32 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



journal, I now add some further facts, resulting from a recent visit to 

 Clermont, N. Y. 



On the 29th of October I gathered from under a group of Quercus 

 tifidoria, seven branches that had been pruned by this longicorn. The 

 tunnels were from ten to fifteen inches long, in branches from one-half to 

 three-quarters of an inch in thickness. The branches I carefully divided 

 lengthwise, so that the parts could be replaced in position. Six of them 

 contained the pupa, one the larva, which pupated November 4th. One 

 of the pup^e I preserved as a specimen. The imagines appeared on the 

 following days: Nov. 14th, 22nd, 26th, 29th, Dec. 9th and 25th, all 

 females. 



These transformations were rather hindered than advantaged by 

 meteorological conditions, for they occurred in a room having a northern 

 exposure, in which, during the period of the transformations, the ther- 

 mometrical record differed but little from that in the shade without. 

 Had the branches remained upon the ground, the included insect would 

 have received all the benefits resulting from the direct rays of our Indian 

 Summer's sun, as well as the moisture from the ground ; influences that 

 ordinarily assist development. As the imagines appeared they were 

 examined and replaced in their tunnels, where they now remain in a 

 passive state, and not likely, I think, to exhibit their natural activity until 

 next May or June. 



The object of the paper referred to, as well as this article, is to pre- 

 sent facts that seemingly disprove certain theories relating to the habits 

 and metamorphoses of this beetle, which have been formulated by dis- 

 tinguished sires and accepted by their credulous sons. What Drs. Peck, 

 Fitch and Harris have written upon this subject has been substantially 

 repeated by almost every entomologist who has undertaken a history of 

 this beetle. We are very apt to fall into line when we have an abiding 

 confidence in a leader. While I am unwilling to deny the conclusions of 

 these naturalists, I yet think that the facts related go to show that the 

 insect matures at a period earlier than that named by them, and that the 

 benefits supposed to result from the dismemberment of the branch, in so 

 far as the changed environment is concerned, are wholly unnecessary to 

 the development of the included insect, and that there is a plausibility in 

 the inference, if not a certainly as to fact, that the object of pruning the 

 branch is to prevent the flow of sap. If the habits of this beetle as given 

 by these doctors are to be regarded as ipso facto, then we must admit the 



