2^5 



up, that is, off from the chrysaHs, and the pressure excited in 

 former observations was not yet appHed by the males. Appar- 

 ently the males simply kept hold so as to be on hand when things 

 developed. 



Nov. 12, No. I is forsaken. To No. 2 four or five males 

 cling, head down, bodies still bent up. They leave only to feed. 



Nov. 13, No. I still forsaken, but in course of the day males 

 flocked to it, their bodies still bent up. Were frightened away 

 readily. 



Nov. 14, No. I had all the attention of the males, while 

 No. 2 remained forsaken, the bodies now touching the chrysalis, 

 but almost midway of the abdomen of the pupa, not at the ex- 

 tremity. 



Later. Two males had taken firm hold, as in previous obser 

 vations, touching at the end of abdomen of pupa ; would not let 

 go, but had to be picked off. 



Later. I found a pair in copulation on the ground. Now I 

 examined No. 2 and found the imago nearly developed, but dead, 

 and this explains why the chrysalis was forsaken. 



During this observation I noticed that the males would alight 

 on the chrysalis as they do on flowers, then wheel around quickly, 

 head down, body up. 



Nov. 14. My attention was attracted by a flock of six 

 or eight CJiaritonia butterflies on the edge of woods, flying around 

 an object which, on inspection, I found to be a chrysalis. 



SOME REMARKS UPON THE CATOCAL^, IN REPLY 

 TO MR. A. R. GROTE. 



By Geo. D. Hulst. 



I notice in No. 9, Vol. L of " Papilio," some strictures by 

 Mr. A. R. Grote upon myself and an article written by me upon' 

 the Catocalae of the U. b., and published by me in the Bulletin 

 of the Brooklyn Ento. Soc, Nos. i and 2, Vol. IH. 



Following Mr. Grote in his remarks upon the article, I reply 

 as follows : 



It is substantially charged that in the article I was but the 

 mouthpiece of Mr. Strecker ; that he was the author or inspira- 

 tion of the determinations made. I am able to prove by Mr. 

 Strecker's letters to me at the time that he was not the suggester 

 or inspirer of the article, nor the author of its ideas ; and, more- 

 over, that in one way or another he did not agree with me in my 

 determination concerning the following Catocal^ : BelfragianUy 

 Alabamcs, praeclara, Atarak, abreviatella, Whitncyi, illecta, Bun- 

 ker i, Snowiana, perplexa, Meskci, vidua, Sappho, residua, An- 

 gusi and Mariana — 16 in all. He consequently did not so nearly 

 agree with me as did Mr. Grote. 



In giving my judgment upon the names in dispute between 

 Messrs. Strecker and Grote, I decided upon the following evi- 



