of entomology and biological luminescence, such as those of Imms, Harvey, Tillyard and Wigglesworth, the name is Bolitophila luminosa, and it is felt that this usage should be followed. In order to avoid confusion, the name Arachnocampa has been placed in brackets in the title of these notes. Previous Work In 1915, Wheeler and Williams, of the Bussey Institute, Harvard, established the fact that the light organ of the New Zealand glow-worm consists of the enlarged ends of the malpighian tubes. Up to 1958—that is, for nearly a half century, no further information on the internal anatomy of any stage in the life cycle was available. In that year, owing to his interest in the matter, Mr. Eric C. Colbeck, of the Tourist Hotel Corporation of N.Z., published for Waitomo the present author's popularly written short pamphlet, based on work done for a year in Dublin by the present writer, and the post-graduate student Gouri Ganguly. This pamphlet described the light organ and general anatomy, but contains at least one small inaccuracy, the chordotonal sense organs should be closer within the anal papillae. Believing at the time the various accounts claiming that the glow-worm can douse its light suddenly, Gatenby and Ganguly (1958) brought forward an explanation based on anatomical structure, as to how this might be effected. There is now serious doubt, amounting to disbelief in the writer's view, about the ability of the glow-worm to douse its light quickly when alarmed. When startled, it retreats— usually backwards—rapidly into its hiding place, and thus covers its light. It can, however, fade out its light slowly, which is something different Neither Ganguly nor the present writer had live specimens to work on, and the material forwarded