Sa
x
\ *
RETURN TO
LIBRARY OF MARINE BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY
WOODS HOLE, MASS.
LOANED BY AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY
Pr 5 Or
THE CANADIANS.”
| ey ee
HNTOMOLOGIS
EE VOLUME V. Oho
Edited by the Heb. C. J. S. Methune, J. A,,
Head Master of Trinity College School, Port Hope, Ont.
=
ASSISTEB bY
WM. SAUNDERS, London, Ont. ; | E. B. REED, Barrister-at-Law, London, Ont
and J. M. DENTON, London, Ont.
LONDON :
", RICHMOND ST
PRINTED BY THE FREE PRESS STEAM PRINTING COMPANY,
1873
Large
tart
LIST OF CONTRIBUTERS-TO: THIS VOLUME.
co Lo Sg ek ee Oa ema New York.
a Bog GAS Ae See ir Saree Pe WATERBURY, CONN.
eer eT. Ps a ca hape aa le hacen eig, «8 eee BELLEVILLE, ONT.
BeLoUNE, REV.-€. hes. Phe iditor...... 773 Port Hops, Onr.
925 CUR ONG Og Bgl eR bee 2 Jee eS eee MonTREAL, P. Q.
REE Not ce eee Sheits oi) oo Ses oo ee CovINGTON, Ky.
DEN SE ie i ee ea MontTREAL, P. Q.
SS a IS BI a are PHILADELPHIA, Pa.
a i ty ae ik wikis aiden mi 6 8 8 eas Onto, PEE:
ee SW os oe ieee sence vic bes os oo CoALBURGH, W. VA.
Reet te ey EPG Frye Meno ccna ain eis snip wi eve. o> © s oass GERMANTOWN, PA.
Ree eee os Sits Sohn cielo ew cee ee bk Burrato, N. Y.
MO Po Pe eA oe acing, GS at steiua i are eiayals S ¢ vs 2 Suiee ALBANY, N. Y.
Rare T EMCO OIE Ln oh ek os ke ek a 2 oe New YORK.
co Sep hs C0 I RTE ad ge a ee MALDEN, Mass.
1 eS Ona Ss SS SC ene atk ere rea ae CAMBRIDGE, Mass.
od ae AEE 0 £0 Dm OR Sea eee ns nde gt St. Loeurs; Mo:
leer gS i a Sh ees ca aia e visin ees KINGSTON, ON’.
Semele eRe VM comes ok irAllaa sa t0<6 Say ci. @ & © Senne LONDON, ONT.
SS TO BRS Gn ne hr Boston, Mass.
SB UD ORS aS ee ie oe,
S339 and about the same number
of cross lines between each,
so that the whole appears covered with a regular and beautiful net work,
as shown in the figure, which has been drawn from nature, as those also
have which are to follow, by our esteemed friend, Prof. C. V. Riley, of
St. Louis, Mo. 3
In about six or seven days the egg matures, producing a minute
caterpillar one tenth of an inch long, with a large black head, and yellow-
ish-white body, with a few black hairs on each segment, as shownat ¢ and /,
. fig. 1. This larva grows very rapidly, and soon finds that its skin will
bear no further stretching, when it conveniently disrobes itself and
appears in garb gay and new by crawling out of its skin through a rent
down the back, which takes place just at the proper time, which process
is repeated three times during its growth. At J, fig. 1, the head and
anterior segments of the larva just before its last moult is figured for the
purpose of showing how the long fleshy horns with which the mature
caterpillar is furnished are conveniently coiled up when buried beneath
the old skin.
The full grown larva, fig. 2, is about one and three quarter inches long.
Fig. 2. | Its head is yellowish
with a triangular
black stripe in front
below, and another
of a similar shape
above.
The upper surface
of the body is beau-
tifully ornamented with transverse stripes of black, yellow and white, the
white covering the greater part of each segment, and having a wide black
6 . THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST.
stripe down its centre, while the yellow occupies the spaces between. On .
the third segment (reckoning the head as first) are two long black fleshy
horns, and on the twelfth two others of a similar character, but shorter
and not quite so stout.
The under side is black with a greenish flesh color between most of
the segments.
The next change which comes over this caterpillar is that which trans-
forms it to a pupa or*chrysalis, a most astonishing transformation, when
the voracious larva becomes for a time torpid, senseless, and almost
motionless while preparing for that change when it is to appear in brilliant
plumage, and gracefully float and flutter through the air, enjoying the
summer's sunshine and sipping the nectar of flowers. Fig. 3 shows the
Fie. 3. larva as it appears at
different periods -during
its transition to the
state of chrysalis. Ata
it hangs suspended from
a silken web, in which
its hind legs are en-
tangled and which has
been previously attached
by the caterpillar to the
underside of a leaf, or fence rail or some other secure place of retreat, and
here while hanging for about a day the larva contracts its length, and
increases its bulk, especially on the anterior segments. By and by a rent
takes place in the skin down the back, and the chrysalis begins to appear,
and after long and persevering efforts and much wriggling the skin is
worked nearly up to the hinder extremity, as shown at 6. Nowa difficulty
presents itself, and a feat is to be performed to imitate which would
puzzle the most daring acrobat, for without hands or feet to hold on by it
has to withdraw itself from the remnants of its larva skin, and hang itself
up by a black protuberance covered with a bunch of hooks, with which
the chrysalis is furnished. Perilous as this undertaking seems to be, it is
very seldom indeed that a failure occurs in its accomplishment. A ready
explanation of the means by which this is done is given at ¢, fig. 3. The
joints of the abdomen being freely movable, are first stretched against a
portion of the larva skin, when, by-a sudden jerk backwards, the skin is
grasped and firmly held while the terminal segments are withdrawn, and
THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 7
the process of suspension completed. Soon after this the chrysalis begins
a series of wriggling and jerking movements to dislodge the empty larva
skin, after the removal of which it remains motionless, unless disturbed,
and becomes gradually harder and more contracted until it assumes the
appearance represented by fig. 4.
The chrysalis is about an inch long, and of a
beautiful bright green colour dotted with gold, and with
a band of golden dots extending more than half way
‘round the body above the middle; this band is shaded
with black. There is a patch of black also arouud the
base of the black protuberance by which it is suspended,
and several dots of the same on other portions of the
surface.
The insect seldom remains in chrysalis more than
ten or twelve days, and towards the latter end of this period, the hand-
some green and gold colours begin to fade, the chrysalis growing gradually
darker until the diminutive wings of the future butterfly show plainly
through the semi-transparent enclosure. The escape of the imprisoned
insect, now nearly ready for flight, is usually made quite early in the
morning. We have several times watched for their deliverance, and have
usually found it to take place soon after daybreak. A sudden crackling
and slight tearing sound is heard, which arises from a splitting of the
chrysalis case part way down the back, the fore legs, head and antennae
are first withdrawn, and in a few moments the entire insect is liberated.
At first the wings are very small, and the new born butterfly seeks at once
some suitable spot where the wings may be held so as to hang down and
thus facilitate the rapid growth which follows. This growth is truly
amazing ; we have seen the wings double their size within three minutes,
and seldom more than fifteen or twenty minutes pass before they have
attained their full dimensions, and, ere the sun is high in the heavens, the
soft, flabby wings have dried and the butterfly is ready for flight.
The archippus butterfly, fig. 5,1s so well known that it needs but little
description, especially when so good a figure is given. The ground colour
- of the wings, when fresh, is a beautifully bright orange red, the veins are
heavy and black, and the margins are spotted with white, the latter being
more or less covered or encroached upon by the general colour. Near the
middle of the hind wings there appears in the figure on one of the veins
S THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST.
an enlarged black streak or blotch ; this, when closely examined, is found
Fig. 5.
to be a small excrescence ; it is found only in the male, and by this
peculiarity the sexes may be readily distinguished. |
We have frequently seen this butterfly in great numbers on pine trees
which have been infested by apfis, attracted there no doubt by the sweet
exudations which flow from the bodies of the apfis, thus interfering with
the rights and privileges which have always been accorded to the indus-
trious ant. They also have the fashion of congregating at times, late in
the season, in prodigious swarms consisting of tens of thousands or
hundreds of thousands of individuals. In September, 1871, we met with
a swarm of this character on’ the shore of Lake Erie. They hung in
clusters everywhere on a group of trees which they completely covered ; as
many as thirty-two individuals were counted on a space of the size of
ones’ two hands, and their total numbers we thought might safely be
estimated by millions.. No satisfactory reason has yet been assigned for
such gatherings.
SOME REMARKS ON CHANGES IN NAMES OF
CERTAIN BUTTERFLIES.
BY W. H. EDWARDS, COALBURGH, W. VA.
PapiLio ASTERIAsS. Now sought to be changed to Polyxenes, although
from the time of Fabricius to the publication of Kirby’s Catalogue (1871),
no other name than asverias has been in use. The species has been
repeatedly figured as asterias in these hundred years, and under this name
is well known to everyone who takes the least interest in these things,
THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. REA
What is gained by re-naming it, I am unable to see. The first mention of
polyxenes was in Fab. Syst. Ent., page 444, No. 10, £775, the male being
described. Fabricius in 1787, in Mant. Ins., gives the same species
under the name of asé¢erias, referring to Drury, vol. i, plate u, for the
type, and quoting his own /olyxenes as synonymous.
Papitio GLaucus. Under this name Linneus described the black
female of ¢urnus, and it is only within the last ten years that it has been
generally known that g/aucus was related to turnus. When glaucus is now
spoken of, it at once brings to mind this striking variety, and /urnus var.
glaucus is a sufficient designation and answers every proper requirement.
It is eminently convenient that this variety should have its own designa-
tion, and by it, it is treated of in Wallace, Walsh, Darwin, Harris, and
other authors. I hope our lepidopterists will not be deluded into
changing these names by any supposed obligatory rule, for the simple fact :
is, there is no obligatory rule in the case.
Danais arRcHippus. Mr. Kirby (1871) gives the name of this
butterfly as erifpus Cramer. Scudder (1872) gives it as plexippus Linn.
Scudder in 1863 gave it as erifpus Doubleday (But. N. England.) Mr.
Scudder also read a paper by the late Dr. Harris before the Boston Soc.
Nat. Hist. (1859) showing that these and other names were remarkably
confounded, for example: “The Jderenice of Cramer is the erippus of
Fabricius, but not of Cramer, and it is the gz/ippus of Smith, but not of
Cramer and Fabricius; the evippus of Cramer is the archippus of Fabri-
cius and of Smith; it is also the same as the A/exifpus of Cramer, but
not of Linnzeus and Fabricius: the mzs¢ppus of Fabricius is the archippus
of Cramer, but not of Fabricius and Smith: the erzppus of Cramer is not
the erippus of Fabricius, and the misippus of Fabricius is not the misippus
of Linneus.” And he givesa table “by which it will be seen that the
nomenclature of the three North American species has become confounded
with five others.” In preparing the Synopsis of Butterflies of N. Am., I
had at hand all the above quoted works, and could make little of this
tangle ; and as our northern species of Danais has been generally known
and written of and figured as archifpus, | deemed it advisable to adhere
to that name as one resting place in a foggy sea. It is so figured in
Abbot & Smith, Boisduval & Leconte, and so called in Harris’ Ins. Mass.
2nd Edition, which work I believe had the assistance of Mr. Scudder in
preparing for the press.
10 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST.
LIMENITIS URSULA. Changed to astyanax by Butler, 1869, and
followed by Kirby and Scudder. Fabricius’ Syst. Ent., 1775, named the
species astyanax. In Ent. Syst., 1793, he re-named it wrsuda for the
following reason: It then stood in the genus Pafc/io, in which also stood
another astyanax. He therefore changed the name of the first to ursz/a,
and by this latter the species has come down to this day. It is so figured
by Abbott & Smith, and by Boisduval & Leconte. That Fabricius was
right in so changing the name to avoid a duplicate.in the same genus, is
undoubted, and although the species which still retains the name astyanax
has since been found to be the female of something else, and hence loses its
original name, there seems no good reason for disturbing wrsu/a. Fabri
cius was right in making the change, and once right always right in such
amatter. Of course I do not allow or believe that froserpina is a variety
of wrsu/a, it is as near arthemtis as ursu/a in some respects.
ON THE LARVA OF PLUSIA BALLUCA.
BY W. SAUNDERS, LONDON, ONT.
In the second volume (1863,) of the Proceedings of the Entomological
Society of Philadelphia, I published a paper on some of our Lepidopterous
larvee, and among other descriptions there appeared one purporting to be
that of Plusia balluca. By some unfortunate mishap a description of
the larva of V. ixferrogationis was sent in place of the intended one of
balluca, and the mistake was not discovered until after the number had
been issued, while all trace of the original description of the larva of
- balluca was lost. I did not again meet with this larva until the summer
of 1871, when a fresh description was taken on the 15th of June, as
follows :—
Length, 1.20 in. ; body thickest on middle and posterior segments, taper-
ng towards the tront ; the body is arched or looped along the middle seg-
ments when in motion.
Head rather small, bilobed, of a shining green color, with a few whitish
hairs.
THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST, 11
—_——_>
Body, above, yellowish-green, streaked and spotted with white, inter-
mixed all through with green, thus dividing the white into a series of
streaks, dots and broken lines; there is also a line of greenish-white on
each side, close to the undersurface. Each segment has a few tubercles of a
green color, striped with white ; these are small on the second, third and
fourth segments, but much larger from fifth to twelfth, inclusive, and
entirely wanting on the terminal segment. On each of the hinder segments,
with the exception of the last three, are ten or twelve of these tubercles,
which almost cover the whole surface, and from each of the tubercles
throughout there arises a single whitish hair.
The under surface is of a deeper green than the upper, with a few
short whitish hairs, chiefly on 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, r1th and 12th segments.
Feet green, prolegs, of which there are three pairs, green also.
This larva became a chrysalis on the 18th of June, and produced the
moth on the 13th of July.
In the caterpillar state, the insect feeds on the hop, consuming the
leaves, but we have never
known it to occur in
sufficient numbers to do
much damage. The moth,
(see fig. 6,) measures,
when expanded, about
144” amehes.. An laree
portion of the upper surface
of the fore-wings is covered
with brilliant, metallic
green scales, which are
darker on the lower portion of the middle and on the tips of the wings,
and much paler towards the inner angle. The wings are covered by two
oblique, irregular brown lines, and parts of the upper and outer portions
are tinged with purplish. The hind wings are of a brownish dusky grey,
without markings. The anterior portion of the body is pale brown, marked
with buff and curiously crested above, the hinder portions of the body are
paler. The under surface of both front and hind wings is dull, varying in
shade from pale buff to brown, one of the brown lines on the upper surface
of fore-wings being reproduced and extended across the hind wings.
Fig. 6.
This moth has been found in various parts of Canada, but in no instance
have we heard of its being met with in any considerable numbers.
12 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST.
MICRO - LEPIDOPTERA.
BY V. T. CHAMBERS, COVINGTON, KENTUCKY.
Continued from Vol. 4, Page 226,
ERRATA ET CORRIGENDA.—Ante vol. 4, p. 148, for ermonella read
Hermanella ; p. 149, for Alexandriacella read Alexandrieedla ; p. 173, line
Ti, dor “there”. read“ then;”) ps 195; line's, for’ “ all the svemis ame
united near the end of the cell,” which is an unaccountable blunder, read
‘all the veins given off from the cell arise near its end.”
ANESYCHIA.
A. trifurcella, n. sp.
White; palpi annulate and tipped with dark brown or black; a
longitudinal median blackish stripe on the thorax, and a spot of the same
hue on each side of it; primaries white with a median wide blackish
longitudinal streak beginning on the costa at the base, gradually widening
to the apex, where two small white streaks or spots divide it into three
short branches. Sometimes these white spots completely separate the
outer branches from the median one. A row of small dark brown, dots
around the apex ; a small spot near the dorsal margin about the basal
fourth, and a larger one about the apical third of the wing. Antennae
dark brown. Adar ex. t+ inch. Kentucky, in July.
HYPONOMEUTA.
fH. orbimaculella, Ante p. 88. Vol. 4.
This was described by me, ante p. 42, as H. euonymella, and the name
changed because of its resemblance to the name of a European species,
HT. evonymella. J had not then seen the European species, nor any figure
or description of it. Since then, however, I have seen the figure in
Wood’s Jndex Entomologicus, and think it most probable that this species
is identical withit. The arrangement of the spots is identical, but in the
figure of evonymella the fore wing is shaded with a smoky or brownish
hue, while in all my specimens it is pure snow white ; and the color of the
hind wings in the figure is darker, and of a different shade from any of
my specimens, in which the shade varies from snow white to lead color. I
THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. ) 13
incline to think that the maturity of the imago at the time of its death
has something to do with the color of the hind wings, specimens killed
very soon after emergence having them more slaty or lead colored than
older ones.
ARGIOPE, gen. nov.
A. dorsimaculella.
LFleribera ? incertella ante p. 44. Vol. 4.
In my former notice of this species I placed it, provisionally and with
great doubt, in Stephens’ genus Aeribeia. I find, however, that either
fleribeia Stephens 1s very different from the Averibeca of more modern Eng-
lish authors (which includes such small genera as Philocnistis, Lyonetia, &c.,)
or I have mistaken the characters of Stephens’ genus from his brief
diagnosis. I had supposed it (from the characters given by Stephens and
its location among his genera) to be allied closely to Yponomeuta.. At any
rate, as I cannot satisfactorily locate this species in any genus known to
me, I think it best to erect a new one for it with the diagnosis given at
p. 43—Vol. 4.
It differs from Véonomeuta in the colors and patterns of coloration ;
in having the terminal joint of the labial palpi a little larger in proportion
to the others ; in having the head entirely smooth ; in having the primaries
a /ittle falcate beneath the apex, though the neuration is not materially
different ; in having the costal margin of the secondaries a little excised
before the tip, which is pointed, and in having only a single branch (the
superior furcate one) given off from the discal vein (while Vgonomeuta has
an inferior simple branch also), and in having the median furcate from the
end of the cell, whilst in YAonomeuta it is simple.
GRACILLARIA.
G. blandella? Clem. Proc. Ent. Soc. Phila., 1863, p. 9.
Although Dr. Clemens’ description is not strictly accurate, or rather, is
not altogether intelligible, where applied to the insects now before me;
and I have not seen his specimens, yet notwithstanding the close resem-
blance which sometimes exists between different species of this genus, I
have very little doubt that my specimens belong to this species. Should
it, however, prove otherwise, then I suggest for these specimens the name
G. juglandivorella and annex the following description :
14 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST.
Face pale lemon yellow (or yellowish stramineous), palpi of the same
hue, each joint of the maxillary palpi tipped with dark purple, the labial
' palpi thickly dusted with dark purple and with a wide dark purple annulus
close to the tip. Vertex dark purple, with pale lemon yellow intermixed ;
antennae pale lemon yellow, faintly annulate with purple at the base,
towards the apex purple, faintly annulate with pale lemon yellow. Thorax
dark purple, with a narrow pale lemon yellow median longitudinal stripe,
and a wider and more distinct one on each side above the wings, and a
dark purple spot before the wings. Primaries pale lemon yellow and dark
purple ; the dorsal margin is dark purple from the base to near the ciliae,
where the purple widens over the apical portion of the wing, except a small
lemon yellow spot on the edge of the costal ciliae before the apex ; costal
margin from the base to the basal fourth dark purple; from the basay
fourth of the costa a rather wide fascia passes obliquely backwards from
the costal purple to the dorsal purple, uniting them, and thus enclosing on
the base of the disc an oblong pale lemon yellow spot. Immediately -
behind the oblique purple fascia, the dorsal purple is excavated, and the
wing is palelemon yellow to the costa and as far back as the ciliae, with a
little purple dusting or row of small purple spots along the extreme costa
before the ciliae. Sometimes there is a faint golden or stramineous patch
in the purple at the extreme apex, and sometimes the apex is a little
dusted with golden or stramineous, Ciliae golden or stramineous, with
three wide dark purple hinder marginal lines, one at the base, one in the
middle, and one at the tip. (Perhaps they might be better described as
dark purple, with two shining stramineous hinder marginal lines, one before
their middle and one before their tip.) Posterior wings and ciliae dark
purplish fuscous. Anterior and middle legs yellowish mixed with purple
behind, dark purple in front except the tarsi, which are silvery white with
each joint tipped with purple. Posterior legs yellowish except the apical
half of the outer surface of the femora, the tips of the tibiae behind, and
the tip of each tarsal joint. Thorax and upper surface of the abdomen
dark purple; venter pale Jemon yellow. In some lights what I have
called dark purple appears violaceous or iridescent, and the stramineous
portions appear golden or sulphur yellow. A/. ex. 34 in. © Kentucky.
Dr. Clemens received his. specimen from Virginia. I have bred it
from the leaves of the Black Walnut ( Fuglans nigra). It mines the
upper surface, and, when first taken, was supposed to be the mine of a
Philocnistis, containing a pupa. It was something more than an inch
long, a little crooked, very narrow, and resembled a small snail’s track.
THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 1
Not far from one end the mine was widened a little and the cuticle
puckered, forming a small nidus like that of a PAi/ocnistis pupa. Within
this nidus a small larva was visible. It was white, with the head pointed
before, but widened behind, and with the thoracic segments much swollen
and tapering rapidly from thence to.the tail. (There is a good deal of
resemblance between the very young larvae of Gracilaria Philocnistis and
Lithocolletis of the cylindrical group.) In a day or two it changed its
form, becoming cylindrical and pale yellowish white, and it left the mine
and went to the wzder side of the leaf, where it turned down the edge over
it, and, after eating out the parenchyma, turned it down in another place,
repeating this operation two or three times until it finally became a pupa
under the edge last turned down. Sometimes (at least in the breeding
jar) it leaves the leaf and pupates under a sheet or coverlet of white silk
like G. salicifoliella and many other species. Which mode it follows in a
state of nature I am unable to say, having never found it in the pupa
state. G. juglandiella mihi mines the wnder surface of the leaves,
but the mine is larger and more blotch like, and when it leaves the mine
it goes to the wer side of the leaf which it curls upwards over itself and
there passes the pupa state. I do not mean to say that this habit of going
to the side of the leaf opposite the mine is universal in either species, but
only so faras I have observed it in some ten specimens of each. G
blandella is a very handsome species. |
A BALLOON SPIDER.
BY: WILLIAM COUPER, MONTREAL.
“The American Naturalist” for May, 1871, contains an interesting
article on ‘“ Flying Spiders,” by J. H. Emerton. The species noticed by
him are, no doubt, allied to the gossamer of Europe, and the phenomenon
occurs early in autumn on the Islands of the St. Lawrence.
During the month of July, 1871, while trout-fishing on a large lake
near the Upper Assumption, about one hundred miles north of Montreal,
my attention was drawn to an inflated transparent substance of
an oblong cocoon shape, passing about fifty yards over my head. To this
miniature balloon, a thread was attached, and, on tracing it downward, its
architect was seen struggling on the surface of the lake. Taking up the
16 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST.
paddle and forcing the canoe in order to secure this curious spider,
imagine my disappointment, just as I was within a yard of it, to see it
swallowed by a trout. The day was fine, with just sufficient wind to waft
a delicate body of this nature across the lake. My curiosity being aroused,
I kept a good look out for another specimen, but no more were seen that
day.
On another lake further north, and during similar weather, I was
pleased to witness a number of these in their aeronautic excursions, and
on a rock in the centre of the lake was fortunate in capturing a specimen
of the spider. In size it is as large as the house spider. The body and
legs are densely covered with stiff hair; its mandibles are long and sharp.
It was extremely active, and lived about three weeks in a box after its
capture. I am ata loss to account for the mode in which this spider pro-
duces the structure with the extraordinary length of attached thread,
which it manages to send off in the air. The woods near the lakes are
principally pines, which are moss-covered and rugged, and yet, these
curious balloons are evidently constructed on trees on the margin of the
lakes.
ON THE GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SOME GENERA
OF CANADIAN INSECTS.
BY FRANCIS WALKER, LONDON, ENGLAND.
The following communication includes two genera of Chadidie,
Perilampus, and Callimome. FPerilampus is known in America from
Canada to Mexico. P. hyalinus Say, inhabits Canada; P. cyaneus Brulle,
and P. Entellus Walk. are synonyms of it. Say has described two
other species, P. platigaster and P. triangularis,; the latter is distinguished
from all other species by the dark tips of the wings. P. Alexinus Walk.
differs from P. flatigaster by not having a brassy tinge, by the luteous
tips of the femora, and by the luteous tibize with a black band. The
specimen of P. Lepreos is too much mutilated to ascertain if it agrees
with P. platigaster. P. hyalinus, above mentioned, has some resemblance
to the European P. violaceus, but has an elongated scutellum ; in this
character it is far exceeded by the Mexican P. gloriosus, which far sur-
passes all other known species in size and beauty. PP. gloriosus is also
peculiar in the developement of the secondary veins of the forewings .
THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. iv;
and is still more remarkable on account of the long cubitus, that vein
being very short in all the other species. In Europe this genus is
represented from Sweden to Italy by a few species which are generally of
rare occurrence and have been observed to be parasitic on wood-feeding
insects. There are two species in S. Africa, P. maurus and P. discolor ;
the former is wholly black ; the latter is distinguished from all others by
pectinated antenne, by a bifurcate scutellum, and by a concave abdominal
dorsum. P. Hedychroides is a small Ceylonese species, and P. Saleius
from Australia, is the smallest species of the genus yet known.
Philomides, Haliday, is‘ another genus of Perilampide, and is only
represented by P. faphius Hal., a native of Cyprus. The genus
Psilogaster Brulle, is placed by that author next to Pertlampus.
Callimome consists of much smaller insects than those of the genera
of Chalaudiz, before mentioned, and some species are abundant in
England. None have been reported in Canada, but the genus is doubt-
less there, as it occurs both to the north and the south of that region.
Two species have been found near Hudson’s Bay. One of them, C.
cecidomye is most allied to the British C. euchlorus; it is parasitic on
Cecidomyia spongivora, which forms galls on the willow. The other, C.
splendidus, should be placed next C. purpurascius, with which it agrees in
its stout structure. The species collected by E. Doubleday, in the United
States, appear to be different from those described by Say, and a few
more from the same region have been lately published by Osten Sacken.
The British species are very numerous, and, as to the female, may be most
obviously distinguished from each other by the comparative length of the
oviduct. The chief district of the genus seems to be now N. Europe, the
known species of Australia and S. America being small and scarce. Some
are natives of E. Siberia or Amurland, and it is probable that the more
Southern parts of Asia were the earlier habitation of the present European
species. Their instinct induces them to act so that their young ones may
live at the expense of gall-making insects, and there is much to observe in
the mutual adaptation of the size of the gall and the length of the
oviduct, and as to what species are exclusively reared in one kind of gall
or are developed in several kinds, and whether differences of habitation
have any effect on outward appearance. The many-chambered galls are
more interesting than those witha single cell. Some ten or twelve species
of Callimome resort to oak apples and effect lodgments for their eggs at
depths proportioned to the length of their oviducts; the species which
18 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST.
has the longest oviduct obtains possession thereby of the grub in the
central part of the gall for the maintenance of its young ones, and the
latter have a longer life in the gall than the young of the short oviduct
species. The different species thus dwell in different concentric circles of
the gall, and observations may be made whether there is mutual agreement
as to the boundary lines between their respective territories, or whether
complications occur between them when they have removed the earlier
inhabitants. Many other species of insects dwell in these galls, and there
is also much yet to be ascertained in the domestic habits of each one,
whether herbivorous or carnivorous.
MISCELLANEOUS.
GENERIC NOMENCLATURE.—Can not some method be devised to check
the recently introduced habit of rehabilitating fossil genera ?
To borrow a geological simile, these had their little day of life in the
Eozoic period of entomological science, proved themselves unfitted to
survive in the struggle for existence, and then disappeared—it was to be
hoped, forever. Is it not taking a very unfair advantage of the older
authors to make them responsible for genera of which they had no
conception, and which certainly would have been indignantly repudiated
by them ? .
What a change, for example, from Pagiléo of Linnzeus, an overgrown
genus, capable of containing whole shoals of its lesser successors to Papilio
Linn., ¢este Scudder, applying solely to one insect, already well supplied.
If Mr. Scudder’s proposed revolution in our nomenclature should be
adopted, I fear that also, on the other hand, the laboratories of the ‘‘ genus
grinders” will resemble the mills of the gods in one respect, and in one
only, namely, that of ‘‘ grinding exceeding small.” If every genus has a
single type, then, as species differ structurally more or less, what can be
more evident than that each species is in itself the type of some genus,
and immortality as enduring as that of Eratostratus is within the grasp of
the man who grinds out his genera with the greatest rapidity |—THEo. L,
MEAD.
ATTRACTING LEPIDOPTERA.—At page 194, vol. 1, CANADIAN ENTO-
MOLOGIST, attention is drawn to a new French method of collecting
Nocturnal Lepidoptera by means of bait. —
THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. : 19
Having purchased chemicals, &c., for the purpose of thoroughly
testing it at Anticosti and Labrador, last summer, I give my experience
with the hope that it may be of service. Dried apples, such as recom-
mended, were immersed in Nitric Ether, and hung on branches of trees
on the second day after my arrival on Anticosti, and I visited the baits
that night and each succeeding one during my stay on the Island. Moths
were flying in the vicinity, and several passed within twelve inches of the
bait, but only ove was noticed to rest on it during the season. The baits
on Anticosti and Labrador were constantly visited by Diptera and ants,
and these alone. My want of success discouraged me, and I resolved to
add sugar to the bait, and it was only with this addition that moths were
attracted. I think, therefore, that the old mode of sugaring is still the
best for this country. My friend, Mr. Caulfield, tried it here last summer
with a like result.
It occurs to me that a bait might be prepared to attract Diurnal
Lepidoptera. I passed two months of the summer of 1871 on the Black
River, about 140 miles north of Montreal. I resided ina shanty on the
new Colonization Road, which follows the river through the mountains.
Water in which salt pork had been par-boiled, was thrown out on the
sandy loam opposite the door, and I noticed that hundreds of Papzlio
turnus frequented this spot during favorable weather, thrusting their
tongues into the moistened sand when the fluid absorbed, for which they
seemed to have such an extraordinary liking, rendered them semi-
intoxicated.
I have seen them flying from all quarters direct for the shanty. Many
of them, I believe, came from a distance of two miles at least. The spot
which these butterflies visited was certainly that on which the pork water
was thrown, and the effluvia resulting from this was doubtless the great
source of attraction. In A. R. Wallace’s “ Malay Archipelago,” page
124, he says that the rare Charaxes Kadenii, a Java swallow-tail butterfly,
was caught as it was sitting with wings erect sucking up the liquid froma
muddy spot by the roadside, and I have seen several of our Canadian
butterflies sucking the moisture from mud on the margins of ponds made
for the use of cattle.
I intend to try a few experiments in suitable places next summer on
Anticosti, &c., with water in which salt pork has been par-boiled, with various
other substances added,and the results will be noted for the benefit of those
concerned. Cyanide of Potassium is a quick destroyer of insect life,
and I recommend it for night collecting.
20 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST.
As it is almost impossible to keep butterflies perfect on pins while
moving from place to place in wild regions, each specimen of Diurnal
Lepidoptera of my next collection will be placed in a paper envelope,
and my subscribers will, no doubt, receive the remainder of their
specimens in good condition. Moths will be pinned, and collected
chiefly by sugaring, as I believe it is the cheapest and most prolific
method of procuring good specimens. I am anxious to obtain three
additional subscribers for the Northern Diurnal Lepidoptera, to be
collected during the season of 1873.—-WILLIAM COUPER, ae Bonaventure
Street, Montreal.
QuERIES.—John R. Smith, of South Pownal, Vermont, U. S., wishes
to ascertain the best locality for P. Luna and Ceratocampa regalis ; also
if there is any published price list of American insects.
Will any of our readers kindly give the desired information ?
A New Socrety.-—We are glad to learn that a new Entomological
Society has been started in Brooklyn, N. Y. We cordially wish it every
SUCCESS.
EXCHANGE.—Mr. W. Cole, of London, Eng., is desirous to enter into
correspondence with Canadian Entomologists with a view of effecting
exchange of specimens. For further information address W. CoLgE, care
of C. Browne, Esq., 5, Old Square, Lincoln’s Inn, London, England.
ADVERTISEMENTS.
The undersigned would like to exchange desirable Lepidoptera from
North America, Brazil, India, Europe, &c., for species of Lycenide, new
to him (from any part of the world.) Californian and Arctic species
especially wanted. Address H. R. Morrison, Old Cambridge, Mass.,
1,3:
Joun AxkuHurst, Taxidermist, No. 19, Prospect Street, Brooklyn, N.
Y., keeps constantly on hand for sale, Sheet Cork for insect boxes—size,
12x 3% x YY; $1.25 per dozen sheets. Felt or German Insect Paper—
size, 18 x 22 x %; 50c. persheet. Insect pins, French make ; No. 2, 4,
6, 8, 10,12, 14, 16, 18—$1.25 Dey 1000. Insects for sale or exchange.
Dealer in Bird Skins.
N. B.—The above prices do not include the cost of transportation.
The Canadian Gntomolocist.
SOME REMARKS ON ENTOMOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.
BY W. H. EDWARDS, COALBURGH, W. VA.
The papers on Nomenclature, lately published in the CanapiAn
ENTOMOLOGIST, have much interested me, and doubtless many others,
and as the subject is one that just now, for reasons well known, appeals
especially to Lepidopterists, I beg to be allowed a little of your space
to give my views thereupon, and to state what I believe is a practicable
remedy for the evils complained of.
I am glad that this matter of Nomenclature was brought so prominently
forward by the Entomologists present at the Meeting of the American
Association for 1872, and that a Committee was appointed by the
Entomological section to report a series of Rules for consideration at the
next Meeting. }
I apprehend that hitherto very little attention has been paid to Nomen-
clature in this country, at any rate in Entomology, and that when start-
ling innovations are proposed, based upon assumed Codes or systems of
Rules, very few know what such Codes or Rules are, or how far they are
applicable or binding, or how they came to be enacted, with many other:
points of like nature. | As applied, they seem incomprehensible to most
persons, and even to the initiated have their difficulties. | In the words
of Alex. Agassiz, “he laws requisite for the correct name of an animal
or of a plant have become as difficult to establish as the most intricate
legal question.” How such a discreditable state of things has come
about, it is worth while to consider.
From an early period, Entomology, quite as much as its kindred
Sciences, suffered from a disagreement as to names of species, one set
prevailing in England, another in France, another in Germany, and so
on. The first effort to secure uniformity seems to have been made in
England by the Rev. Mr. Strickland, who, after consultation with other
naturalists, drew up a Code of Nomenclature for Zoologists, that was
bo
bo
THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST.
adopted by the British Association, in 1842. (I have been unable to
obtain a copy of this Code, and only know its Rules as I have found
them recited in various authors. On applying to Mr. A. G. Butler,
Brit. Mus., I received the following reply:—“ I can get no exact informa-
tion as to when and where these Rules were published. At the time,
they appeared in the report on the Meeting, and separate copies were
struck off and distributed. | Most of our Entomologists have either made *
copies of them or have seen them, and a few say they have printed copies.
somewhere.”
This Code was not found to work altogether satisfactorily, and never
did receive the general assent of Naturalists in their several departments.
Prof. Verrill says, ‘‘ The success of these Rules was but partial, even in
England, for a considerable number of English authors have either ignored
them or adopted them in part, often violating the most obvious and im-
portant Rules. In pee ene especially, the violations have been
lamentably numerous.”
In 1865, a Revised Code was adopted by the British Association,
which Code is printed at length in the Am. Journal of Arts and Science,
July 1869, with valuable notes by Prof. Verrill. In this Revision some
important changes were made, with a view to curing the defects of the
original Code, and of gaining a more general acceptance. It is significant
that Botany is recommended, by the Committee of Revision, zo de
omitted from the operations of the Code. :
These two Codes may, so far as my purpose is concerned, be treated
as one and the same, as the Rules that I consider obnoxious are found in
both of them, and it is of their application to Entomology only that I
have to speak, and more especially as affects the Lepidoptera.
The first Rule reads as follows :—-‘‘ The name originally given by the
describer of a species should be permanently retained, to the exclusion of
all subsequent synonyms.”
It is declared by those who are familiar with the facts, that the object
of this Rule was not to drop out of sight all existing names in favor of a
rejected or obsolete name, but to give the right to ¢hat one of the names in
use that should be found to have priority of date.
For a period of years after 1842, it is asserted that such was the under-
stood effect of the Rule, until a generation arose who knew nothing of, or
overlooked the circumstances connected with its original proposal, and
who took the letter of the Rule as their guide. And gradually there has
THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 23
sprung up a class of authors who have devoted themselves with enthusiasm
to exploring ancient works and forgotten publications of all sorts, in the
hunt for the earliest recorded name to every species, by which to replace
the name or names in use. The old authors had described but a few
hundred species, and their descriptions were of the briefest. | How brief,
an average example from Linnzeus will show :—‘ Papilio Troilus ; wings
tailed, black ; fore-wings with pale marginal spots, hind wings beneath,
with fulvous spots;” a description applicable, perhaps, to: fifty species of
Papilio. (This description at once misled Drury into giving the name
Troilus to his figure of Asterias, to which it applies equally well.)
As new species were discovered, each of the earlier described having
a group of close allies, many of these descriptions were no longer capable
of. identification, applying to numerous species as well as one. Then
recourse was had to tradition, or to type specimens. ‘The former may, or
may not be trustworthy, and the latter is utterly untrustworthy unless the
type agrees with the description. Dr. Staudinger says:—“ It is unfortu-
nately a fact that the acquirer of the Linnzan collection had the deplora-
ble idea of sometimes replacing damaged specimens by fresh.”
Mr. McLachlan says :—‘“ It (this Linnzan collection,) was so mal-
treated by additions, destructions and misplacements of labels, as to render
it a matter of regret that it now exists at all. Any evidence it now
furnishes is only trustworthy when confirmed by the descriptions.”
Speaking of quite a modern collection, that of Mr. J. F. Stephens, Mr.
Janson says :—“It not unfrequently happens that two, or in difficult
genera, more species are mixed up under the same specific title.”
And it is my opinion, knowing well the carelessness of collectors in
the matter of labelling, some even who have described many species using
no labels at all, but trusting to memory for identification of all their speci-
mens, that a type specimen, or what was offered as such, if it disagreed
essentially with the description, should be wholly rejected.
Besides the brevity of the old descriptions, many are defective from
other causes. Often the two sexes received different names; often
varieties were described as species ; often damaged and broken specimens
were described as if fresh, the defects being cured by imagination ; often
figures were made by unskilled artists, who omitted the specific charac-
teristics, or the figures were colored so poorly as to be incapable of
identification, or were copies from copies, or copies from memory, (for a
curious illustration of this last, see Westwood, Trans. Lond. Ent. Soc.
24 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST.
1872, on Donovan’s Papilios) ; and often descriptions were made from
unreliable figures, instead of from the insect.
Now, with these and other disadvantages that might be mentioned,
the authors who have undertaken to revise our Nomenclature have, each
for himself, fixed on this or that description as applying to this or that
insect, and there is frequent and serious disagreement between them.
This will sufficiently appear by comparing the two Catalogues hereinafter
mentioned, which, as to the names of British butterflies alone, that one
might suppose had been 'settled long ago, differ as to the correct specific
name to the extent of one-seventh of the whole number, as has been stated
by Mr. W. A. Lewis, in his paper on Synonymic Lists. Lond. 1872.*
To complicate the case still further, there 1s a disagreement as to the
date at which names shall be held to have first begun. Specific names
did not originate with Linnzeus, but that naturalist was the author of the
binomial system of Nomenclature, and enunciated it in 1751. This was
after his earlier works had been published, and even he did not fully apply
the system till several years later. He re-described the known species
of insects, using sometimes the names of his predecessors, but often re-
naming, and very frequently changed a name given by himself in his
earlier editions.
The question of a starting point, therefore, has very much exercised
authors exploring for ancient names. And it isa very important one,
and one above all others on which agreement would seem to be necessary,
for many insects in 1767 bore different names from those given to them in
1758, and the latter from those of prior date.
Rule 2nd of the Code says:—“Specific names published before 1766,
cannot be used to the prejudice of names published since that date ;” and
in the explanatory remarks, it is said :—‘‘ We ought not to attempt to carry
back the principle of priority, deyond the date of the rath edition of the
Systema Nature, 1766.” (Vol. I., issued 1766; vol. II., in which are
the insects, 1767.) |
Mr. Kirby, in his Catalogue of Lepidoptera lately published (1870),
follows the Rule, and would ignore all names prior to 1767. Dr.
Staudinger, in his Catalogue of European Lepidoptera, also published
*Norr.—See also a very able pamphlet by Mr. Lewis, entitled ‘‘A Discussion of
the Laws of Priority in Entomological Nomenclature,” Lond. 1872, which I advise
all persons who care to make themselves better acquainted with the subject, to_
obtain. It may be had through the Naturalists’ Agency, Salem,
THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. | 25
in 1871, adopts the zoth edition of the same work (1758), and says dis-
tinctly :—‘‘ Every name given before 1758 loses its right.” _ Others go back
to various earlier dates. If the earliest Linnean edition comes to be
claimed as having a prior right over those that followed, as symptoms
indicate, then there will be a sweeping away of landmarks, that will make
the lesser floods hitherto experienced seem as nothing.
The result of all these efforts at stability, for that is the avowed object
of the advocates of rigid priority of date, is extreme confusion,* instead
of the agreement hoped for when the Code of the British Association was
adopted, and students of one branch of Entomology at least are at a loss
to know where the Nomenclature stands to-day, and are very certain that
under the present order of things there will not be aname familiar to them
that 20 or 50 years hence will not be supplanted under the claims of
priority. |
The Code of the British Association not only has not been adopted in
detail by the British naturalists, who might be supposed to have given
their assent to it, but it has not been adopted in other countries.t It is
not the law of France nor of Germany. In the latter country, in 1858, a
Code of Nomenclature was adopted by the Dresden Congress, in which
the Rule on the subject of priority more sensibly meets the requirements
* Prof. Verrill, in his comment on Rule 2, says:—‘‘ Disregard of this important
and essential law (viz., fixing the 12th edition as the starting point,) has brought into
Conchology, and some other branches of Zoology, an almost incredible amount of con- .
fusion.”
+ ‘‘ Notwithstanding the Rules sanctioned by the authority of the Brit. Ass’n,
it would not seem that any perceptible improvement has taken place.” —G. R. Crotch,
Cist. Ent., 1872
Mr. Kirby has revised, &c., “‘ in accordance with a series of Rules selecied from
those issued by the Brit. Ass’n for 1865.”— Wallace.
Dr. Thorell ‘‘refers to the old Brit. Ass’n Rules with general approval, but differs
from them in some important points.”—J/bid.
Dr. Staudinger lays down eight rules that vary from those of the Brit. Ass’n or
from Kirby and Thorell in several particulars. And Gemminger and Harold’s Cat.
Coleopt. differs in the Rules applied. from all the others. See Wallace. As to
French authors, the following extract of a letter to me from a distinguished English
Entomologist will show how heterodox is their position :—‘‘The chief confusion in
generic Nomenclature is owing to the French, who consistently ignore or alter every
thing done in other countries, on purpose to force their own, names on the world in
place of others.”
26 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST.
ofthe case. ‘“ The principle of preserving the oldest of the names given to
the same insect ts not absolute; the choice between them, following the greater
or less degree of convenience, remains free.”
Until quite lately, although there was a general feeling among Lepi-
dopterists that the hunt for new names was getting to be a nuisance that
demanded abatement, there seems to have been no active opposition te
it, till the publication of the Catalogues of Staudinger and Kirby, and, in
this country, of Scudder’s Revision. ‘The changes announced in these
works amount to a revolution of much of the existing Nomenclature.
In the Revision the names of American species have been changed —
largely, and of genera almost altogether. For example: of the Butterflies —
found in New England, out of 28 hitherto recognized genera (omitting
the Hesperidz) Mr. Scudder has left but three untouched; of five others
he has retained the name, but restricted the genus; but of nineteen he
has changed the names altogether, displacing well-known names by others
purporting to have been found in ancient authors, and mostly in
Hubner. And from the twenty-eight genera have now proceeded fifty- -
one. Whilst of the /esperide he has made forty-five genera for one
hundred and thirty-eight species, besides giving a horrid array of barbaric
family and tribal names, remnants of systems ages ago deservedly
exploded.
Mr. Kirby’s “ Revision has the effect of abolishing scores of old and
familiar names (generic) and replacing them by others altogether new to
the majority of Lepidopterists ” Wad//ace ;and Mr. Crotch, by following out
his mode of determining typical species, “shows us that Mr. Kirby is
wrong in the names-of twenty-seven genera,” defined before Hubner, and
in a letter he says: “I stopped abruptly at 1816, as the question of
Hubner’s. Verzeichness beat me,” to which bewilderment we should be
grateful, for the assimilative powers of that author are fearful.
The trouble caused by the strict application of Rule 1 to specific names
becomes intensified when applied to generic names. It mightbe supposed
in the hunt for the former, that if the several authors now at variance could
be got to interpret the ancient descriptions by the same illumination, and
could agree upon a starting point, the ultimate name of each species would
some day be reached. It might require a long period, but it would seem
possible. Not so with genera. Even when the final stage of disinte-
gration was reached, and each species stood in a genus by itself, there
would be a never-ending contest as to whether such genus should bear
THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 27
the stamp of Fabricius, or Latreille, or Hubner, and each successive
_ “yesurrectionist,” as these exhumers of dry bones are irreverently called,
would but glory in upsetting the platforms of his predecessors, and would
prove to a nicety that they and their systems were all wrong. Now, it is
a matter for admiration that, notwithstanding the imposing names attached
to these generic creations, every one of them is the result of the labor of
Brown, Smith or Jones, alive and industriously working, and that the
ancient worthies, so honorably preferred, lived and died in happy ignor-
ance of the progeny after ages would attribute to them.
Now, it is insisted by those who rigidly adhere to the application of
_ the priority theory to generic names that the original name given to a
genus must never be lost, no matter what changes are made with the genus,
although to retain such name may be to attribute to its original author
exactly what he did not mean, and perhaps never would have sanctioned.
Rule 4th says:—‘‘A generic name, when once established, should
never be cancelled in any subsequent subdivision of the group, but re-
tained, in a restricted sense, for one of the constituent portions.” And
Rule 5th:—‘ The generic name should always be retained for that portion
of the original genus which was considered typical by its author.”
That is to say, Papilio of Linnzeus embraced what is now divided into
very many genera, and the name Papilio must somewhere be retained.
What particular species Linnzus would have chosen for the type of the
genus, had he foreseen its future disintegration, is not known, and in the
absence of such knowledge, authors now would differ in selecting the
typical species; and unless there is agreement on that, it is plain that
nothing but discord can follow. Mr. Kirby says, following the Rules:—
“In subdividing a genus, the original name should be restricted to the
typical sections if this can be ascertained.” I have asked of an eminent
Ornithologist what would be done in such case in his science, and he
replied as follows:—“ It is our custom to take the frst name mentioned by
an author as the type of his genus, unless another be especially claimed ;
and, if this genus be subsequently subdivided, to insist that the original
name must be retained for the first species of the original list, unless there
are very grave reasons tothe contrary. I notice, in the roth edition of
Linnzeus, the first Papilio is Priamus, from Amboyna. I should, there-
fore, be inclined to maintain that the name Papilio should be retained for
that first mentioned species, whatever else might befall the group. This
being premised, the author engaged in overhauling a group has the right
28 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST.
————
to select any other species of the original section as the type of his new
genus.” Mr. Crotch says (Cist. Ent., 1872) “‘ No genus can be considered
defined until its type is indicated,” but when this is not done by the
original author, ‘I am not inclined to cut the knot by taking ‘the first
species, but to trace the genus historically until it has a type given to it ;”
and “Cuvier (1799).gives precision to the old genera by characterizing
‘them and indicating their types.”
Let us apply these dcfa to Vanessa Antiopa as metamorphosed into Pa-
pilio Antiopa by Mr. Scudder. | He says:—‘‘ The generic name Papilio:
was applied by Linnaeus to all the butterflies at the foundation of the
binomial system of Nomenclature. Fabricius, in his later works, restricted
it to the Nymphales and Pafilionides. Schrank was the next author
to restrict the name, limiting it, in 1801, to most of the Nymphales.”
By Rule 5, or by Mr. Kirby’s Rule, the original name having to be
restricted to the typical section, Schrank should have left it with some
part of the Papilionides of Fabricius, for I suppose no onean doubt that
the swallow-tailed butterflies were the typical section of Linnzus
(Equites), even though his typical species may be in question. Had he
bound himself by the ornithological dictum, he would also have restricted.
the name to the Papitionides, Priamus being the typical species.
By that of Mr. Crotch he would still have been restricted to the
Papilienides; making P. Machaon the type, because Cuvier (in 1799) made
this species the type of the genus Papilio (and so it is recognized to-day
and I hope will be for all future time.)
But, says Mr. Scudder, ‘If the laws of priority have any force or
meaning, I do not see how we can refuse to acknowledge the claims of
Schrank. I select, accordingly, from among the species grouped under
Papilio by Linnzeus, Fabricius and Schrank, one of ¢he best known European
butterflies as most suitable for the type of the genus.” And by this
curious process, one of the Jest known species being selected as the type,
we get the astonishing creation Papilio Antiopa.—(Scud.) And this is.
equivalent to enunciating another dictum, being the fourth on this head, by
which the dest known species of a genus is to be the typical. | Moreover,
such exceedingly minute definition is given to the new genus that it would
appear to be impossible that a second species could ever be embraced
within it.*
* J notice that Mr. Scudder speaks of the ‘‘ insufficiency of their generic descrip-
tions” being ‘‘the reproach of Lepidopterists.” Mr. Wallace, on the other hand,
THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 99:
Now, here are four modes of determining the typical species of a
genus, propounded by as many authors, and there may be others for
aught I know to the contrary, all with the view of simplifying these
sciences, under the operation of Rule 1. Isit strange that “an incredible
amount of confusion ” is the result ?
Linnzus placed under Papilio the princes of the order, and no matter
what restrictions may have been made hitherto, these hundred years,
Papilio has always had a magnificent following, increasing in
splendor as the years wenton. And now we are told, in 1872, that,
in order to save the claims of the hitherto unappreciated Schrank,
who published his speculations in 1801, Papilio is to be ejected from his
rich possessions, and made to share the rest of his unlucky days with the
dingy Vanessan to whom hard fate and Mr. Scudder has driven him. No
more the superb creature we have read of, with “ glistering burganet,”
and “‘shinie wings as silver bright,”—“ refreshing his sprights,” in “ gay
gardins,” ‘‘ pasturing on the pleasures,” &c.; but, like Clarion, “ reduced
to lowest wretchedness,” his good times all over, he flits about in slums
and nasty lanes—and there we leave him.
In the explanatory remarks to Rule 4, it is said:—‘“It is an act of
justice to the original author that his generic name should never be lost
sight of.” By Mr. Scudder’s new creation the name Papilio is so nearly
lost sight of that it might as well disappear altogether. It is certainly
no compliment to Linneeus to retain it.
And this brings up the whole question of the obligaticn of naturalists
to adopt whatever system any one may propose. Clearly enough, the
right of ignoring changes made in Nomenclature is recognized even by
the most determined advocates of strict priority, when applied to their:
contemporaries. A genus is set up, andno one follows it. It happens
constantly, and it seems to me that in this matter one’s contemporaries
are the proper judges of one’s work, and that no reversal of their judg-
ment may rightfully be looked for from posterity, and therefore the writings
asserts that the definitions of a Westwood, or of a Doubleday, are ‘‘ careful and
elaborate.” I was much struck on reading these words in Cope’s Origin of Genera,
page 6:—‘‘ The reader will often find introduced into diagnoses of genera characters
which indicate nothing of this sort ;” and these, ‘“‘adjacent genera of the same series
differ from each other but by a single character.” From which it may be inferred
that inordinate length of generic description is not commendable, and is not properly
attainable.
30 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST.
of authors whose systems were rejected in their own day, and whose
generic creations were ignored not only by contemporaries, but for gen-
erations afterwards, cannot properly be appealed to. If there was injustice
-done to them itis too late to remedy it, and justice at this late day means
injustice to those in present possession, and whose title often has the
strength of nearly acentury’s undisputed possession. We cannot judge
-of the circumstances that influenced the contemporaries of such authors,
and with the views prevailing at the time, their judgment was right.
Therefore, when Schrank, and Hubner and others, are sought to be rein-
‘stated, and a host of generic names set aside, the later injustice is worse
‘than the first,—if there was any first, and of that we have no knowledge.
Otherwise, fifty years hence a system or a genus proposed by an author
of to-day, though rejected by every naturalist living, for defects that appeal ~
to the sense of each one of them, may be reinstated in spite of such con-
temporary judgment.
It has become moreand more the practice, for twenty years past, to
ignore all genera created since Hubner, and to replace subsec uent names
by names taken from that author, who published a Catalogue of Lepidop-
tera, in which nearly every species stands by itself, in a division that,
whatever it may be called, is not generic. Of course it is easy to apply
one of his names to every genus that can be now created. By his con-
temporaries, and for a generation after his works were published, his fan-
-ciful divisions and fanciful names were rejected, and it is only of late years
that some authors have discovered that in his works 1s a mine of wealth.
But on this head it is sufficient to give the words of an Entomologist
whose authority is second to none. I quote from the annual Address
(1871) to the Lond. Ent. Soc., by Mr. Alfred R. Wallace, President of
the Society, and I quote at some length, as it seems to me desirable that
American Lepidopterists should be made aware that Hubner’s claims are
not yet everywhere acknowledged :—‘“‘ By far the most important
-and most numerous alterations are caused by adopting the names of an
author who has long been purposely ignored as an authority for genera
both by English and Continental Lepidopterists. I of course allude to
Hubner. ” .
“Such old names as Chionobas, Agraulis, Eresia, Godartia, Adolias,
Polyommatus, Leptalis, Terias, Callidryas, Thestias, Anthocaris, with
many more, are changed for others to be found in no other work than
Hubner’s obsolete and useless Catalogue. Yet this wholesale change
THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 31
does not seem to be warranted by the Rules of the British Association.
Rule 12th says:-—“‘ A name which has never been clearly defined in some
published work, should be changed for the earliest name by which the
object shall have been so defined.” And in the explanatory remarks it
is said, “Definition properly implies a distinct exposition of essential
characters, and in all cases we conceive this to be indispensable.”
Now this Rule merely embodied the feeling and practice of naturalists,
and it had been acted on for thirty years, before it had been formally
enunciated, in this very case of Hubner, whose work had been systemati-
cally set aside as an authority by most European Entomologists, because
it was felt that his so-called genera were mere guesses founded on facies
.alone,—happy guesses, no doubt, sometimes—but as frequently wrong as
right, and wholly without such definition as was held, even in his own
‘day, to be required to constitute a new genus. Boisduval expressly states
this, and his non-recognition of Hubner’s genera has been followed in
almost all the great systematic works which have since been published.
If we take Hubner’s first four genera and the characters he gives them,
~we shall be able to judge of the reasons for this course. ‘They are as
‘follows:—
FT yMeNiMliS, ee be ee oe. . Upper wings Half banded:
Si, PO Va IAS SCS rie He aaa Set So “* one-banded.
Se TL PAS Re A aN AES Sona ie at aa . ‘« twice-banded
Re eS cnet ee eR S85 aee a both wings banded.
Such a mode of defining genera, though it has the merit of being sim-
‘ple and symmetrical, is undoubtedly superficial, and it can only be by the
‘purest accident that a group so characterized can correspond in extent to
any real genus. * * * In Mr. Kirby’s own work, we find Hubner’s con-
-demnation in almost every page, in the utter want of agreement between
his groups and modern genera. The modern restricted genus Helicon-
dus, for instance, contains species belonging to seven Hubnerian genera ;
Pieris comprises five, and Thecla twelve of these hap-hazard groups ;
while, in other cases, the species comprising Hubner’s groups are divided
among several unrelated modern genera. * * * * The names sought
to be reinstated, rank as mere catalogue names for want of proper defini-
tion, and should therefore never be quoted. * * * Even as a matter
of justice it may be maintained that we should recognize the careful and
elaborate definitions of a Doubleday or Westwood, rather than the childish
guesses ofa Hubner. * * * The proper course to be taken is to rein-
32 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST.
state every name which of late years has been made to give place to one
of Hubner’s, and further, to treat the Verzeichniss bekannter Schmetterlinge
as a mere Catalogue, which can never be quoted as an authority for
genera.”
Now with regard to the remedy for the evil complained of. There
have been various suggestions of Rules by foreign authors, many of: which
would meet the assent of most Entomologists, and it is easy to select from
these authors both Rules and arguments for their adoption. I will call
attention to so many of these suggested Rules as seem to me to meet the
difficulty of the case, and to others, which might properly form part of a
code, and will give short extracts illustrating them.
I mention them for the purpose of exciting discussion as to their
fitness for the end in view, and that Lepidopterists may know what is
the opinion of students in other branches of Entomology besides their
own :—
1 There must be intelligible description and publication in case ofa -
species, or arecognizable figure. In case of a genus there must be a.
definition giving the essential characters.— From Dr. Thorell’s European
Spiders, quoted in Wallace's Address, before cited.
2. In determining the priority of specific names, notice should be
taken only of those works in which the Linnean binomial nomenclature is.
exclusively and consistently employed.— Z/orel/.
Note—“ The binomial system of nomenclature was fully and distinctly
propounded by Linneeus in the PAzlosophia Botanica, published in 1751,
and there can beno reason whatever why authors who adopted and sys-
tematically applied it should be set aside, because Linnzeus himself did’
not apply it to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms till 1758.”—
Thorell.
3. The same date should apply to generic as to specific names, both
being characteristic of the binomial nomenclature, and it being impossible
if we go back earlier, to determine what are to be considered as truly
generic names.—/bid.
4. Between two specific names in use, the prior right shall belong to:
the first named. Aut no name tn use shall give way to an obsolete or
rejected name, even though the latter be of prior date—Weallace’s Ad-
dress, p. 67.
Note.—‘ The idea of justice to the namer or describer of a species is.
sometimes appealed to, but the law of priority is founded on no such
THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 33
expressed idea, but rather on the universal practice of mankind, which
always upholds stability of nomenclature, and requires cogent reasons of
beauty or convenience to sanction itsalteration. * * * * * *
“The proper Rule to adopt (instead of Rule 1 of Brit. Ass’n.) would
hhave been unchangeability of names in use, rather than priority of date,
which latter rule ought only to have been brought in to decide on the
claims of two or more ‘names in use, not to retain obsolete names never
in use, or long ago rejected.—/did.
‘“What we want for the sake of knowledge is stability ah uniformity
of nomenclature, not an upsetting of it by the substitution of old, forgotten
and very doubtful names, published in works without, or with very little
scientific merit.”—Dr. Schaum, on Nomenclature of British Carabide, Ent.
Aznn., 1860.
“The rule of priority in Nomenclature, I hold to be a good rule within
its proper limits; it is not an unmixed good; and priority, like every
other hobb plies: may be ridden too hard. When the rule is strained
beyond the reason for the rule, it becomes a nuisance,—nay more, it pro-
duces intolerable evil; but when reasonably applied,’it produces more
convenience than inconvenience. _[ accept it, therefore, as a rule for con-
venience, and nothing more, a rule adopted for the benefit of science, not
for the glorification of name givers.” ¥. IV. Dunning, Ent. Mo. Mag.,
wol. 8, 215.
‘- In systematic nomenclature the object is to register titles, not to
gratify pride, and the names of authors are appended for convenience, not
fame; the question of justice or injustice has no place here.”—Scudder,
Am. Fo. Arts and Sct., 1872.
“Both sides agree that the accord of Entomologists is the ultimate
desideratum. I hold that the law of priority is not that the oldest name
of an insect is invariably the right one, but that in cases of dispute, the
prior name is to be preferred, and in such cases only ; and that any at-
tempt to subvert accord cannot be done under the law of priority, but we
must make a new law—the law of antiguity say. * * * * Insuch
event, every insect capable of identification must henceforth carry the
name under which it was first called—no matter by whom—no matter
the language. The American fire-fly must bear its Indian appellation—
the ‘ Palmer-worm ’ and the ‘Canker-worm’ must have their ‘ prior’ names
restored ; we must carry the law back without limit—even to chaos itself.”
—T. H. Briggs, Ent. Mo. Mag. vol. 8, p. 93.
34 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST.
“ Nobody but a fool or a madman would try to persuade the modern:
New Yorkers to call their city New Amsterdam, or the English to have:
their letters addressed to Londinium, because these were the old original.
names. And yet, what men of the world would never dream of doing ~
certain scientific men are doing every day.” Walsh, Am. Ent., 1872.
5. The name placed after a genus shall be that of the author who
established the genus in the sense in which it is actually used.—Dr. Sharp,
in Nature, Feb., 1872.
Note.— Carabus of Linnzus included all the insects now comprised
in the family Carabide, at present divided into several hundreds of gen--
era. ‘To write, therefore, Carabus, Linn., when we mean something else,
may be usual, but is not desirable.”—_Dr. Shar, ibid.
I do not deny to any author the right to establish new genera. Quite:
the contrary. But I would insist on these genera standing on their own
merits, and claim for the Entomological world the right to accept them or-
not, as they choose. If any one thinks it worth while to break up Papilio,
for instance, let him do so at his pleasure, but do not let him apply to the
severed parts names taken from Hubner or other ancient author, in order-
to give these brand-new creations a smack of age, and so get the advan-
tage of another author who may honestly put his name to his own work
It is by this species of wrong that Nisoniades, Hubner has supplanted
Thanaos, Boisduval; Oeneis, Hub. is trying to supplant Chionobas, Bois. ;,
Polygonia, Hub. thrusts itself into the place of Grapta, Kirby, and so in
cases innumerable.
Rules 4 and 5, if carried out, must pul an effectual stop to the perpetual
shifting of names.
Other Rules, which might properly form part of a Code, are as.
follows:— |
6. The same specific name may be employed in genera sufficiently
remote from each other.— Staudinger, Cat.
7. If a species has received different names for its sexes, that first.
given shall be retained.
8. The names of species should properly be Latin, or Latinized to.
the extent that renders them capable of being used in scientific Latin.
But names once given are not to be altered or set aside for any defect or
errors.—Dr. ‘Sharp, before cited.
“Tt matters not in the least by what conventional sound we agree to
designate an individual object, provided the sign to be employed be
THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 35
stamped with such an authority as will suffice to make it pass current.” —
Explan. Rem. to Rule r.
“The name originally given, even though it may be inferior in point
of elegance or expressiveness to those subsequently proposed, ought, as a.
general principle, to be permanently retained.” —/did.
9. The same generic name may be employed in Botany, but not in
Zoology.
I have heard the objection to the application of the above Rules, that.
Entomologists have no right to separate themselves from other naturalists,
and make aspecial Code for their own sole guidance. To this I would
reply, why not? _If itis found impossible to enact a series of Rules that
will meet the requirements of the several branches of Natural Science, and
the experience of thirty years shows that the thing is impracticable, why
should not each branch adopt Rules to suit its own case? If Botany
may be excluded from the operations of a Code, why not Entomology ?
It is very certain that in other branches than Entomology there is wide-
spread dissatisfaction, and I believe an effort for reform in any direction
will be met by general approval. _At all events, as the dissatisfaction felt
on this side the Atlantic has found expression, anda set of Rules is to be
prepared as aforesaid, by a Committee of experienced Entomologists, it
may be left to them to estimate the force of this and any other objection,
and to report accordingly.
But Entomology is peculiar in one respect, and if there were no other
reason, this alone would make it imperative that its votaries should resist
strenuously unnecessary changes in Nomenclature, even if, by so doing,
they should separate themselves from other naturalists. This is the only
branch of Natural History that is becoming thoroughly popular through
organized effort. Nottospeak of Europe, the Governments of the United
States, and many of the individual States, and Canada, employ professional
Entomologists, who make frequent Reports that are printed by authority,
and widely disseminated with the view of rendering the people intelligently
acquainted with their native insects. Several Magazines have been pub-
lished, which are exclusively devoted to the same subject,and the numerous
agricultural weeklies or monthlies set apart a portion of their space for En-
tomology. Professedly, the object is to give information upon insects injuri-
ous to vegetation, but that includes, in one relation or other, every
insect. The expensive treatise of Dr. Harris was published by the State
of Massachusetts, and is everywhere a received authority. Packard’s
36 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST.
Guide to the Study of Insects, has passed through three large editions, in
as many years, and is rapidly becoming the text book used in our schools
and colleges.
The result is that a vast degree of attention is concentrated upon En-
tomology, a hundred fold, I venture to say, more than upon Botany or
Geology,and a thousand-fold more than upon Ornithology or Mammalogy.
In these branches, therefore, a disturbance of names would affect scarcely
any but special students, and if they do not care to resist innovations, it
isnot our concern. But, from the nature of the case, in Entomology,
the advantage gained by disseminating information depends wholly upon
the precision with which the objects treated of can be identified, and pre-
cision can result only from the use of a common Nomenclature. If one>
Treatise dilates upon the habits of an insect by one name, and the next.
Report under another, and anybody may shift about the names, specific
and generic, at will, nothing can result but incomprehensibility and disgust.
What man reading the history of Papilio Asterias, figured with all its
preparatory stages, and colored to the life, in Harris, and the larva of
which species he recognises as one of the pests of his garden, will com-
prehend what the Annual Report of his State Agricultural Society for 1873
shall say upon Amaryssus Polyxenes? or, his old acquaintance, familiar
from boyhood, that he has been instructed to call Papilio Turnus, when
he shall read about Euphceades Glaucus? Mr. Wallace well says,
“TIntelligible language is wholly founded on stability of Nomenclature,
and we should soon cease to be able to understand each other’s speech,
if the practice of altering all names we thought we could improve upon
became general.”
I hope, therefore, that the Entomological section of the American As-
sociation, at its next Meeting, will adopt a new or amended Code,
having in mind the exigencies of their own science only, and that full dis-
cussion and interchange of opinion having meantime been had, such Code
will express the views of the great majority of the Entomologists of this
continent. Ifthe Rules are sensible, they will recommend themselves
to the Entcmologists of other countries, and in time secure general.
adoption.
THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 37
ON SOME OF OUR COMMON INSECTS.
IT, CABBAGE BUTTERFLIES.
BY THE EDITOR.
In pursuance of our plan of laying before our readers, from time to
time, illustrated descriptions of the common insects of this country, we
propose to begin in this number of our journal some account of the
Butterflies belonging to the genus Pver7s—-familiarly known in their larval
state as ‘‘ Cabbage-Worms.” As stated by our coadjutor, Mr. Saunders,
in the first paper of this series (C. E., v., page 4), we do not profess to
bring out any new facts or information of interest and value to the
experienced Entomologist, but we wish to afford to our less scientific
readers plain descriptions, with illustrations, of our more common insects,
in order that any one beginning to collect and observe may be able to
identify and learn something about what he meets with. Such being our
object, we shall not hesitate to make use of all available information,
whether derived from our own or extraneous sources, and shall not pretend
to be especially original in our descriptions or remarks.
The genus /fver?s is represented in Canada by but three species
( Oleracea, Rape and Protodice), all of them white butterflies of moderate
size, with more or less conspicuous black markings. The first-mentioned
species, the Pot-herb Butterfly (P. O/eracea, Harris), is our native repre-
sentative of the genus, being found all over the northern portion of this
continent, from Nova Scotia and Maine in the East to the District of
Algoma and even Manitoba in the North-West. It has been occasionally
observed south of Lake Ontario, but very rarely as low down as Pennsyl-
vania ; at Ottawa, Collingwood, and other northern localities in Ontario,
it is generally quite abundant every year, but it is seldom observed in any
great numbers at Toronto or other places in the same latitude. When
prevalent, it is usually to be seen on the wing from May to September,
- there being at least two broods in the year.
The O/eracea Butterfly (Fig. 7), may be at once distinguished from all
other Canadian species by its almost pure white wings, destitute of spots
or other markings on the upper surface ; towards the tip and also next the
38 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST.
body the forewings are slightly discoloured with dusky scales. On the
Fig. 7. under surface the wings are sometimes of
Bm 2 yellowish hue, with the veins broadly
marked with black or dark green; some-
¥ times they are entirely white, with the
veins merely faintly outlined in black ;
between these two extremes many grada-
tions of shade may be observed. The
pure white specimens found in the: North
West were supposed at one time to be a
— : distinct species, and were described by
Kirby aes "he: name - the “Chaste Butterfly” (P. Casta) ; there isno
doubt now, however, that these are merely varieties of the same species.
The legs and body of the insect are black ; its wings expand to a breadth
of about two inches, but there is considerable variation in the size of
individuals.
The butterfly, about the end of May or beginning of June, and again
towards the close of summer, may be seen hovering over the food-plants
of its larvee, preparing to deposit its eggs. These are pear-shaped, or
oval, of a yellow-green colour, and measure about one-twentieth of an
inch in length, and a third of this amount in diameter ; they are ribbed
longitudinally with about fifteen sharp-edged lines. The parent deposits
them singly, and rarely more than one on a leaf, on the underside of the
leaves ot the cabbage, turnip, radish, mustard and other plants of the
order Crucifere. They are hatched in about a week or ten days.
The young larva is pale green, cylindrical in shape, and covered with
short, whitish hairs. In order to escape from the egg it makes an opening
with its jaws and then eats the shell until the aperture is large enough to
admit of its easy egress ; it subsequently devours the greater part of the
shell that remains. At first the new-born caterpillar is less than one-
twelfth of an inch in length, but it grows rapidly, until it attains its full
size, about an inch and a quarter, in the brief space of a fortnight. The
mature larva (Fig. 7, a) is pale green in colour, with numerous darker dots
and a dark line along the back ; it closely resembles the ribs of the leaf
upon which it feeds.
When mature, the caterpillar forsakes its food plant and crawls away
to some secluded spot, such as the under side of a stone or board, or a
crevice in a fence or wall ; there it spins a knot of silk to which it fastens
its hindermost pair of feet ; then it proceeds to form a loop of silk which
THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 39
it dexterously fashions into a girth around the middle, and thus supported ©
finally turns into a chrysalis. This is pale green or whitish, finely and
regularly speckled with black, and in shape much resembles that of P.
rape, of which an illustration will be hereafter given. In summer the
chrysalis state lasts only a week or ten days, but in the case of the
autumn brood the insect remains in this condition all winter and only
comes forth as a Butterfly in the April or May following.
REVIEWS.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO ENTOMOLOGY*FROM THE STATE OF NEw York.
—Two works of value on the life history of various insects taken in the
neighbouring State of New York, are before us; both of them emanate
from official sources, and singularly enough, both appeared but a few
months ago, though the Reports to which they belong have reference to
the year 1869. The first to which we would draw attention is entitled
“« ENTOMOLOGICAL CONTRIBUTIONS,” by Mr. J. A. Lintner.* It contains
a remarkably elaborate description of the metamorphoses and whole life
history of the handsome but rare moth Hemileuca Maia, Drury, occupying
nearly twenty pages, accompanied by a lithographed plate of egg, chry-
salis and imago, and constituting an excellent monograph of the species.
This is followed by interesting observations upon various stages in the life
of the butterflies A/clitea Pheeton, Fab., M. Nyctets, Doubl.. and Prerzs
Oleracea, Harris. The author then describes, with illustrations, three new
species Of JVisoniades, named Sceelus, Lucilius and Ausonius; and a new
Sphinx, £//ema pineum, which will probably be found in Canada, if it be
not already in some of our collections under the name of 4. Harristi—a
closely allied species. E. tritenocancia’ and other misprints of the same name, read L.
tritaeniaella.
174 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST.
XYLESTHIA.
X. Clemensella. NV. sp.
Head and palpi snow white or hoary, the outer and under surfaces of
the palpi yellowish dusted freely with fuscous ; antennae yellowish.
Primaries yellowish, reddish yellow and stramineous, with some white
scales, and densely dusted with dark brown and bluish black scales, the
dusting being much more dense in the middle and costal portions of the
wing than in the dorsal and apical portions. There is a white costal
streak just before the cilia and another very faintly indicated before the
middle ; dorsal cilae whitish at their beginning ; ciliae brown. Thorax
white dusted with dark brown; abdomen dark brown; legs and under
surface whitish, rather densely dusted with brown, the legs with white
annulations, and the anterior tarsi darker than the others.
There is a tuft of raised scales on the fold at the base of the
primaries and three other large ones between the fold and the dorsal
margin, two small ones about the end of the cell, three or four small ones
on the disc and three or four others in the apical part of the wing.
As this species approaches X. pranéramiedla Clem., the only other
described species of the genus, I have hesitated to describe it as a distinct
species, but it differs so decidedly from Dr. Clemens’ description of
prusiramiedla that I conclude it must be a distinct species.
ARGIOPE,
A. dorsimaculella. Ante p. 13. 7
This species, for which I erected this genus, belongs to the G/yphip
terygide near Glyphipteryx, and may be found to belong to Acrolepra
Curt.
ADRASTEIA,
A. guercifoliela. Ante p. 72, and v. 4, p. 200.
The identity of this species with Psoricoptera gibbosdla St., suggested
at p. 72 ante, was based upon Mr. Riley’s identification of the two, and
upon a bad translation of a generic diagnosis from the German. Since
the remarks at p. 72 were written, I have seen Mr. Stainton’s generic and
specific diagnosis in /vs. Brit., v. 3 (to which I had no access until this
summer), and find that the most distinctive character there given and
THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 175
figured is the tuft of scales on the inner surface of the terminal joint of
the labial palpi—a character which I have never found in any of the
species which I have placed in Adrasteia. I am therefore not satisfied
that the two genera are exact equivalents.
GELECHIA.
G. scutellariacella. N. sp.
This species approaches closely those which I have placed in Adras-
tea. ‘There is a distinct divided bunch on the second joint of the palpi,
but it is smaller than in the species = I Hee placed in that genus,
and there are no tufts of raised scales. It differs from the true Gelechia
in having the last joint of the palpi but as tle more than half as long as
the second joint, and the antennae but little more than half as long as
the wings.
Blackish brown, tinged with biue, dusted with pale or bluish white,
with an indistinct whitish costal streak before the cilia, and an opposite
dorsal one. ‘The white dusting of the primaries is more dense and more
hoary towards the apex of the primaries. Inner surface of the p:
yellowish. 4/ ex. 34 inch. Posterior tibiz clothed with a tuft of long
hairs.
This is a very plain and inconspicuous insect, principally remarkable
for the habits of the larva. It is white, with green contents, and head
pale straw color, and mines the leaves of the “Sculicap” (Scutellaria
laterijiora). It constructs a case or tube of silk lined externally with its
frass. The tube is nearly flat, but curved, one side bein
Ss
1 convex and the
other concave, and it is wider at one end than at the other and attached
by its narrower end to the under surface of the leaves, and from it the
larva passes into the leaf to feed, retiring into the case when alarmed and
to pupate. It constructs but one case, and I think the attachment of that
one to the leaf is permanent, and that the larva makes but the one mine.
I have never found it except in a single locality—near the village of
Verona, in Boone County, Kentucky. There it is very abundant in
September and October.
176 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST.
G. solaniiella.
G. similiella, v. 4, p. 193.
Similiela is a bad name for anything, and as I have discovered the
larva of this species, I change the name accordingly.
The larva is at first whitish, but before maturity becomes deep green-
ish blue. It mines the under surface of the thorny leaves of Solanum
Carolinense, eating the parenchyma entirely out of the mined portion,
which looks like a dead, dry blotch, and the leaf usually curls over the
mine. The larva constructs a sort of tube in the mine by sewing the
upper and lower cuticle together, and it usually resides in this tube. In
confinement it leaves the mine to pupate in a cocoon on the ground, and
most probably does so in a state of nature.
G.? untistrigella. NV. sp.
White. Primaries very sparsely dusted with pale fuscous in the apical
portion; afuscous spot about the middle of the costa, with two other
small ones between it and the dorsal margin; a fuscous streak begins at
the base of the costal margin and extends along that margin for a short
distance, passing thence obliquely backwards across the wing, but not
quite reaching the dorsal margin. Antennae pale fuscous, with narrow
white annulations ; palpi white, suffused with fuscous on the outer surface
of the second joint, and with a fuscous ring near the base of the third
joint. AZ ex. % inch. Kentucky.
Wings in repose almost horizontal, as in Depressaria? (Gelechia)
cercerisella, which it also resembles in the palpi, which in both are those of
Gelechia.
CORRESPONDENCE.
DEAR SIR,—
I have to thank you for your remarks on Mr. Andrews’ note, printed
on page 135. They render any reply of mine to Mr. Andrews almost
entirely unnecessary. I have merely to add to your statements that I
was entirely ignorant that the specimens of Heman’s marginalis belonged
to Mr. Andrews, nor knew that Mr. Andrews was at all concerned in the
THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 177
matter till I read the note in the CANADIAN ENnToMOoLoGIST. I received
from Mr. Strecker his material belonging to Heman’s Memorrhagia and
Alypia for determination, and all the indication on the specimens of
Heman’s marginalis was the number 3, which referred to the locality
“ Michegan ” in Mr. Strecker’s letter to me accompanying the specimens.
Auc. R. GROTE.
September 11th, 1873.
DeEaR SIR,—
I scarcely think that I intended my letter (in reference to Mr. Grote)
to be published. However, as it has afforded you an opportunity to apply
the lash where it was deserved (albeit it was somewhat over my shoulders)
I do not regret its publication. In justice, however, to myself, I must
request you now to give a place to this my response.
You totally misconceived the object of my complaint if you imagined
that I sought “ symfathy.” The wrong was impertinent, but not cruel.
Personally, I could have passed over Mr. Grote’s conduct without shed-
ding atear. But this gentleman has made himself, so far as Entomology
is concerned, public property, and when a man in such a position
perpetrates a wrong which, if repeated, may lead to injurious conse-
quences, I think it the duty of any one cognizant of that wrong to expose
i
You seem to justify Mr. Grote, who, however, as my letter showed,
was not required to make any of the investigations you allude to.
Here is a parallel case: 4 isa “money expert,’ knows good money
from bad. __B has a doubtful five dollar bill which he sends to 4 for his
opinion as to its genuineness. A looks, determines that it is good, and
puts it in his pocket! After a while B writes for the opinion, and, of
course, for the bill. The answer comes this time, thus: ‘ Oh, yes, your
bill is good ; so good indeed, that, imitating the great Ben Butler with his
salary-grab, ‘I have bought butcher’s meat with it !’ ”
Now, you say that 4 is right; and, worse still, that you have no
sympathy with B. Serves him right, I suppose.
W. V. ANDREwsS, New York.
178 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST.
DEAR SIR,— September 18th, 1873.
It is my duty to say a word to your readers in reference to my
accusations against Mr. Grote, and which appeared in your last issue.
Those accusations have occasioned a good deal of feeling betwixt
Messrs. Grote and Strecker, if one may judge from the correspondence
which has since passed between them, and which, by the courtesy of the
respective gentlemen, I have been permitted to see.
Without betraying any confidence, I may say that the whole thing is
resolved into a question of veracity as betwixt those two gentlemen, and
I must say that while I feel confident that neither party would state a
falsehood, there certainly is a great imperfection of memory somewhere—
where, I, of course, cannot decide.
The statements made in my note, already referred to, were almost
literally as told me by Mr. Strecker. Mr. Grote denies that he received
any limiting instructions from Strecker. So the matter stands.
Let the thing drop altogether. It is not of sufficient importance to
waste another sheet of paper about it. My object was not, Sir, as.you
imagined, to enlist a childish sympathy in my favor, it was meant to check
a practice of which I had heard a good deal, and which, if continued,
could not fail to exert an injurious influence on Entomological Science in
America.
W. V. ANDREWS.
MR. STRECKER’S CORRECTIONS.
DeEaR SIR,—
Mr. Strecker, of Reading, Penn., has been in correspondence with
Mr. H. B. Moschler, who has written some very valuable articles on the
Lepidopterous Fauna of Labrador, in the Wiener Entomeologische
Monatschrift, and whose description of Gelechia labradorensis I have
translated in these pages. Mr. Strecker corrects the name sfeciosissima
Mosch. to sfeciosa Mosch., in the citation of a species of Arcta in Mr.
Robinson’s and my List (1868).
This is right, and I committed an error in transcribing the name, and
one that escaped me on the proofs, but was detected about fifteen
minutes after the printed copies were in my hands. Mr. Strecker next, on
THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 179
information from Mr. Moschler, unites 4. guense/it Geyer and A. gelida
Moschler, cited separate in our “ List.” This correction, coming from
the author of the synonym, is doubtless of value, but we have no
responsibility in the matter nor did we “fall into any error.” If Mr.
Strecker will refer to the two names in the List, he will find them followed
by a dash (—), and from our preface he may gather the information that
this dash indicates that we do not know the species and are not to be
held accountable for their value. Next, Mr. Strecker (undoubtedly on
the strength of Mr. Moschler’s letters) says we fell into the same error
with regard to Arctia parthenos Harris, and Arctia borealis Moschler. Mr.
Strecker should have read my statement that the two were probably
identical, published in the Proc. Ent. Soc. Phila., pp. 74 and 537 (1864).
The species were, however, described as distinct by Professor Packard
and the names are kept separate on this authority in the List; borealis
being followed by a dash, since we do not know it as distinct from far-
lhenos. At the time of describing Jorealis, Mr. Moschler did not know
that Harris had described an allied species, nor in describing speciosa, that
Kirby had described virguncula, smce he does not allude to them; but
perhaps, after all, the species described by Moschler from Labrador, may
be distinct ; at least it is yet an open question whether they are so or not.
Where is owr “ error,” then, with respect to these species of Arctza ?
With only partial quotation of our remarks, Mr. Strecker unites our
luteola from Quebec with cordigera from Lapland. We had only myst
in nature for comparison, and judged of cordigera by description when we
described Zuteola. That we judged the American to be a near ally of the
European species is evident from our remark that it “ appears to represent
the European cordigera in our fauna.” Now, that Mr. Strecker has
received from Europe specimens of cordigera and compared them with
lutcola, and finds no difference, it becomes probable that they are the same
species. This information is very interesting in a distributional point of
view.
To conclude this notice I will draw attention to Mr. Strecker’s
repeated remarks that “ great confusion exists with regard to the species
of Catecala.” These are not true of the most prominent collections of
that genus. There is but little uncertainty about our species, and that
with regard to the limits of a very few of them. I have determined
during the last ten years nearly all material in this genus, sent to me
from Canada, to Georgia, and all of Mr. Strecker’s determinations have
180 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST.
—_——
come at first or second hand from me. The very poor descriptions in
the Lepid. Het. have not as yet improved our knowledge of our species,
except to the extent of giving us three very doubtful forms as new, the
best of which (C. obscura) I thought might be Guenee’s indicated var. of
insolabilis, and so informed Mr. Strecker, who sent me a specimen for
examination, accompanied by an epistolary threat that if I did not give
him the name of it within a certain time, he would “ describe it as new.”
A. R. Grote, Buffalo, N. Y.
MISCELLANEOUS.
An Aquatic BomsBycip Motu.—Mr. Bar, of Cayenne, has forwarded
to the Entomological Society of France, descriptions and specimens of
the various stages of an interesting Bombycid. The larva lives under
stones in streams and rises to the surface for transformation. The cocoons
are found in clusters floating on the water. Aquatic caterpillars have
hithert> been known only in the lower families of Lepidoptera.— American
Naturalist.
Mopr or Ecc-Layinc or Acrion.—Mr. G. W. Dunn writes us that
while collecting at Santa Cruz, California, he observed a species of Agrion
(as we find the insect to be) “flying about the water united, male and
female. ‘The female would light on a spear of grass growing in the water ;
the male would then let go, and the female go down the grass twelve or
fifteen inches under water and deposit her eggs.” American Naturalist.
ADVERTISEMENTS.
ExcHANGE.—I am desirous to exchange English for Canadian or
American Lepidoptera. J.C. WASSERMAN, Beverly Terrace, Cullercoats,
North Shields, England.
COLEOPTERA FOR SALE.—A number of Rocky Mountain Coleoptera
will soon be for sale in sets by JoHN AKHURST, 19, Prospect Street,
Brooklyn, N. Y.
Che Canadian Entomologist,
rot. Vv. LONDON, ONT., OCTOBER, 1873. No. Io
E Dee RIAL.
Our readers will observe, from the alteration in our title-page, that a
change has been made in the occupant of the Editorial chair of this
publication. At the annual general meeting of the Society, held at
London on the 25th ult., the Rev. C. J. S. Bethune tendered his resigna-
tion of the office of General Editor, and Mr. Wm. Saunders was
unanimously elected to take his place. This change of personality will
make no difference in the character and management of this journal,
except in the direction of improvement in material and greater regularity
in issue. For some time past Mr. Bethune has desired to vacate the
position of Editor—not from any diminution in interest in the publication,
or from any cooling in zeal and attachment to the cause of Entomology
—but solely because his position as Head Master of Trinity College
School, entails upon him so much labour and engrosses so much of his
time, that he cannot satisfactorily perform the duties that properly devolve
upon the Editor of the CanapIAN EnTomo.ocist. Since the removal of
the head quarters of the Society to London, the labour attending upon
the issue of this publication has gradually fallen more and more upon Mr.
Saunders, though largely shared in by Mr. Reed, the late energetic
Secretary-Treasurer of the Society.
The retiring Editor—who will continue to aid in the maintenance of
the journal, as far as his time will permit—begs to offer his most cordial
thanks to all those kind friends who have rendered him so much assistance
in the past, and to request that the same hearty support and co-operation
may be afforded to his friend and successor.
182 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST.
ANNUAL ADDRESS
OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF ONTARIO, S735
To the Members of the Entomological Society of Ontario:
GENTLEMEN,—Ten years have now gone by since a few of us met at
the house of Professor Croft, in Toronto, and organized this Society. We
commenced with less than five and twenty members, and now our Secretary
informs us that we have over three hundred names upon our roll. A
twelve-fold increase in a decade of years is certainly an evidence of
progress upon which we may well congratulate ourselves, and which ought
assuredly to stimulate all our members to use their utmost exertions for
the maintenance and improvement of the Society. Those of us who from
year to year have been entrusted by you with positions of office and duty
in the Society, cannot but feel that it is for the best interests of our
institution that more of its members should be led to take an active part
in its work, and thus secure more efficiency in all our departments, and
more certainty of a permanent developement of all our operations.
Hitherto the work has fallen upon a few of us, and we have endeavoured
to perform it as efficiently and heartily as we can; but we find that year
after year our own professional and other duties make increased demands
upon our time and attention, so that with all the desire in the world to
devote ourselves to our favourite branch of Natural Science and the
operations of the Entomological Society, we are unable to do so to the
same extent as in earlier years. On this account—not from any diminution
of zeal and interest on our own part—we are most anxious that more of
you should take your share in the work and aid us in maintaining unim-
paired the good reputation that the Society has already achieved. Each
one, we are sure, can do something, and the united efforts of us all must
assuredly be productive of satisfactory and permanent results.
Our sister Society—the Fruit Growers’ Association of Ontarlo—we
rejoice to see is rapidly growing in public appreciation and favour ; its
members’ list of over 3000 names, its well-attended meetings in various
parts of the country, its judicious di‘tributions of fruit for experimental
THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 183
purposes, and the vigour and zeal of its executive, are all matters upon
which we may well congratulate its President, Directors and Members.
That it may go on and prosper, and extend its work throughout our Jand,
till every resident of the Dominion enjoys the fruit of his own vine and
his own fruit-tree, is our most hearty aspiration.
During the past year but little has occurred in an Entomological point
of view that calls for especial notice on this occasion. —G. #. £., Nature.
918 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST.
We quote the following from the excellent ‘‘ Entomological Record,”
by Prof. Townend Glover, in the monthly report of the Department of
Agriculture, Washington, for October, at the same time thanking our
esteemed friend for his kindness in sending us so regularly this valuable
report :—
‘““GRAPE-VINE Borers.—Mr. Fred. J. Kron, of Albemarle, North
Carolina, in a letter to the Department, complains bitterly of the injury
done to all varieties of grape-vines by the grape-vine borer, geria
polistiformis, described and figured in former reports of the Department
(1854, p. 80, and 1867, p. 72.) Mr. Kron states the insect has destroyed
for him one hundred and seven varieties of grapes, derived from the
Luxembourg, in Paris, including some five thousand vines ; and adds that
there is but one variety that has, so far, defied its ravages, and that is the
Scuppernong, which flourishes in the midst of the devastation caused by
the borer, all around it. Mr. Kron likewise states that he found a
Phylloxera on Clinton root, and adds: ‘‘ The insect has been noticed
here for more than thirty years,” but he does not complain of its doing
much injury.” .
“In connection with this last-named insect,so destructive to the grape-
vines of France, Mr. Gaston Bazille, vice-president of the Agricultural
Society of Herault, publishes a remedy for the Phylloxera, which is
translated and republished by Mr. Charles V. Riley, in the New York
Tribune, as follows *”
“Three holes are made around the injured or infested vine, varying the
depth according to the nature of the soil, but generally 214 feet. These
holes were made in the experiments reported by means of a pointed iron
bar and aheavy maul. A tube, with a funnel attached, is placed in the
hole, two ounces of sulphuret of carbon are poured into the tube, which
is then closed with a cork. The vapor of the sulphuret of carbon per-
meates the soil and impregnates all the roots of the vine. The gas
engendered (though not the case with the liquid) is not fatal to the vine,
but is sure death to the insects. Four ounces of the liquid has been
found sufficient for an ordinary vine ; but sprinkling on the surface must
be carefully avoided, as it is in such a case very injurious to the vine,
whereas a pound may be used in the soil without injury to the roots.”
How’ to SenpD Opyecrs THROUGH THE Post.—I am often grieved,
on reading your “notices to correspondents,” to see the complaints of
articles being received in such a “ smashed” state as to be useless; and
THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 219
in your number for this month it is recommended to enclose them in a tin
box to withstand the energy of the post-office officials. But even that is
not safe; for though the said box itself may not be broken by the
tremendous whack the said officials usually lay on, yet still, very delicate
objects inside may be injured by concussion. In short there is a better
way, by which I have sent microscopic objects hundreds of miles and
numerous times, without the slightest injury. It is as follows: It is quite
a mistake to place stamps upon the box itself. They should be fixed to
one of the common luggage labels, which is then attached to the box by
a reliable piece of string, so as to separate it from the box by about two
inches. The “ official” may then whack away at the luggage label to his
heart’s content, and no harm be done. In this case the box need not be
strong; and, to prove this I now send, for your acceptance, a very fine
specimen of the Chirodota violacea, popularly known as ‘“ Pharaoh’s
chariot-wheels.” The containing box, you see, is purposely slight ; and
yet, I will venture to say, you will receive the slide uninjured ; and, if so,
I hope you will inform your readers of the fact, and draw their attention
to the impropriety of placing their stamps on the box. I will merely add
that by the ‘common luggage label” I mean those made of paper pasted
on cloth, and having a small ring atoneend. They are sold by the dozen
at almost every stationer’s shop. I must add that I do not claim the
merit of the invention. It is by no means new, but, nevertheless, does
not appear to be known to many. One more remark. ‘The address
should be written (as you see I have) on the label itself ; and, though not
absolutely needful,it is a good plan to wrap the box in black paper, which
prevents all temptation to stamp it, as in that case the stamp will not be
seen.—_ 77. U. *F.
[Our correspondent is quite right. His frail box reached us safely, and
we cannot but be glad of the post-office energy which has happened so
fortunately for us!—Zd. Science Gossip.|
We heartily concur in the remarks of H. U. J. It is most grievous to
have fine specimens so ruthlessly smashed, as we sometimes receive them,
beyond any possibility of recognition. We are glad to state that this
method of attaching a stout paper-and-cloth label, which we know in this
country as a tag, and putting the address and stamps on it, instead of the
box, has already been adopted by some of our correspondents. We
received a few days since from a friend in San Francisco a box containing
220 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST.
‘several delicate moths, which, packed with this provision, reached us
~ unhurt.
Having given at pp. 199, on the authority of the ‘‘ Gardener’s
Monthly” for October, some remarks on Phylloxera said to have been
made by Mr.C. V. Riley, we gladly make room for the following correction
in the ‘‘ Monthly ” for November, just at hand :—
“ PHYLLOXERA—CORRECTION.—Friend Meehan: In your October
issue, speaking of some remarks of mine before the Academy of Natural
Sciences, you have the following, the italics being mine :
Prof. Leidy inquired of Mr. Riley the true position of the insect in
scientific classification ; Prof. Riley replied that it was not yet well settled.
Lts appearance brought it somewhere near the aphids, but it did not have
successive broods from one tmpregnation ; aphids did. In this respect it
approaches coccus. He thought it between the two families.
Iam sure I said no such foolish thing. What I did say was that the
insect belonged to the sub-order Homoptera, and that while it was at
present classed with the plant-lice (Aphidide) it bears close relation to
the bark-lice (Coccide.) Phylloxera multiplies agamically like all the
Aphidide, and therefore does produce successive broods from one
impregnation. Yours truly,
C. V. Ramey?
BOOKS RECEIVED.
Die Larven von Ascalaphus, von Dr. H. Hagen, 8vo., pp. 64.
On the Larve of the Hemerobina, by Dr. H. A. Hagen, 8vo., pp. 6.
On the Butterflies of Anticosti, by Aug. R. Grote, 8vo., pp. 1.
Report on Pseudoneuroptera and Neuroptera of North America in the Collection of the late Th. W.
Harris. By H. A. Hagen, 8vo., pp. 39.
Revision of the Genera and Species of the Tribe Hydrobiini, by George H. Horn, M.D. 8vo., pp. 20.
Revisionof the Several Genera of Meloide of the United States, by George H. Horn, M. D. 8vo., pp. 29.
Contributions to Entomological Bibliography up to 1862, by Albert Muller, F. L.S. Nos. 1 and 2.
8vo., pp. 24.
Catalogue of the Pyralidz of California, with Descriptions of new Californian Pterophoride, by A. S.
Packard, jr. 8vo., pp. 15. (From Ann. Lyc. Nat. Hist., N. Y., vol. x, No. 9, 1873.)
Le Naturaliste Canadien, Sept., 1878.
Nature, to October 30th, 1873.
Monthly Reports of the Department of Agriculture, August, September and October.
Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, vol. i, No. 3.August, 1873.
Scottish Naturalist, April, July, October, 1873.
Newman’s Entomologist, July, August and September, 1873.
Journal of Education, October, 1873.
The Zoologist, August and September, 1873.
Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, January and February, 1873.
The Horticulturist, October, 1873.
Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, August, 1873.
American Naturalist, September, October, 1873.
Che Canada Entomologist,
VOL. V. LONDON, ONT., DECEMBER, 1873. No. 12
ON SOME OF OUR COMMON INSECTS.
to. THE CLOUDEDYSULPHUR BUTTERFLY —
Colias philodice, Godt.
BY fae EDITOR.
The clouded sulphur is everywhere one of our commonest butterflies,
abundant in its season in fields and roadways, frequently congregating in
Fig. 21.
groups on the borders of streams
= and springs, where, in hot weather
_ they seem to enjoy settling on the
moist ground. They are still more
abundant in clover fields as the
season advances.
The female of this species differs
somewhat in its markings from the
Gnlours, yellow and black. male, as will be readily seen by
reference to the figures, 21 representing the female, 22 the male. The
ground colour of the wings in both sexes is bright yellow, marked on the
outer edge with a dark brown or blackish border, narrower in the male
than it is in the female, while in the Fig. 22. ;
latter it encloses on the anterior wings .
a broken row of irregular yellow spots: |
There is also a spot of black placed |
near the front edge of the fore wings,
about half way between the base and
tip, varying in form and distinctness.
The hind wings in both sexes are less
heavily margined, and near the middle Guisnts, yellnn and Ghee
is a dull pale orange spot. Both wings are dusky towards the base, and
the fringes are pink.
22:2 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. | =
On the under surface the yellow colour is less bright, while the dark
margins are either entirely wanting or else represented by a dusky shade
margined occasionally within by a few dull brownish dots. The spot on
the forewings is distinct, but paler and usually centered witha small silvery
eye. That on the hind wings is much more distinct than above, being
composed of a bright silvery spot in the centre defined by a dark brown
line which is in turn encircled with dull orange. Immediately above and
a little towards the outer edge is a much smaller spot of the same
character ; there is also a reddish dot on the anterior edge, about the
middle of the wing. ‘The antennz are pink, with the knobs at their tips.
of a darker shade; the body is dark above, paler at the sides and
underneath.
This insect appears first on the wing about the middle of May,
becoming more plentiful towards the latter end of the month, but the time
of its greatest abundance is later in the season, during the latter part of
July and throughout August. In the second volume of the ENToMOLO-
GIST, p. 8, Mr. Bethune remarks as follows: ‘ On the 3rd of August, a
lovely, bright, warm morning, after an excessively wet night, I drove about
ten miles along country roads ; every few yards there was a patch of mud,
the effects of the heavy rain, and at every patch of mud there were from
half a dozen to twenty specimens of Colzas philodice, at least one I should
think for every yard of distance I travelled. I must then have seen, at a
very moderate computation, about ten thousand specimens of this
butterfly.”
The caterpillar of the Clouded Sulphur feeds on the cultivated pea, on
clover, on the Blue Lupin, Zupinus perennis, and no doubt on many
other plants belonging to the order Leguminose. The egg is about one
twenty-third of an inch in length, tapering at each end, with twelve or
fourteen raised longitudinal ribs, with smaller cross lines in the concave
spaces between them. Their colour when first deposited is of a pale
lemon yellow, which changes in three or four days to a pale red, then
gradually to a bright red, and from that to dark brown just before the
time of hatching. The duration of the egg stage is about seven days.
The young caterpillar just hatched is one-twelfth of an inch long and
of a dull yellowish brown colour, but when a little older it changes to a
dark green. When full grown it is about an inch long, with a dark green
head and body, the latter with a yellowish white stripe on each side close
THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 223
to the under surface, with an irregular streak of bright red running through
its lower portion. The body also has a downy look occasioned by its
being thickly clothed with very minute pale hairs.
The chrysalis is about seven-tenths of an inch long, attached at its
base, and girt across the middle with a silken thread. Its colour is pale
green with a yellowish tinge, with a purplish red line on each side of the
head, darker lines down the middle both in front and behind, and with a
yellowish stripe along the sides of the hinder segments.
During the heat of summer the chrysalis state usually lasts about ten
days. A day orso before the butterfly escapes the chrysalis becomes
darker and semi-transparent, the markings on the wings showing plainly
through the enclosing membrane.
NOTES ON THE EARLY STAGES OF SOME OF OUR
BUTTERFLIES.
BY W. H. EDWARDS, COALBURGH, W. VA.
I herewith send you some memoranda of what I have done during the
past summer, largely owing to the assistance of Mr. Mead. I consider it
my most successful season in the way of obtaining larvee and eggs. One
of the most interesting species we discovered was Lycaena pseudargiolus.
Mr. Mead noticed a female hovering about flowers of