It is one of the pleasures which we older Entomologists alone feel to its full extent, when a well written paper, full of matter, falls under our notice on a favorite subject. Such a pleasure I experienced on receiving the June No. of the “old reliable” Canadian Entomologist, and the Rev. W. J. Holland's paper on our Sphingidæ opened before me. Supplementing, as it does in various points, Professor Fernald's valuable pamphlet, it will be welcome to all interested in the beautiful study of our Hawk Moths. Upon these I need not further dwell. I wish here to point out, in reference to the interesting remarks on our Westem Sphingidæ, that on page 8 of my “New Check List” I say that I am indebted to Mr. Henry Edwards for various assistance, and that “I have received from the same Entomologist information as to the synonymy of certain Western Sphingidæ.” Now the only two which have any synonymy beyond the original name are Occidentalis and Vancouverensis, and these are the ones meant. In fact the only Western form I ever possessed in my own collection was a specimen of S. perelegans, which seemed to me undoubtedly a distinct species, nor have I ever made any study of our Western forms. In my “New Check List” I omitted the use of the dash (—), which I have generally used (following Leconte) in my shorter lists after species unknown to me in nature.

In his interesting article “On the History and the Preparatory Stages of Fenesica tarquinius” (Canadian Entomologist, xviii., pp. 141–153) Mr. Wm. H. Edwards makes some comments upon my article in Science of last April (30th), in which I announced the carnivorous habit of the larva of this species. He has been led to do so in part by the incorrect report in Entomologica Americana of the Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington for January 6th last. In that report “Mr. C. L. Johnson” is said to have observed “a lepidopterous larva feeding on a species of Aphid,” but the report is incorrect both as to the fact and as to the name. Judge Lawrence C. Johnson, an old-time correspondent and for a while one of my assistants in Mississippi, was the correspondent intended, and his communication, which I was familiar with, particularly states that “he thought he saw the larva eating the plant-lice, but failed to convince himself of the fact.” Mr. Lugger, in the very report quoted by Mr. Edwards (Can. Ent., xviii., 142, lines 2 and 3) expressly states that “he had never actually seen them (Fenesica larvæ) feeding upon the Aphids,” and as he previously remarked that he had “made the same observations” as Mr. Johnson, the report in Entomologica Americana is inaccurate and contradictory on its face.

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.

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.

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.

The study of the forms referable to the first or European element in the North American Moths, is complicated by the circumstance of the great range in the character and amount of the differences separating the related species now living so widely apart. These related species are found, in fact, to offer also difficulties as to their correct nomenclature. We have seen that the term “representative species,” like that of “prophetic types,” hides the real significance of the inter-resemblance which is that of a common descent. In naming these “representative” forms we must be guided by the rule that where the differences are such that the species would be considered distinct if members of a common fauna, a different specific title must be given them, but where these differences are slight, and what, under the same supposition, would be considered only varietal, the species must be considered as still identical, though separated so long in time and by so wide a space. The study of those forms which are practically identical is, as we have seen, further complicated by the difficulty of deciding as to whether they may have been introduced since the discovery of the New World by the Spaniards, or whether the species have continued unaltered since the Tertiary in both America and Europe. While certain species such as Scoliopteryx are undoubtedly in this latter case, it is less easy to feel so sure with regard to this in instances like Dipterygia Pinastri and the various identical forms of Agrotis, but on the whole I am inclined to believe that the number of species artificially exchanged is very small, and that these identical species have simply proved more constant and are of an older type than the rest.

Readers of The Canadian Entomologist have, no doubt, through the papers of W. H. Edwards, followed with interest the discovery of so many facts bearing on the evolution of species in the Butterflies. We have now a work by a German writer of remarkable industry and ability, on the larval peculiarities of the Nymphalidæ, which deserves the study of all interested in Lepidopterology in America. The work is adorned by four plain lithographic plates of the caterpillars and their peculiar structure, of such fineness and softness of execution that, with all my experience, I hardly know where to find their equal. The work itself is a separate part of my friend Prof. Spengel's very useful “Jahrbücher,” a zoological publication which deserves to be largely encouraged. The publication may be obtained at the office of Gustav Fischer, Jena, Germany, and this work on the Nymphalidæ costs about three dollars (11 marks). The book itself (252 pp.) is too lengthy to be adequately reviewed here. It is a minute study, throwing light on the genealogy of the family from the structure of the caterpillars, and it is conducted with an ability which is simply marvellous.