—55— 



August 4th. — Took on a leaf of the flowering-ahiiond a female, 

 which contained 24 eggs. 



August 1 2th. — Took two on green seed-pods uf A. iuhcrosa, both of 

 which proved to be males. 



August ijlh.-— On green seed-pods of A. tuberosa took a pair /;/ 

 coitu, and a single individual. Of the two in coitu the female contained 

 35 eggs. The single one, which was also a female, contained 26 eggs. 



August 14th. — Of twenty taken on A. tuberosa, ten were males and 

 ten females. Of the 10 females, one contained 6 and another 10 eggs, 

 while the remaining eight were destitute of eggs. 



August 1 6th. — Took a female on rag- weed. It contained 16 eggs. 



August 2 1st. — Took on A ///<5'tvf5a eleven specimens, of which three 

 were males and eight females. Of the eight females, none contained eggs. 



August 26th. — Took on a weed a specimen which proved to be a 

 male. 



September loth. — An imago taken on a full grown seed-pod of A. 

 syriaca. I regret to say that I neglected ascertaining the sex. 



October 8th. — A female taken running on one of the boards of an 

 old fence. It contained 13 eggs. This was somewhat unexpected, as I 

 had supposed the laying lime to be over at this date, and mdicates that 

 the species may sometimes winter in the nymph state. 



Nymphs were taken on green seed-pods of A. tuberosa August 13th 

 and 14th, and one on the soil of a potato-field, October 23rd. 

 ^ ■ ^ 



In a recent article in Science, by Le Metayer de Guichainville, pere 

 et fils, we learn in six columns of type that we have here in America a 

 species of Org)'ia, which is very destructive and which is not the antiqua 

 of Europe. It may however be the leucostigma of Abbot and Smith, 

 though this is not certain. We learn also something of the life-history and 

 are comforted by the assurance that it will be completed by the authors, 

 while we are astounded to hear that no one seems to know anything of 

 this insect in this country. 



A grosser specimen of ignorance it is impossible to imagine. The 

 authors know nothing whatever of the literature of American Entomo- 

 logy, nor apparently of American Entomologists. That Science should 

 have printed such an article is more than passing strange and does not 

 speak well for the editors who should have known that this subject of 

 O. leucostigma has been treated of by Riley, Lintner, Packard, Thomas 

 and many others — that all stages have been figured again and again and 

 that Le Metayer de Guichainville, pere et fils, should have been advised 

 to study their subject before printing. John B. Smith. 



