This pernicious insect has been very abundant here for many years. As early as 1874 I found it in considerable numbers among moss on dry, grassy hill-sides at Lancaster, N. Y. This season (1886) it was remarkably abundant in a dry upland hay field near the same locality. I have also taken it at Ridgeway, Ont. Ordinarily the short winged form predominates, but in hot, dry summers, such as those of 1881 and 1886, they mostly acquire fully developed membranes. I find on comparison with a lot of perhaps one hundred fully developed examples from Kansas, that ours are quite uniformly larger and more robust, with longer hairs on the pronotum.

In the Canadian Entomologist, this volume, p. 72, Mr. Ph. Fischer tells us of the capture of the above moth at Buffalo, N. Y., adds something of the bibliography of the species, and remarks upon its aberrant appearance and character. Permit me to add a few words to what was there said.

Guenee, Phalenites, vol. ii., p. 116, 1857, describes this species of Hubner, under the generic name Sphecelodes, crediting the species to Hubner, but ignoring his genus, as was Guenee's custom. He also describes the ♀, and pl. 22, f. 9, gives a figure of it. It differs very much from the ♂, having ciliated antennæ, and lacking the triangular fleshcolored costal spot.

Rheumaptera brunneomaculata, sp. nov.

Abdomen and ground color of wings white. Head, thorax and antennæ cinereous. Inner third of fore wings containing three irregular ashcolored lines more heavily shaded towards the thorax. Mesial band crossed by two narrow, irregular and somewhat interrupted cinereous lines, between which on the inner margin of the wing is located a very distinct sub-triangular spot of deep brown color. Another larger, nearly quadrangular, very distinct brown patch, widest on costa, extends from costal margin to near the middle of the wing, in the lower part of which is located the oblong very dark brown discai dot.

Among the Tenthredinidæ captured by me during the past season was a good series of Tenthredo delta Prov, consisting of 12 females and 26 males. In pinning them I was frequently struck by the evident irregularity of the venation of the wings, and on a more careful examination of the specimens I find these irregularities to be both numerous and remarkable. No other species represented in my cabinet show any such divergencies from the typical form, except in rare instances. Provancher describes the female (page 210, “Petite Faune Entomologique du Canada”) as having two discoidal cells in under wings, and Cresson (“Trans. Am. Ent. Soc.,” vol. viii., page 44) as having one or two middle cells. One middle cell appears to be the rule, and any deviation therefrom to be an exception. Of my 12 specimens, 10 have one middle cell each, one has two middle cells, and the other none. The males are more uniform apparently in their venation, as none of my 26 specimens have middle cells in the under wings, thus agreeing with the description given by Cresson (loc. cit). Apart from the varying number of middle cells, the under wing of the females have the cells varying much in shape, especially the middle one, which ranges from a small triangular form to a large foursided (square or irregular) one. There are also occasionally small additional cells on the posterior margin.

Found feeding on a wild cherry, September 19, 1884, two larvæ of this species. They were .80 of an inch long, nearly cylindrical, the body somewhat elevated in the middle, from which it tapers a little both ways, the dorsum of joint 12 with a slight elevation; eight low tubercles on each joint, from each of which arise a few spreading white hairs. Color green; a dorsal stripe that is mostly red on joints 3 and 4, and on the elevated portion of joint 12, the rest of the stripe yellow with a reddish, blotch to each joint; the anterior part of dorsum of joint 2 red, separated by green in the middle, yellowish round the edges. Head slightly bilobed; the lower part reddish green, the upper part more red.

I have seen this butterfly light on a species of Aphis, Schizoneura tessellata, found on Alnus in crowds on the bark, and from the position of its abdomen it seemed to be going to lay an egg among the plant-lice, but seeing me, she did not. Afterwards I scraped some of these larvæ off a twig of Alder and found a couple of larvæ; I sent them to Mr. W. H. Edwards, and he said that they were F. tatquinius, as I thought. The larvæ were under the bodies of the plant-lice, covered with a thin network of silk to keep the woolly secretion of the Aphides away from them. They were only half grown.

Read before the Montreal Branch Ent. Soc. of Ont., 9th Feb., 1886.

During the past two years, but more especially this season, we have been very much troubled and annoyed by the attacks of the Buffalo Treehopper (C. bubalus Say) on the young trees in the orchard. Most of the trees have been seriously injured by having the bark cut up by the ovipositors of these insects, when depositing their eggs. These incisions and the eggs in them were so numerous that in many cases it was impossible to raise the bark for the purpose of “budding” the trees.

It is to me a most distasteful task to take part publicly in the “Colias” controversy between Mr. Edwards and Dr. Hagen, as I was an invited guest of Dr. Hagen on the trip to Washington Territory, where the events took place which have given rise to the discussion; but in the interest of science, which seeks nothing but the truth, it seems as though the time had come when I ought to state in a concise manner what I know of the whole matter. I have been cut off from all my books for the last five months, while travelling from place to place, or this letter would have been written earlier. I did not know till quite recently the phase to which the controversy had arrived. Probably the best thing I can do is to state the manner in which our party was organized, and the manner in which our collecting was done.

The party consisted of Dr. Hagen, and his assistant, Samuel Henshaw. In San Francisco I was invited to join it, and did so.

Owing to the unusual and continued warmth of the weather during the two weeks ending April 28th, insect life has been very abundant, considering the time of year, and the few opportunities I have so far enjoyed of looking up their haunts have amply repaid me.

April 17.—Under boards and pieces of wood along fences were to be seen hundreds of Drasterius dorsalis Say. In company with this elater, besides many, to me, common beetles, I secured for the first time several Languria Mozardi Latr., a very showy beetle—the male looks very small by the side of the female. In the same afternoon I found a fine specimen of the goldsmith beetle, Cotalpa lanigera Linn. Is not this an early appearance?

This peculiar moth, which so perplexed the older Lepidopterists at classifying, is quite common in Florida on oaks, willows, shrubs, etc.

Full accounts of its habits, with accurate figures of the moth, caterpillar, etc., will be found in Prof. Riley's “First Mo. Report,” Saunders' “Insects Injurious to Fruits,” and Dr. Lintner's “First N. Y. Report.”

Indeed, these authors quite fully, accurately and succinctly describe the habits and parasites of this pest, and it would not now be noticed by me but for the fact of my breeding from it here in Florida a Chalcid parasite new to science and unnoticed by any of the above mentioned authors.

*Stylopyga orientalis, Linn. Common in houses; have also taken it under stones in a lane behind a bakery in summer.

Ischnoptera pennsylvanica, De Geer, Not common. I took a specimen under bark of a stump on Montreal Mountain some years since, and on June 4th, 1885, I took three specimens under bark of a stump at Abbotsford, P. Q.

Temnopteryx marginata. Rare. Two specimens taken under bark of a fallen tree on Montreal Mountain.

*Ectobia Germanica, Stephens. Common in houses in the city of Montreal. Has been so to my knowledge for the last fifteen years; how much longer I cannot say.

The beetles enumerated below were all taken by myself in the neighbourhood of Victoria, Vancouver Island, during the past few seasons. Some of the larger species, especially the Colosomas, were captured under heaps of rubbish in my garden. The species of Omus and Cychrus and many others were found while searching for land shells under oak logs in the woods. Very many kinds too were found under stones, also during search for shells, while most of the rarer kinds were taken, accidentally I might say, while flying in the sunshine.

The number of specimens of Carabidae that could be collected here is very large, individuals being in fact far more numerous than I have ever seen them anywhere else, and I feel confident that a season's careful working would almost double my present list of species.

As my former notes on the Ant Lions were of interest to some of your readers, perhaps a few additional particulars on the same subject may not be objectionable to them. Having had another opportunity of observing their habits, I made the best use I could of it. The abdomen of the nymph is somewhat heart-shaped, flat beneath and very much rounded above, thickest near the thorax, and sloping off suddenly to the sides and tail, which is an acute point. The thorax is long, and with the head is narrow and flat above, a form no doubt well adapted to its requirements. Its mode of travelling is backwards, always “advancing to the reat,” one side contracted, which produces a circular movement, so that when one was placed in the centre of,the palm of the hand, it made two rounds before it dropped over the side. As soon as it touched the sand it put itself instantly out of sight under the surface, where it lay for a short time perfectly quiet. When it began the formation of its pit, which I watched to its completion, it commenced by a jerk of the head and thorax, which threw the sand off and exposed them to view. It lowered them at once, made a sudden start back, when the sand covered them; then another jerk and another backward move rapidly executed, always throwing the sand to the outside.

Some years ago, I received from Prof. G. J. Hinde, of Toronto, a twig of juniper about as thick as, and a little longer than, one's finger, which he had taken from interglacial deposits at Scarboro', near Toronto, and which showed the marks where beetles had bored the surface just beneath where the bark had been. From the same locality a number of remains of beetles have also been found, mostly Carabidæ, two of which I described at the time as new species of Loricera and Loxandrus. The others still remain unpublished, but there are none among them which could have made these borings, as these are evidently the peculiar work of some species of Scolytidæ, and apparently one of the Hylurgini, though in our very imperfect knowledge of the characteristics of the mines made by existing forms of this family, it is difficult to pronounce on its relations.

Judging by the first volume of this work, which I have lately received, it will prove of great value to American students of this difficult family. The first volume is illustrated by a number of finely colored plates, and Mr. Lichtenstein promises in his preface to use all such funds as he may obtain from subscribers to the work, in illustrating the second volume—thus practically making subscribers a present of the text. While the monograph will deal more particularly with European species, many notes will be given comparing nearly allied American with European forms.

On the 12th of last June I observed a female of this species on a dead Maple. She was creeping down the tree, feeling the interstices of the bark with her ovipositor, but apparently without finding a suitable place, as no eggs were deposited so far as I could perceive. On the 19th, I observed another female, also on Maple. She was resting head downwards with the terminal segments of the abdomen slightly inclined, the ovipositor extended at a right angle with the body and placed in an old hole of some borer. She remained in this position for several minutes, the ovipositor being alternately dilated and contracted as if eggs were passing through. After she had gone away, I examined the place and found that, at a little distance from the surface, the hole was stopped with a smooth grayish substance. Not having a knife about me, I tried to remove it with a stalk of grass, but only succeeded in breaking it up into a yellowish fluid. I have no doubt that the creature deposited an egg, or eggs, and covered them with a kind of cement. Whether this is the usual manner in which the species oviposits I cannot say.

Again, the genera Citheronia and Eacles are a South American element in our fauna, while the typical Attacinæ, such as Actias, probably belong to the Old World element in our fauna, together with all our Platypteryginœ. Among the Hawk Moths the genera Philampelus and Phlegethontius are of probable South American extraction, though represented now by certain strictly North American species. Mr. Robert Bunker, writing from Rochester, N. Y., records the fact that Philampelus Pandorus, going into chrysaiis Augnst 1, came out Sept. 10 as a moth, showing that in a warmer climate the species would become doublebrooded. And this is undoubtedly the case with many species the farther we go South, where insect activities are not interrupted so long and so strictly by the cold of winter. Since the continuance of the pupal condition is influenced by cold, a diminishing seasonal temperature for ages may have originally affected, if not induced, the transformations of insects as a whole. Butterflies and Moths which are single brooded in the North become double brooded in the South.