THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 97 



insects while in conn: nent is no proof that they will do §o under 

 natural conditions. Doubtless many of the Atticii will interbreed if shut 

 up together, but from the stay-i u home habits of the females, I think they 

 are about the least likely of all Lepidoptera to do so while in a state 

 of nature. 



But leaving theories and conjectures, let us see what evidence known 

 facts will give us in favor of Columbia being a good species. In (I believe) 

 1862 or T863, Prof. S. J. Smith found a number of cocoons of Columbia, 

 three of which produced the moth. In August, 1864, Mr. G. J. Bowles 

 found at Quebec a larva which in due time spun its cocoon. This cocoon 

 was at first of a whitish color, but turned to a dark brown, and was then 

 similar to the other cocoons of Columbia. Mr. Bowles tells us that the 

 moth died in the chrysalis state, owing perhaps to the presence of para- 

 sites. In speaking of this larva, Mr. Bowles says : " The principal 

 difference (as far as I can remember), was in the number of red warts 

 with which the larva was ornamented, Columbia possessing more than the 

 other species " (cecropia). Dr. Hagen examined the dried larva skin of 

 Columbia (taken in Maine), and found the number of warts to be the same 

 as cecropia, but the difference pointed out by Mr. Bowles was not in the 

 total member of warts, but in the number of red ones, that is, the larva of 

 Columbia had more red warts than the larva of cecropia has. 



In 1866, Mr. Bowles found another cocoon attached to a twig of 

 thorn, but it was full of parasites, dead in the pupa. In the fall of 1867, 

 Mr. Wm. Couper informed Mr. Bowles that he had seen a Saturnian larva 

 spinning up on a gate-post. Mr. Bowles found this cocoon, which in the 

 following May produced a female Columbia. 



In the winter of 1874, the Messrs. Pearson found a cocoon on a 

 maple tree, in this city (Montreal), which next season produced a male 

 Columbia. 



In Norway and Maine I belive both cecropia and promethea occur ; 

 certainly both these species occur **! this locality (Montreal), but neither 

 cecropia nor promethea have been .< corded from Quebec. Now, Messrs. 

 Couper and Bowles collected for a number of years at Quebec, but never 

 met with either of these species ; surely it is hardly possible that two 

 experienced collectors would find a hybrid in the same locality, and neither 

 of them find the species that produced it. Nor is it likely that a hybrid 

 would occur in the same locality in such closely succeeding years as 

 Columbia did at Quebec, in 1864, T 866 and 1S67. This, I think, is very 



