104 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



Dr. Chapman then remarks that in the further skin the larva has a 

 more Liparid-Hke general appearance. The "appearance" is to me, 

 however, not Liparid, but Arctian. When I first saw the larva, years 

 ago, I took it for Halisidota Harrisil, till I noticed the different arrange- 

 ment of the hair-pencils. 



Next, he states that the habii of living between spun leaves is not 

 that of an Acronycta. It is, however, decidedly so of our Charadra 

 deridens, one of the Apatelidae. But if Demas stood alone in this respect 

 it would form no valid argument to remove it from the Apatelidte, so 

 slight and little specialized is the habit, evidently a recent adaptation. 



As concerns the pupa, I do not pretend to be so conversant with the 

 subject as Dr. Chapman is, and therefore his positive statement that 

 " the pupa of D. coryli is not that of a Noctua " is entitled to consider- 

 ation. However, 1 do not find the statement in " The genus Acronycta 

 and its allies," a little book containing reprints of these articles, kindly 

 sent me by Dr. Chapman, nor do I notice the positive characters which 

 would lead to such a conclusion. Indeed, Dr. Chapman admits that 

 " the character of the anal armature has some resemblance to various 

 Noctua forms." But, indeed, suppose that the pupa be really "not that 

 of a Noctua,'' the fact could only be applied to this discussion if it were 

 shown that the pupse of the other Aj^atelidce were true Noctua^ pupse, 

 since it is equally true that the larva of Demas is "not that of-a Noctua"; 

 but neither are those of any other Apatelid*. Now, Dr. Chapman says, 

 speaking of the pupge of the genus Apatela : " 'J"he pupa is less charac- 

 teristic [than the larva]; it serves rather to divide the genus .... 

 than to define the group as a whole. The pupa of the rujuicis group is 

 very characteristic and rather bombyciform in its aspect. The others are 

 more of an ordinary Noctua pattern, but present features that separate 

 them from other families. This is a somewhat rash statement to make, 

 since I must confess my knowledge of NoctUce pupa? is of a rather super- 

 ficial character." 



These are all the points which I can gather from Dr. Chapman's 

 account, and I do not think that they go far to refute my position, 

 drawn from positive structural characters in the larva. Indeed, I should 

 not feel called upon to criticise Dr. Chapman's interesting and valuable 

 papers, except to examine the grounds of Mr. Tutt's position. 



