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 tobe com- 

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

 examples, 2 cf", 1 $ , from cocoons, one of which was spun ujxjn a maple twig and the others on Rhodera Canadeneis, among which latter 

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

 SmUhii, Pack., and C. Sam'm, Pack., as shown by the careful examinations of Dr. H. Hagen, of the Cambridge Museum, where all 

 Mr. Smith's types of both [)upa and moths are preserved. 



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

 moth [Columbia) crawling along a fence in search of some place to make its cocoon. It closely resembled a Cecropia 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, I 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), wa.s in the number of red warts with which the larva was ornamented, 5. Columbia possessing vwre 

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

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

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



He furtlier states that he found, in fall of 1867, yet another cocoon spun on a gate-post, which in the following May produced a 

 9 Columbia, of which he gives a lithographic figure, iiot diflering materially from the figure of the cJ' on the present Plate XII. 



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



The (^ example, the original of fig. 3, was sent me from Montreal, Canada, by Messrs. C. W. & CJ. B. Pearson, most ardent 

 students of Lepidoptera, to whom I am indebted for many favours; these gentlemen wrote me, October 13, 1874, on the occasion of 

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

 east suburbs^of the city, which produced the moth on the 13th of May last ; we also send the cocoon, which you will easily distinguish 

 from Cecropia by its smaller size and diflerent colour." 



The above cited are ail the eiamijles that I know of; i. e., the three types in the Cambridge Museum, foimd on maple and Rho- 

 dera Canadensis in Norwav, Maine, the one found by Mr. Bowles near Quebec, Canada, and, lastly, the example found on maple near 

 Montreal, Canada, by the' Messrs. Pearson, and now in my possession. I have examined tliose in the Cambridge Museum; the $ does 

 not differ' in appearance 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 longitudinally 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. My 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. Ha^en in his valuable paper, cited at head of this article, says : " I confess frankly that only the peculiar features of the 

 cocoons support the opinion that Columbia is a diflerent species." The ditTerences in the imago are, it is true, slight ; when taken, 

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

 gives the whole insect a sooty appearance; the white transverse lines are much further removed inward from the exterior margin of 

 both wings, making the space interior to the transverse lines much less in comparison than in Cecropia or Ceanothi, kut assimilating in 

 this respect to Gloveri.' As regards the smallness or almost total obsolescence of the discal lunes, I have seen the same thing often in 

 Cecropia, and in my own material of that species are four large males in which the discal lunes of primaries are as small as in Columbia, 

 and so dark in colour that onlv by close inspection are they to be defined from the ground colour of the wing. I have also two examples 

 of Cecropia wliich have the abdonjen annulated with blackish-brown and white instead of red and while, l>ut the lateral ornamentation 

 is in same style as in the normal red form and in Ceanothi, whereas in Columbia it is entirely different, as will be seen by comparing the 

 fio-ures 2 and" 3 on Plate XII ; but, notwithstanding the apparent similarity, it does not take more than a glance to discern that Columbia 

 is diflerent ; it can easily be picked out amidst a hundred Cecropias through the prevalence of the sooty hue and the absence of red 

 before alluded to, and it looks exactly as we might suppose a hybrid of Cecropia and Promethea would look— a possibility suggested by 

 Dr. Hao-en in his paper, where he cites various instances of hybrids ; and, in connection with which I would state that in my cabinet 

 are examples of hybrids from Antheraa Jama-mai and Peruyi, Smerinthus Ocellatus and Fopuli, Catocala Desperata and Reiecta, Colias 

 Erate and Edusa, and others ; but one fact militates strongly against the hypothesis in this case, which is that Promethea does not occur 

 in Canada, or at least not in those parts where Columbia was found, though Cecropia dcjes, I believe, alnmdantly. Were Promethea and 

 Cecropia both found in the same locality with Columbia, 1 should certainly believe that the supposition of its being a hybrid of these 

 would be the correct one, as the whole appearance of both cocoons and imago would seem to substantiate such a belief 



In mv assertion that Promethea does not occur in Canada I may, perhaps, be incorrect ; my principal connections there have been 

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

 Anyulifera or Promethea, and it is only by the non-occurrence of the latter that I am led to douljt that Columbia is the result of bastardy ; 

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



SATURNIA GALBINA. Clemens. 



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

 Morris, Synopsis Lep. X. America, p. "222 (1862). 

 Packard, "Proc. Ent. Phila., Vol. Ill, p. 383 (1864). 

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



(PLATE XII, FIG. 4 c^, 5 9.) 



Male. Expands 2f inches. 



Head and body brown. 



Upper 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. 



