PSOROPHORA CILIATA 535 



the mating habits. It is probable that they do not swarm. The adult appears 

 to be diurnal in habits. Males have occasionally been taken at light by night. 

 Females have been observed sucking vegetable juices. 



Eastern and central United States to Central America ; eastern South 

 America, from southern Brazil to the Argentine. 



Plattsburg, New York (G. H. Hudson) ; Ithaca, New York, September 7, 

 1903 (0. A. Johannsen) ; Sheepshead Bay, New York, May, 1903 ; Lyons, New 

 York, July, 1903 (W. F. Hubbard) ; Springfield, Massachusetts, September 20, 

 1903 (F. Knab) ; West Springfield, Massachusetts, August 2, 1903 (H. J. Mc- 

 Gyll) ; Chicopee, Massachusetts, June 6, 1897 (F, Knab) ; Cambridge, Massa- 

 chusetts, August 18, 1885 (G. Dimmock) ; Suffield, Connecticut, August 24, 

 1874 (G. Dimmock) ; Dorchester, Massachusetts (P. S. Sprague) ; Agawam, 

 Massachusetts (G. Dimmock) ; Larchmont, New York (W. Stump) ; Winona 

 Lake, Indiana (E. B. Williamson) ; Lake Maxinkuckee, Indiana (W. B. Ever- 

 mann) ; Delair, New Jersey, September 27, 1900 (W. P. Seal) ; Toms River, 

 New Jersey, August 6; Sea Girt, New Jersey, August 3, 1903; St. Elmo, 

 Virginia (F. C. Pratt) ; Washington, District of Columbia, July 28, 1906 (H. 

 S. Barber) ; Lloyds, Maryland, July 10, 1907 (H. S. Barber) ; Piney Point, 

 Maryland, June 23, 1904 (T. Pergande) ; Baltimore, Maryland, July, 1899 

 (D. C. Clark) ; Plummer's Island, Maryland, July 26, 1905 (E. A. Schwarz, 

 H. S. Barber) ; Grassymead, Virginia, June 20, 1904 (H. G. Dyar) ; Wood- 

 stock, Virginia, June 19, 1903 (F. C. Pratt) ; Del Ray, Virginia, July 5, 



1903 (F. C. Pratt) ; Bothwell, Virginia, October 17, 1901 (E. G. William) ; 

 Richmond, Virginia (E. C. Levy) ; Kanawha Station, West Virginia, July 20, 

 1907 (A. D. Hopkins) ; Sullivan Island, North Carolina, August 31, 1903 (W. 

 H. Parker) ; McClellanville, South Carolina, October 12, 1906 ; Brunswick, 

 Georgia, July 17, 1909 (G. Coester) ; Augusta, Georgia (C. H. Cohen) ; Gras- 

 mere, Florida, May 27, 1901 (C. E. Brooker) ; Oniiond, Tampa, Kissimmee 

 and Arcadia, Florida, April (Dyar and Caudell) ; Key West, Florida, August, 

 1901 (A. Busck) ; Belzona, Mississippi, August 4, 1904 (H. S. Barber) ; Clarks- 

 dale, Mississippi, July 31, 1904 (H. S. Barber) ; Natchez, Mississippi (Flem- 

 ing) ; Agricultural College, Mississippi, July 10, 1903 (G. W. Herrick) ; New 

 Orleans, Louisiana, July 30, 1900 (H. A. Veazie) ; Johnson's Bayou, Louisiana, 

 July 26, 1906 (J. D. Mitchell) ; Deckerville, Arkansas, October 5, 1900 (W. B. 

 Bums) ; Scott, Arkansas, July 14, 1908 (J. K. Thibault, Jr.) ; Austin, Texas, 

 August 7, 1903 (A. W. Morrill) ; Victoria, Texas (E. A. Schwarz) ; San Diego, 

 Texas (E. A. Schwarz) ; Rosser, Texas, July 6, 1905 (C. R. Jones) ; Galveston, 

 Texas, September 30, 1901 (J. T. Moore) ; Brownsville, Texas, May 26, 1904 

 (H. S. Barber) ; Wister, Indian Territory, July 5, 1904 (H. S. Barber) ; Man- 

 hattan, Kansas, August 24, 1906 (R. E. Eastman) ; St. Louis, Missouri, July, 



1904 (A. Busck) ; Lincoln, Nebraska, August (L. Bruner) ; Fremont, Ne- 

 braska, July 28, 1900; Burlington, Iowa (P. Bartch) ; Agricultural College, 

 Michigan, September 8, 1896 (R. H. Pettit) ; Mitchell, South Dakota, October, 

 1903 (E. L. Fullmer) ; Los Angeles, California (D. W. Coquillett)*; La Oaxa- 

 queiia near Santa Lucrecia, State of Vera Cruz, Mexico, September 18, 1911 

 (F. W. Urich) ; Almoloya, State of Oaxaca, Mexico, July 19, 1905 (F. Knab) ; 

 Tehuantepec, Mexico, July 3, 1905 (F. Knab) ; Pirauba, State of Minas Geraes, 

 Brazil, January 10, 1908 (Instituto Oswaldo Cruz). 



* This record has been published by Dr. Dyar. It depends on a single specimen from the 

 Coquillett collection in the U. S. National Museum. There are no otber records of the species 

 from the west coast of America and we have reason to believe the record incorrect. We have 

 learned that Mr. Coquillett's collection contained material from Illinois and California and 

 that tbe specimens did not bear locality labels when presented to the Museum. They were 

 afterwards labeled by an assistant and there is every reason to believe that an error was made 

 in labeling this specimen. 



