—---- ”- - 
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 
larve. At the present stage Mr. Hulst’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. 
ee 
Note on Spilosoma congrua, Walker. 
By Joun B. Smitu. 
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., III, 669. 
1860.—Clem., Proc, Ac. N. Sci. Phil., XII, 532. 
1862.—Morris, Synopsis, Supplt., 343. 
1868.— Grt. & Rob., Trans. Am. Ent. Soc., II, 72. 
1873.--Stretch., Zyg. and Bomb., 130. 
1875.—Butler, Cistula Ent., II, 33, = cunea! 
1883.— Grote, Can. Ent., XV, 9. 
1886.—Hulst, Entom. Amer., II, 15, (larva). 
antigone Strecker. . 
1878.—Strk., Rept. Engin. 1877-78, V, p. 1860. 
. 1883.—Grote, Can, Ent., XVI, 9, = congrua. 
1886.—Hulst, Entom. Amer., II, 162 = congrua. 
Hatitat.—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 with specimens of what goes, fide Mr. Grote, as 
congrua. 1 believe it was Mr. Strecker’s differential description of his 
antigone that first called my attention to it. To my surprise I found 
