1. Papilio Philenor.

On 21st May, 1881, I saw a female Philenor fluttering about a low plant in the edge of the woods near my house. Apparently it was a vine just out of the ground—some four or five inches high—and three eggs were laid on the stem. I sent the plant to Mr. Scudder for determination at the Botanical Gardens, but he reported that there was not enough of it for that purpose.

On 1st Aug., I saw a female coursing over the hill side, alighting on various species of plants for an instant; sometimes on clover heads or other flowers, then flying again in short circuits, touching a leaf here and there. Perhaps it was ten minutes before she lingered on one plant longer than usual, though then but for three or four seconds, and I found on examination three eggs laid on the stem just below the terminal leaf. The plant was of the same species I had noticed in May, and I dug it up and planted it in the garden. When at Cincinnati, at the meeting of the A. A. A. S., I learned from Dr. H. S. Jewett that this must be Aristolochia serpentaria, a common plant about Dayton, O., and later I received from him several dried examples of it.

After the description of this species in the Jan. No. was in type, I received a letter from Mr. A. G. Butler, to whom I had sent an example, with request to be informed if it was Tarpeia, spoken of in his Catalogue of Satyridæ as being N. American. Mr. Butler writes: “Your Chionobas is very distinct from C. Tarpeia; the latter comes nearer to C. Chryxus, being quite a fulvous species, with blind ocelli on under surface.

In my paper on L. Arthemis and its alleged second brood, in Dec., 1881, I stated that some caterpillars of L. Ursula did go on to chrysalis and butterfly late in the year, in Ohio, though others of same lot went into their hibernacula when half grown; and that I had dissected one female Ursula which emerged in September last, and could discover no signs of eggs, or at any rate, there were no formed eggs. Also that I had sent a second female of same lot to Prof. Minot for examination. I now have his report, as follows: “There were certainly no ripe eggs in the abdomen, although there were a great many eggs in an immature condition.” I stated in the above mentioned paper, that the existence of the species Ursula did not depend on these late, or September butterflies; and the reason is, that the female coming so late, and with immature eggs, the season would either not allow the eggs to ripen, or if it did, and they were impregnated, which would be doubtful, it would not allow the larvæ to hatch and to reach the hibernating stage.

I find that unless we use neurational characters to separate the genera of Phycidœ, that it will be impossible to classify the species with accuracy. All characters drawn from the periphery, the appendages of the body, will be found subject to very gradual modifications, but I do not think we can afford to reject any of them, because of their relative want of stability. Indeed the neuration in the Lepidoptera seems to be as useful as in the Diptera, although there are certain cases (as I long ago pointed out with regard to Thyridopteryx) where it varies not only in the species, but in the opposite wings of the same specimen. I think that we must regard as generically distinct from Penmpelia the North American species Pravella, which has 8, instead of 7 veins to the hind wings (see Bull. U. S. Geol. Surv. 4, 694). For this species, the structure of which I have quite fully described, I propose the generic name Meroptera. I also find that our two species, found in Texas and Colorado, and which probably mine the Agave, viz., Bollii and Dentata, are distinct from the European types of Zophodia, to which Prof. Zeller referred Bollii, the type of the new genus Megaphycis. In the structure of the palpi, shape of the wings, greater size and length of body, our two large species differ strongly.

As if the apple tree with its sixty or more insect enemies were not sufficiently afflicted, a distant relative of the Canker-worm has been making itself so notorious in Georgia, as to give apprehension of the total destruction of apple orchards in the locality infested. The insect complained of is Eugonia subsignaria Pack., a measuring worm which at times has been a veritable nuisance upon shade trees in New York and Philadelphia.

In pursuance of my duties as a Special Agent of the Census Office (in the fruit interest), and through subsequent correspondence, the following facts were obtained from Mr. Adam Davenport, of Fannin County, in the State named. In his first communication, received some months since, it is stated that the worm made its appearance upon Rich Mountain, a spur of the Blue Ridge, about four years ago, attacking forest and fruit trees; and that it had since spread over a large area, doing great damage. Apple trees in June last were as destitute of leaves as in mid-winter, the fruit growing to the size of marbles and falling off.

On pages 231 to 238 of the Canadian Entomologist for 1879, I gave a list of the species of Spragueia and allied genera. I am still in doubt of the position of Apicella, from want of material to examine. It may belong to Fruva, which can be readily ascertained. The genus Tripudia may be identical with Oribates of Hy. Edwards, described more recently. I have seen the type of O. Versutus, and, without being able to compare it, it seemed to me identical with my previously published Tripudia flavofasciata Grote, Can. Ent., 1877, p. 69. The type of Tripudia is this species, to which I have joined quadrifera of Zeller, from Texas, as a second. Whether the orange species Muirii and limbatus belong here can be ascertained by proper dissections, which should be undertaken as soon as possible.

Icthyura Palla, n. sp.

Length of body, including anal tuft, .56 of an inch. Expanse 1.10 inches. General color of body and primaries pale gray, the latter rather sparsely sprinkled with dark brown scales. Palpi brown above, scarcely projecting beyond the head, third joint concealed by the hairs of the others. Front slightly brownish, a tuft of pale gray scales at the base of each antenna, the usual deep brown mark from between the antennæ to the top of the thoracic crest. Primaries with the usual transverse lines almost white. The basal line makes a bend outward on the median vein; from this it goes in a straight course to the submedian vein; from this to the posterior or inner margin it curves a little outward. A second line extends from the costa about one-fourth of the distance from the base obliquely to the posterior margin, near the posteriol angle.

Prof. Westwood, in his Generic Synopsis, characterizes this genus as follows: “Antennæ 13-jointed, clavate, third and fourth joints minute; club ovate; thorax long-ovate; collar moderate; thorax depressed in the middle; abdomen long-ovate; ovipositor exserted, wings with stigmal branch distant from the union of the subcostal nerve and the costa.”

In view of the recent controversy between Prof. Riley and Mr. Howard, in regard to this genus and the genus Antigaster of Wa1sh, I deem it advisable to publish the above from Westwood, verbatim etliteratum. Just beginning my entomological studies, I do not pretend to take issue with either of these gentlemen, but merely desire to draw their attention to the ovipositor in this genus, which both seem to have entirely overlooked, and which, according to above description, is exserted.