104 SAMIA COLUMBIA. 



The claims of this fine moth to be a distinct species have been considered very doubtful, and its history is, in fact, yet to be com- 

 pleted, as we have thus far no exact description or any figure of the larva. Mr. S. 1. Smith, who first discovered it, obtained his 

 examples, 2 (^, 1 $, from cocoons, one of which was spun upon a maple twig and the others on Ehodera Canadensis, among which latter 

 the maple was growing, also nianv other cocoons from which the imago failed to emerge, owing to the presence of the parasites, Cryplus 

 Smilhii, Pack., and C Samicc, Pack., as shown by the careful examinations of Dr. H. Hagen, of the Cambridge Museum, where all 

 Mr. Smith's tvpes of both pupa and moths are preser\-ed. 



The first notice we have of the larva is from Mr. G. J. Bowles. He says: "In August, 1864, 1 captured a full-grown larva of this 

 moth {Columbia} crawling along a lence in search of some place to make its cocoon. It closely resemlileil a Cecropiu larva in size and 

 appearance ; thinking it, therefore, to be a larva of that species, I did not take notes at the time', though, on a close examination, 1 could 

 not quite reconcile the colour and arrangement of the tubercles with the description of Cecropia given by Morris. The principal difler- 

 ence (as far as I can remember I, was in the number of red wart.s with which the larva was ornamented, S. Columbia possessing more 

 than the other species;" and further, "the larva above mentioned duly spun its cocoon, which was at first of a wliilisb colour, but in a 

 few days gradually turned to dark brown ; the moth died in the chrysjilis state, owing, perhaps, to the presence of parasites. Two years 

 afterwards I found another cocoon attached to a twig of thorn (Cralayus), but it was full of large parasites, all dead in the jiupa." 



He I'urther states that he found, in fall of 1867, yet another cncoon s]iun on a gate-post, which in the following May produced a 

 ? Columbia, of which he gives a lithographic figure, iiot diliering materially from the figure of the J^ on the present Plate XII. 



The above contains all that at jiresent is known of the larva. 



The {^^ example, the original of tig. 3, was sent me from Jlontreal, Canada, by Messrs. C. W. & G. B. Pearson, most ardent 

 students of Lejiidoplera, to whom I am indebted for many favours; these gentlemen wrote me, October 13, 1874, on the occa.sion of 

 their sending the example, "concerning Columbia we cannot say anything further than that we found the cocoon on a maple tree in the 

 ca.st suburbs of the citv, which produced the moth on the 13th of May last ; we also send the cocoon, which you will ea.sily distinguish 

 from Cecropia by its smaller size and diflerent colour." 



The above cited are all the examples that I know of; i. e., the three types in the Cambridge Museum, found on maple and Eho- 

 dera Cayiadensis in Norway, Maine, the one found by Mr. Bowles near CJuebec, Canada, and, lastly, the example foimd on maple near 

 Montreal, Canada, bv the" Messrs. Pearson, and now in my possession. 1 have examined those in the Cambridge Museum; the ? does 

 not differ in api>earanie from the male I received from Montreal, except that the discal spots of primaries are not so plainly defined; 

 the males are both smaller, being not over 4 inches in expanse. 



The cocoons, which are attached longiwdinally to the twig, are double and not much more than half the size of Cecropia; the 

 outer surface is .somewhat uneven, of a dark greyish-brown, with little shining spots caused by the crowding together, here and there, 

 of the silk woven around it. The inner cocoon is paler in colour and woven closely to the outer, ily cocoon is not as dark as some of 

 those in the Cambridge Museum, though still much darker than any Cecropia I have ever seen. 



Dr. Ilagen in his valuable paper, cited at head of this article, says: "1 confes.s frankly that only the peculiar features of the 

 cocoons sujiport the opinion that Columbia is a difii;rent species." The differences iu the imago are, it is true, slight ; when taken, 

 however, in detail, thev arc the following: The average smaller size of Columbia ; the almost entire absence of red on the wings, which 

 gives the whole iu.sect a soolv appearance; the white transverse lines are much further removed inward from the exterior margin of 

 both wings, making the sp;ice interior to the transverse lines much le.'^s in comparison than in Cecropia or Ceanothi, but assimilating in 

 this respect to Gloveri. As reg;irds the smallness or almost total obsolescence of the discal lunes, 1 have seen the same thing often iu 

 Cecropia, and in mv own material of that species are four large males in which the discal lune.s of primaries are assnuUl a.s in Columbia, 

 and so (l:irk in colour that onlv by close inspection iire they to be defined from the ground colour of the wing. I have also two examples 

 o( Cerrupia which have the abdon'ien anuulated with lilackish-brown and while instead of red and while, Inil the lateral ornamentation 

 is in same stvie as in ihe normal red form and in Ceanothi, Hliercas in Columbia it isenlirely diflerent, as will be seen by comparing ihe 

 figures 'i ami 3 <m Plate XII ; but, notwitlislandiug llie apparent similarity, it does not lake more than a glance to discern thai Columbia 

 is differcni ; it can easilv be picked ou! amidst a hundred Cecropias through the prevalence of the sooty hue and the absence of red 

 before allu(le<l to, and it looks exactly as we might sujipose a hybrid of Cecropia and Promelhea would look — a jiossibilily suggested by 

 Dr. Hagen in his jiapcr, where he cites various instances of hybrids; and, iu connection with which I would stale that in my cabinet 

 are examples of livbrids from Antkenca Jama-mai and Peruyi, Smerlnthus Oceltahis uiiil Populi, Cntonda Desperata and Eelccta, Colias 

 Erale and Edusa, :ind others; but one fact militates strongly against the hypothesis in this case, which is th;it Promethea does not occur 

 in Canada, or at least not in those parts where Coluuibia was found, though Cecropia doe.s, I believe, abundantly. Were Promethea and 

 Cecropia both loui.il in the s;une locality with Columbia, I should certainly believe that the supposition of its being a hybrid of these 

 would be the correct one, as the whole ap)iearance of both cocoons and imago would seem to suV)stantiale such a belief 



In mv assertion that Promethea iloes nol occur in C'anad;i I may, perhaps, be incorrect ; my principal connections there have been 

 in Montreal, in the neighborhood of which, my valued correspondents inform me, Cecropia and Polyphemus are found, but neither Luna, 

 Ani/ulifira or Promelhea. and it is only by the non-occurrence of the latter that 1 am led to doubt that Columbia is the result of bastardy ; 

 but we inusi wait until further observation and larger material will solve the riddle. 



SATURNIA GALBINA. Clemens. 



Proceedings Acad. Nat. Sc. Phila., p. 156 (1860). 



J/oiTis, ,Svno|)si« Lep. X. .Vmerica, p. 222 (1862). 



Pnofcin/, 'Proc. Knt. Phila., Vol. Ill, p. 383 (1864). 



Walker, Cat. B. .M. i Supplement i Vol. XXXII, p. 530 (1865). 



(PLATE XII, FIG. 4 J', 5 ?.) 



Male. Expands 2f inches. 



Head and body brown. 



Ujiper surface white; primaries, a sub-basal band formed by two brown parallel elbowed lines; a discal 

 ocellus consisting of a black spot crossed in the middle by a vitreous line, and surrounded with a narrow 

 yellow circle, to which is added on the inner side a fine blue crescent ; directly beyond this a narrow brown 

 band crosses the wing from inner margin to costa; midway between this and the exterior margin is another 

 much broader brown band, which is traversed by an indistinct paler line ; a black sub-apical spot, connected 

 at its lower side with the exterior margin by a crimson line. 



