^66 Journal New York Entomological Society. lvoI. v. 



EXPLANATION OF PLATE IV. 



Fig. I. Larva stage I, side view. 

 " 2. The same, front view, 

 " 3. Mature larva, enlarged, side view, feeding. 

 " 4. The same, front view. 

 " 5. The same, back view. 

 " 6. Feeding traces of stage II. 

 " 7. The same of stage III. 

 " 8. Egg. 



*' 9. Ventral view of larva, the body shrunken preceding a molt, enlarged. 



" 10. Skin granules at subventral edge, grading into the general spines above. 



" 1 1. One of the large horns of subdorsal row, the spines imperfectly erected X S^- 



" 12. Tip of spine, more enlarged. 



" 13. Horn of lateral row, showing caltrope patch and skin spines. 



" 14. Skin spines of same region, more enlarged. 



" 15. Spines from a different region. 



" 16. Caltropes, X 225. 



" 17. Farasa chloris, natural size. 



NOTE ON MR. GROTE'S REMARKS ON THE 

 SATURNIANS. 



By Harrison G, Dyar. 

 Mr. Grote's reply to my criticism on his paper " Die Saturniiden " 

 is disappointing. I had hoped that he would adopt my suggestion to take 

 three or four entirely different characters, work each out independently 

 in the same manner as he has done for vein IV^" of primaries and let the 

 evidence from these show whether his classification or mine was the 

 nearest the natural one. Instead Mr. Grote defends his classification 

 on the original grounds and misstates (unintentionally of course) and 

 belittles the larval characters. The matter is certainly simplified by 

 " setting down the loss of the pair of anal tubercles solely to the Cither- 

 oniinai." The only objection that I know to this ingenious solution 

 is that it is not a statement of fact. But, seriously, it remains that the 

 genealogical tree deduced by INIr. Grote is contradictory to the one that 

 I have made on larval characters. My original statements are not af- 

 fected, so far as I can see, by Mr. Grote's insistance on the importance 

 of his characters ; it is open to me to insist equally on the importance 

 of mine. Collateral evidence only can decide the question, and this 

 Mr. Grote has not adduced. In reply to Mr. Grote's kind wish to con- 

 vert me to his views, I again point out the path to that end, or at least 

 the path which must lead to the end of a mutual agreement, whether on 

 Mr. Grote's system or mine, or some other more natural one, which we 

 neither have thous^ht of. 



