THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 11 



g 



and that months or a year after two or three more do the same thing, and 

 that these all find their way to Dr. Wittfeld's collecting box. As my 

 friend W. J. Florence would say, this is T. T. (too thin). It seems more 

 reasonable to believe, as I honestly think is the case with the species in 

 dispute, that a few individuals have established themselves upon our 

 limits, and that they are now gradually taking up new localities and spread- 

 ing over a larger area. Mr. Smith alludes to Erebus Odor a, and says that 

 " because it has been found in Canada, it would be an absurdity to call it 

 a Canadian insect." Now I think he is unfortunate in this statement. We 

 do not yet know the food plant of the larva of this species, but because 

 we are ignorant of that, it is no reason why it should not breed in Canada, 

 and the evidence is in favor of its doing so. I have examined at least 

 forty specimens of E. Odora, taken severally in New York, Georgia, 

 Arizona, California, Vane. Island, Canada, Michigan, Illinois and Ohio, 

 some of them in absolutely perfect condition, and as fresh as bred speci- 

 mens, and I am in my own mind quite sure that this species at least has 

 taken up its abode with us, and is as much a resident of the U. S. as 

 Vanessa Antiopa or Pyrameis Cardui. As to Mr. W. H. Edwards hav- 

 ing " separately called attention to species occasionally found in but not 

 really belonging to our fauna," I respectfully submit that this is a mistake. 

 Mr. Edwards has done nothing of the kind. He has discarded from his 

 Catalogue a number of " species for some time accredited to our fauna, 

 but omitted for want of authentication," which is but saying in other words 

 that had the statement of the capture of the species within our limits been 

 given on undoubted authority, they would have found their place in his 

 Catalogue. He has included indeed Pamassius Eversmanni, Callidryas 

 P/u7ea, Diadema Misippus, and others, which certainly are not parts of 

 our fauna, but Mr. Edwards holds the same views as I do on the sub- 

 ject, and I claim no more for the three species I alluded to than is claimed 

 for the diurnals I have just mentioned, and that is, that they have been 

 found within our limits, that there is no evidence before us to show that 

 they do not breed therein, and that therefore, when I change, as I am 

 willing to do, the heading of my article to '•' our lists " in the place of 

 " our fauna," the three species to which I called attention should be 

 recorded in our catalogues. 



