112 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



as head and margined laterally with black border; body colour a 

 sordid pinkish hue, the usual lines drawn in pale yellowish, the 

 dorsal entire, the subdorsal broken on joints four to eight; tubercles 

 well shown, brown, IVa wanting on joint ten. 



Maturity: Similar, but much more robust; the lines more 

 prominent than usual for the stage; tubercles of increased size 

 and prominence, on joint ten there is faint indication of a plate at 

 IVa, this feature being likely variable and on eleven I and II very 

 large. Length 47 and 52 mm. for the stages respectively. 



The pupa is robust, having a dark shell like nebris, a slight 

 swelling occurs at the anterior tuft but it is not produced with the 

 prominence attained in maritima; 28 mm. long by 9.5 mm. wide. 



The pupal period seems rather longer than usual; it may 

 average fifty days. 



In 1899, when the late Prof. J. B. Smith published a Re\ision 

 of Hydroecia, among material loaned by the writer for study, two 

 specimens returned labelled H. circumlucens Sm., a new specific 

 name proposed at that time. One, a pale yellow and much worn 

 example, was in addition marked "female co-type." The fresher, 

 browner specimen was later discovered in the larval stage boring 

 in the vine of the Hop, and its life history was published in 19.07, 

 Can. Ent., XXXIX, p. 137, as that of ''circumlucens."' As the 

 years proceed and a large number are reared, it is seen there is no 

 variation to the yellow, "co-type" form, and we are early con- 

 vinced two distinct species are involved. But as this "co-type" 

 was a flown, Rye example, it was deemed advisable to await the 

 discovery of its larva and the better acquaintance thus offered, 

 before calling attention to the matter. Now, after ten \ears, 

 this has come about and supposition fully confirmed. 



In 1908, however, Dr. H. G. Dyar recognizes the Hop vine 

 borer to be distinct from the circumlucens in the U. S. National 

 Museum collection, and in writing of the group at that time (Can. 

 Ent. XL, p. 78), considers it to be properly the marginidens of 

 Guenee, but such an association has been declared erroneous by 

 Hampson in his studies of the group in 1910. Without entering 

 the details, but accepting the later findings, it is sufficient to state 

 that our Hop \'ine borer is without a name. 



