Readers of the Canadian Entomologist will recall the controversy between Prof. Smith and myself as to the species described by Walker as Eudryas Stœ. Johannis, the type of which was examined in 1867 by Grote & Robinson, and pronounced a distinct species allied to grate. I had supposed the insect owed its name to the St. John's River, Florida, but,according to Mr. Smith (C. E., XXIV., 133), the type bore a label that it was taken on a church door in England. Mr. Smith, relying on the label, invented the theory that “in some way the pupa of the insect was transported to England, and through the vicissitudes encountered and aberration was produced.” This writer has “no hesitation in referring the species as a suffused aberrant grata.” There is no band on the hind wings, but, nevertheless, it is set down as a “suffused” specimen of grata, which always, so far as known, has a band! For my answer to this, see my paper, Can. Ent. XXV., 320, where, aided by Mr. Tutt's memoranda as to the given English locality on the label, I discussed the pro and con. of the above theory. Now I am in receipt of a letter from Mr. Schaus, that Eudryas Stœ. Johannis has been re-discovered in Mexico. My kind correspondent writes: “It will interest you to know that I have recently seen several specimens of Eudryas Stœ Johannis, Walk., from Mexico; they were sent to Mr. Druce by a native who is now collecting.” Thus the theory of the “vicissitudes of the voyage” vanishes; the specific validity of Stœ. Johannis asserted by us in 1868, before Mr. Smith was (entomologically speaking) born, is vindicated.

Eighth stage.—Head shining black, yellowish punctured around the mouth, antennæ yellowish; eye and jaws black; width, 1.8 mm. Body ochreous yellow, 6-annulate with irregular quadrate sub-dorsal (two per segment) and lateral (one per segment) black spots, confluent on joint 13; sub-ventral ridge faintly discolured; anal plate blackish. No white secretion. The larvæ do not feel in this stage, but seek for soft wood in which they bore their galleries for pupation.

In the May number of The Century, Vol. L., No. 1, p. 89, 1895, there is recorded an item of interest to economic entomologists that is liable to be overlooked and lost, although it deserves a better fate. In an article by Mr. William E. Smythe, on “The Conquest of Arid America,” there is given a carefully-compiled table of all of the expenditures of “the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” in Utah, the figures being furnished, at the author's request, by Mr. A. Milton Musser, Church historian, and by him submitted to the inspection of the Presidents and Bishops of the Church, prior to publication.

In the concluding volume of his admirable work on “American Spiders and their Spinning Work,” Page 47, Dr. McCook gives the experiences of Mr. H. O. Forbes, and myself, with two species of spiders, whose forms and habits of spinning webs on leaves, together with the peculiar coloration of their bodies, gives them a deceptive resemblance to the droppings of birds. Dr. McCook tries to account for the phenomena of this protective resemblance, by attributing it to the results of natural selection.

In Osten Sacken's well-known catalogue of Diptera ten species of Phora are credited to our fauna. Of these I have been unable to find any Phorid described by Fabricins under the name of atra., The author who first used this name appears to have been Meigen; in his Klass. Besch. Eur. Zwei. Insect (1804), this author describes a Trineura atra, but in his later work (Syst. Besch. Eur. Zwei. Insect, 1830) this name is relegated as a synonym of Musca aterrima, Fabr. (Ent. Syst., 1798). In the recent revision of the Austrian Phoridæ, by Strobl (Wiener Ent.Zeitung, 1892, pp. 193–204), no mention is made of a Phora atra, Fabr. The reference in the catalogue should therefore be credited to Meigen, and transferred as a synonym of Trineura aterrina, Fabr.

Since writing my paper (Can. Ent., 263, ante) I have been able to examine a specimen of the Asiatic A. selene. The moth differs from luna, chiefly in the pointed apices of fore wings, the outer margin sweeping inwardly in an even curve. I cannot consider this character of generic value, since precisely the same separates the South American Eacles magnifica from our E. imperialis. In the same species of certain Papilionides, a similar variation has been noted. The exterior bands appear faintly also in certain examples of luna, while the whiter colour is shown by the variety Rossi. Whether this tendency to white is reversionary in its nature, may be questioned. The tails are more developed in the Asiatic species, but (without denuding) I cannot find any neurational differences. I conclude, then, that Leach's term Actias is also applicable to A. luna. On the other hand, the European isabellœ seems to admit of a distinct genus.

Of the three families of Saturnina found in North America, only the Saturnidæ occurs in the European fauna. Conversely no analogue of the European Aglia tau* has been found in America. In a very interesting paper, Ann. Mag. N. Hist., Vol. XI., 1893, Dr. Packard says of this species: “Aglia appears to be a Ceratocampid in its earlier larval stages, the caterpillar in its final stage, however, and the moth being closely related to the Saturnians”. This being so, it is clear that Aglia cannot be classed as a subfamily of Cithernidœ, from which the habit and struture of the moth and the mde of pupation seem to exclude it.

It appears from a reference to the literature, that the larvæ of less than 25 per cent. of the Tenthredinidæ listed as inhabiting the northeastern United States and Canada have been described. Of the Western species, scarcely half a dozen are known.

It seems desirable that something should be done to increase interest in this neglected subject, and I have thought it well to prepare a synoptic table of the larvæ already known, to facilitate the recognition of specimens and better indicate those as yet undescribed, and therefore needing study.

In the following table the Western species are excluded. If, by good fortune, any student of this group should arise there, he would find the field practically clear.

I was much interested in Dr. Hamilton's paper on Lake Worth Coleoptera (Can. Ent., XXVI., 250). I spent twelve days at Palm Beach, Lake Worth, last spring, and did a little collecting. I took 57 species of Coleoptera between March 9th and 21st. Of these, 36 are not included in Dr. Hamilton's list. I append the names of these, and add a few notes. I am indebted to Mr. Chas. Lubeck for identifications.

The above-mentioned families of carnivorous water beetles are taken up here by request of the Editor and Committee, because of the great difficulty most students of Coleoptera, especially if they are beginners, find in identifying any of their captures in these groups, or even in separating the species with approximate accuracy. It is to be feared that with marry it will prove difficult to follow the tables herewith presented; but they have been made as plain as circumstances will allow, and care has been taken to follow the best authorities in the selection of characters supposed to mark the respective species, so that by diligent attention to details the user of the paper may hope to co-relate his collcction with our lists.

Egg.—Pea-green colour; round, with deep longitudinal lines from the top to the bottom. Deposited in twos and threes up to us many as eight or nine at one laying before flying away. The eggs change next day to a mottled gray colour, resembling the dried plant stalks on which are they are laid. They are not deposited directly on the food plants, which are lupin and clover. They hatch out in nine days.

Larva, first stage.—A slender looper. Head quite large and bilobed, Light green from the head to the first segment back of the thoracic legs, which are six in number; thence dark green to the segment joining the four abdominal legs, lighter beneath; remainder of body light green. Length, about 6 mm.

Crocota rubricosta, n. sp.— ♀. Antennæ and eyes black; palpi and prothorax reddish-brown; head a little lighter than the prothorax; thorax dark brown, almost black; abdomen dark brown, tipped anally with red. Under side of abdomen and thorax, including the legs, light reddish brown.

Primaries: Upper side obscured with dark velvety-brown, slightly tinted, or dusted, with red on the costa. Secondaries: Dark brown, almost black, with a large red elongate spot on the costa—hence the name rubricosta.

Under side of primaries light brown; costa fiery red; the inner marginal area is also heavily dusted with red. Under side of secondaries fiery red, shaded along the anal margin with dark brown; the limbal space has a brown angulated bar, beginning at the discal cell and widening outwardly; discal spot dark brown, almost black; fringes dark brown. Exp., one inch and three-eighths. Hab.—Jeanette, Pa.

The latitude stated in the former paper should have been 26° 40°. This winter my location was six miles south from Pitt's Island, where the collecting was done last season. From February 1st to May 6th is the time included. During February and March few beetles occurred, as the temperature ranged from 52° to 74° and on one occasion fell to 27°. From the 10th to the 24th of April no collecting was done, and all but a few of the species enumerated were taken between the latter date and May 4th. The species not known to the writer to occur north of Florida are marked with a *; those extending westward around the Gulf, with a †; the others have a wide northern aud western distribution. Philonthus micans is to be erased from the previous list, as that species does not occur in Florida, the black form of alumnus having been erroneously so determined.

In the August number of the Canadian Entomologist, Vol. 26, p. 215, under the subject “An Omitted Phycitid,” Mr. Grote speaks disparagingly of my having established a subfamily upon differences in genitalic structure, and says: “Messrs. Scudder and Burgess first gave us genitalic species; Lederer used the genitalia for subgeneric and generic divisions, and latterly is followed by Smith. Now comes Mr. Hulst, whose mission seems to be to carry out the methods of other entomologists to extremes, and give us genitalic subfamilies.”

XI. The Hydrophilidæ of Ontario and Quebec.

These water-beetles differ from Dytiscidæ especially in having the antennæ terminated by a distinct club instead of being filiform; and while, as the name implies, they are usually found in ponds or streams, they are much more feeble swimmers than the Dytiscids, and are exponents of a more generalized type. Several genera are truly terrestrial in habit, the beetles occurring about decomposing animal matter or in manure. The larvæ somewhat resemble those of the Dytiscidæ in general appearance, but differ so far as my experience goes in having toothed mandibles instead of the single suctorial ones characteristic of the other family. Pupation takes place on land in an underground cell, or in a cavity scooped out beneath a stone or piece of wood.

Periclista, Knw.—This name was proposed by Knonow in his monograph of the European Blenocampids, published in the “Winer Ent. Zeit.,” V. 1886, 186, for those species having the lanceolate cell petiolate, the eyes more or less remote from the bases of the mandibles, and the posterior wings with the outer cells closed by a marginal vein. This name had already been used by Forester, 1869, tor a genus of Cynipidæ, and I therefore propose the name Mogerus (μογερός) to take its place.

In the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society for 1874 is published a list of certain family groups of Bombycine moths, and I retained there the terem Platypterices, of Hubner, 1806, for the group to which now a distinct family value is given, and which should therefore bear the name Playpterygidœ. Already in 1868, Trans. Am. Ent. Soc., I had proposed the subfamily terminaton to the correctd original term of Stephens: Platyptericidœ.

In the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London for 1892, Mr. W. Schaus describes as new 180 species of “Bombycid” moths from Mexico and various parts of South America, with three “new genera.” Of these, one is located in the Lasiocampidæ and two in the Bombycidæ. All these generic descriptions are utterly inadequate, and the question should be raised seriously whether names founded on such descriptions should be recognized. We are accustomed to believe that the classification of Herrich-schaffer is still used by lepidopterists, at least in its fundamental features; but in these descriptions the word “vein” does not appear. The description of the Lasiocampid is the longest of the three, yet the author gives but eight characters by which to identify his genus. Five of these are common to nearly all the genera of the family; two others appear in several genera already well known, and the genus must be distinguished from the one hundred and forty odd genera of Lasiocampidæ already catalogued, by the female having an expanse of wing of 95 mm., and a short abdomen, “not extending beyond the secondaries!”