—119— 



NOTE BY EDITOR. 



The above communication was presented by Mr. Hulst at the May 

 meeting of the Brooklyn Entomological Society, and proved of course 

 very interesting. Mr. Hulst kindly gave me a slide containing mounted 

 specimens of the larva, for examination. He is quite correct in his de- 

 scription, but I really doubt whether, if he had not seen the mode of 

 progression, he would have found the reduction of size in the anterior 

 pairs of pro-legs, worthy of particular remark. They are undoubtedly 

 much reduced in size, the first pair more than the second, but they are 

 armed about like the perfect legs, and I feel certain that had they been 

 carried through another stage, they would have become normal Lithosian 

 larvae. At the present stage Mr. Hulsi's observations, though extremely 

 interesting, can have no systematic weight against the obvious structural 

 characters of the imago. I regret that I have not at command at 

 present the literature of the Lithosiid larva, so cannot compare with 

 known forms. I trust however that the near future will bring other 

 specimens of the larva which can be carried to maturity. 



Note on Spilosoma congrua, Walker. 

 By John B. Smith. 



The bibliography of this species, as it stands in our lists to-day, is 

 as follows : 



Spilosoma congrua Walker. 



1855.— Walker, Cat. Br. Mus, Lep. Het., Ill, 669. 

 i860. — Clem., Proc. Ac. N. Sci. Phil., XII, 532. 

 1862. — Morris, Synopsis, Supplt, 343. 

 1868.- Grt. & Rob., Trail.';. Am. Ent. Soc, II, 72. 

 1873.— Stretch., Zyg. and Bomb., 130. 

 1875.— Butler, Cistula Ent., II, 33, = <.w«e'<7 ! 

 i883.-Grote, Can. Ent., XV, 9. 

 1886. — Hulst, Entom. Amer., II, 15, (larva). 

 antigone Strecker. 



1878.— Strk., Kept. Engin. 1877-78, V, p. i860. 



1883. — Grote, Can. Ent, XVI, 9, = congrua. 



1886. — Hulst, Entom. Amer., II, 162 = congrua. 



Habitat. — Mass., New York, Georgia, Colorado. The insect is 

 thus a widely distributed one, though not common anywhere. 



Some time since I found it desirable for some reason to compare 

 Walker's description wnth specimens of what goes, fide Mr. Grote, as 

 congrua. I believe it was INIr. Strecker's differential description of his 

 antigone that first called my attention to it. To my surprise I found 



