The common affection of various grasses, commonly known as “Silver-top,” has received the attention of such well-known investigators as Professors Comstock, Lintner, Forbes, Fletcher and others, and it is not with the expectation of completely solving the problem which has perplexed these careful students that I venture to present my experience, but in the hope that by comparisons of experience and observation we may arrive at a better knowledge of a subject at once important and complex.

Thecla laeta, Edw. I was fortunate enough to take a female of this rare and beautiful butterfly on the top of Beloeil Mt., 22 miles east of Montreal, on May 24th, 1888. I again visited the place on the same date in 1889 and 1890, but on both occasions the weather was too cloudy for anything to be on the wing.

Thecla acadica, Edw. I took two specimens at St.Rose, July 7th, 1889, flying over a field of oats, among which there was a quantity of wild mustard in flower, and the butterflies visited the latter occasionally, but only for a moment, and then dashed off.

22. Melanoplus femur-rubrum, De Geer. The Red-legged Grasshopper.

Acrydium femur-rubrum, Harris Ins. Inj., 1862, 174, fig. 80.

Caloptenus femur-rubrum, Thos., Syn. Acrid. N. A., 1873, 163.

Id., Ninth Rep. St. Ent., Ill., 1880, 124, figs. 22, 23.

Riley, Rep. U.S Ent. Comm., I., 1877, 50, pl. II.

Melanoplus femur-rubrum, Scudd., Proceed. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hıst., XIX., 1878, 284.

On page 92 of the Bulletin U.S.N. Museum, No. 28, Prof. Smith says: “Mr. Butler says argur is the type of Graphiphora, Ochs., in which case the application of the name to the Taeniocampa series by Mr. Grote would be unwarranted.” I never fixed the type of Ochsenheimer's genus Graphiphora. What I did was to fix the type of Hübner proposes the name in the Tentamen for gothica, which, as it is the only species given, is therefore the type. Afterwards, in 1816, Ochsenheimer, 4, 68, includes ravida and 16 species not seperable from Agrotis.

Platynus crenistriatus, Lec. I took a speciment of this interesting little beetle (fig.1) here late in October, at the foot of a stump. It is not unlike in October, at the foot of a stump. It is not unlike in appearance certain small Pterostichi but may be at once distinguished by having the elytral margin behind sinuate and simple, without the interruption and route fold usually seen in Pterostichus. It seems to me to be, in fact, one of those less specialized forms still exhibiting characters in common with some species of that genus.

The paper by Mr. W. H. Edwards in the March number of the Canadian Entomologist brought back to me vividly my collecting days in the Catskills, and as I have also taken arthemis, proserpina and ursula, perhaps my experiences may not be entirely uninteresting. It was sixteen years ago that I set out for a two weeks' tramp in the mountains, and as it was my first experience with them, the memory of that trip is yet more distinct than of many subsequent excursions.

The preparatory stages of this species do not seem to have been described. Mr. Hy. Edwards in his catalogue gives eleven references, but in none is the egg mentioned, or any but a single larval stage, and in only one the pupa. It will, therefore, not be amiss to briefly describe the several stages here. I would like first to call attention to the remarkable fertility of the insect in question, at least in Southern Florida where I met with it.

I had generally considered Papilio indrato be a rare insect in Colorado, and from the inquiries of correspondents would think it wanting in many collections. While collecting at about 7,000 feet elevation, in June, '89, I occasionally saw one go past me like a flash up the mountain sides; but one sultry afternoon I took several examples in a narrow canon as they sat upon a small piece of sandy ground that had been soaked by a thunder storm in the morning.

A combination of causes prevented me from doing my usual amount of hunting around Hamilton last summer, and the reports of the collectors there left with me the impression that I was not losing much. I took many a stroll through the city, looking for, and expecting to find something, but invariably returned disappointed.

Noticing the remarks of Mr. W. G. Wright in the Feburary number of the Canadian Entomologist respecting V. Californica, I considered it would be of interest to give particulars of its capture at Victoria B. C. During 1890 it was scarce in this vicinity, though probably common enough on higher elevations. The specimens taken by me were captured at Beacon Hill, amongst or near the fir trees that compose the wooded part of the Park, and situate some sixty feet above the sea level.

Since writing the notes on Rhyncophora which appeared in the Feburary issue, I have had an opportunity of obtaining Dr. Sharp's determination of the two species mentioned on pages 22 and 23. He writes to me as follows:- “The two weevils from Cape Breton are: 1. Otiorhynchus rugifrons, Gyll., 2. Sciaphilus muricatus, both common N. European insects. The Otiorhynchus is a slight var.; the Sciaphilus not distinguishable from Scottish specimens.”

I obtained eggs from a worn ♀ taken at light near Salt Lake City, Utah, in June; these gave me a fine lot of imagines early in September, and I again got eggs from them, and had larvæ feeding which produced a number of moths at various times during the winter. Some of the larvæ ceased to feed when one-third grown, and I dumped them out among weeds by my orchard fence to take their chances.

Among the commoner beetles at Sydney, Cape Breton, if not indeed the most abundant, is a species which has, I think, not been recorded in Canadian lists. I refer to Platynus hardyi which was described by Leconte (Bull. Brooklyn Ent. Soc. Vol. II., p. 53)from Newfoundland specimens received by him from Baron de Chaudoir. I cannot find any record of it from other localities.