174 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



(2) P. imbutus, Fox. (2) C. gracilissimus, Pack. 



(3) P. chrysarginus, Lepel. (3) C. nigrifrons, Cr. 



(11) Xestocrabro, Ashm. = seJ>te7itrio>ia/is,'?zck. 

 (i) X. sexmaculatus, Say. (15) Protothyreopus, Ashm. 



(2) X. trifasciatus, Say. (i) P. dilectus, Cr., $ $ . 



(3) X, paucimaculatus, Say. (2) P. bigeminus, Patt., $ ^ . 



(12) Xylocrabro, Ashm. (3) P. rutifemur, Pack., 9 6- 

 (i) X. stirpicola, Pack., $ ^. (4) P. villosus, Fox, 9- 



(13) Metacrabro, Ashm. (16) Ceratocolus, Lepel. et Br. 



(14) Clytochrysus, Aiorawitz (17) Hypothyreus, Ashm. 

 (i) C. obscurus, Smith, 9 6- (18) Thyreocerus, Costa. 



BOMBYX CUNEA AND SPILOSOMA CONGRUA. 



BY JOHN B. SMITH, SC. D., RUTGERS COLLEGE, NEW BRUNSWICK, N. J. 



The paper in the May number of The Canadian Entomologist 

 on tlie above subject is very interesting, but does not, in my opinion, 

 entirely conclude the subject. Dr. Fyles proves definitely a consider- 

 able range of variability in what he calls co/igrua^ and what is without 

 any doubt antigone, Strecker. It seems to be certain that there are two 

 species having a very similar range of variation — the insect that we call 

 the fall webworm in the lat val stage, and the insect bred by Dr. P'yles. 

 Of the variability of cunca there is no doubt. I had not been aware, 

 heretofore, that antigone had anything like the same range. 



In the matter of determining what species Walker had before him a 

 number of factors must be considered, as we have not available for ready 

 examination the actual specimens described. In the first place there 

 were three examples, ap])arently similar, for no variations are mentioned; 

 but all from Georgia, and there is a very considerable range of variation 

 in size ; that is, from 16 to 20 lines, or one-third of an inch in a small 

 species. 



It becomes worth while, then, to question the distribution of the two 

 species, antigone and ainea, and we find that whereas cunea is a common 

 insect throughout the Eastern United States from the Gulf up, and ex- 

 tending well into Canada, we have no record of the capture of antigone 

 in any Southern State. I am aware that (ieorgia is given as a locality in 

 my catalogue of x-Vrctiids, but this was without better basis than the 

 Walker record, which was inadvertently left in. In my own collection 

 there are no Southern specimens of antigone, and all the specimens in 



