16 



THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST 



THE IDENTITY OF THE WHEAT MIDGE IN ONTARIO. 



BY W. A. ROSS, DOMINION ENTOMOLOGICAL LABORATORY, VINELAND STA., ONT. 



In connection with the re-appearance in Ontario of the wheat midge or 

 "red weevil" in fairly large numbers in 1917 and in lesser numbers this year, it 

 is worth while recording that our species is ThecodipJosis mosellana Gehin, and 

 not as we thought, Cecidomyia, or Diplosis, tritici Kirby. This summer I 

 reared a considerable number of adult midges from larvte collected in 1917 in 



Welland and Lincoln Counties and 

 submitted them to Dr. E. P. Felt, 

 who, after making a careful exam- 

 ination, sent me the following re- 

 port: "I have decided that the 

 species is with xery little question 

 Thecodiplosis mosellana Gehin. I 



Fig. 1.^ — Wheat Midge (Thecodiplosis mosellana Gehin.). 

 much enlarged. 



Fig. 2. — Maggots of Wheat Alidge, much enlarged. 

 The larva on the right is witliin its larval case. 



find on looking up our records that we reared the same insect in 1912 from 

 wheat heads collected at Batavia, N.Y., and the probabilities are, so far 

 as this country is concerned, that this is the destructive wheat midge. . . . 

 I am well satisfied that this is not the Cecidomyia, or Diplosis, tritici Kirby 

 unless the characterizations and illustrations of this insect are erroneous, some- 

 thing we are hardly warranted in assuming." 



CATOCALA ULALUME STRECK. VS. CATOCALA 

 CAROLINA HOLLAND. 



BY G. H. FRENCH, CARBONDALE, ILL. 



In September, 1877, Herman Strecker described Catocala iilalume in his 

 serial, "Lepidoptera Rhopaloceres et Heteroceres," page 132. In the April 

 number of the Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society for 1880, page 

 97, Mr. Strecker describes Catocala dejecta. I have taken both of these in this 

 (Jackson) County, 111., and if my memory serves me correctly a specimen of 

 ulahime was submitted to Mr. Strecker for identification. 



In his book, '''The Moth Book," Dr. W. J. Holland figures Catocala Carolina 

 as a new sub-species — the date of copyright of both being 1903. 



This season I have taken a number of Catocala ulalume, some of them ol the 

 size of Dr. Holland's figure, while others are larger. Why is not Dr. Holland's 

 C. Carolina Mr. Strecker's C. ulalume? The markings are the same and they are 

 constant. I would not class it as a form of L. dejecta without breeding. I tried 

 to get eggs this season to breed it but failed. I always find C. ulalume on hickory 

 trees, sometimes several on the same tree, having much the habit of C. flebiiis. 



January, 1919 



