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.

In Entom. Amer., Vol. VI., p. 173, in my description of Euchaetes conspicua there is erroneously inserted: “This insect comes near E. cadaverso, Gr.,” etc., etc. This should read: “This insect comes near E. abdominalis, Gr. It is easily recognized by its conspicuous costal lines. E. abdominalis is a Florida insect, whilst this seems to be the Colorado representative.” Entom. Amer. having caeased to appear, you will confer a favour on me by publishing this in your esteemed paper.

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.