574 Agricultural Experiment Station, Ithaca, N. Y. 



remarkable resemblances ta each other* (compare figures h and h, 

 plate 1, figures a and h, plate 3, and figures f and g, plate 2), we 

 at once began a search for characters which might separate the 

 insects in their caterpillar or i)upal stages. It had been an easy 

 matter from the first to separate the caterpillars into two distinct 

 kinds, as represented in figures e, plate 1 and a, plate 2, or g, 

 l)late 1 and h, plate 2. It was also found that the pupje developed 

 from these two kinds of caterpillars were quite different; this 

 difference is well shown in figures d, plate 1, and e, plate 2. Very 

 fortunately, through the kindness of Mr. L. O. Howard, U. S. 

 Entomologist, we were able to examine the single specimen pre- 

 served of the caterpillars which Dr. Riley had under observation 

 when he wrote of the insect in 1870. This specimen (figured at 

 € and d, plate 3, twice natural size) revealed some characters 

 which we had overlooked, and enabled us to separate the cater- 

 pillars we had had in one cage into two species. We were also 

 able to connect each species of caterpillar with the moth of the 

 same species. In the discussion of the three species whch fol- 

 lows, the differences mentioned above, and several others, are 

 more fully brought out. 



1. Xylina antennata Walk. 



About three-fourths of all the green fruit worms sent to the 

 insectary were of this species; from some localities, however, 

 nearly as many of the next species discussed were received. 



As early as 1858, a moth of this species (habitat unknown) 

 found its way into the British Museum, and was there first de- 

 scribed and named. When Dr. Riley discussed these green fruit 

 worms in 1871, he also described the moths and named them 

 A'l/lina ciiwrea. In 1879, specimens of X. cinerea were taken to 

 England by Dr. Fernald and there compared with Walkers' 

 J. aniennntci, and the identity of the insects thus established. In 

 1S82, Dr. Riley stated (Papilio, II, 101), that his description of 

 ihii moths of these insects included all three of the species to be 

 disrnssod here; but he considered two of the forms as only varie- 



• Professor Smith writes: "As I have them divided in my collection you can 

 tell the diflfrrence between them; but if you undertake to locate it you will 

 become lost in a short time." 



