ii gat! A oe 
‘dee 
Larva of Seirarctia Echo Abb, & Sm, 
Head narrower than the 2nd segment, the two lobes very globose, and glossy ; 
color bright chestnut, almost a dull orange ; mouth parts sordid white. Body deep 
velvety black upon the dorsal and subdorsal regions, chestnut color laterally, Across 
the segments are two very distinct transverse maculate bands of pale yellow, the 
posterior band becoming less distinct after the 7th segment until it is only a series cf 
spots. The bands do not extend beyond the subdorsal region. On the anterior edge 
of each segment is a row of large chestnut colored tubercles, bearing strong spines, 
chestnut at their extreme base, black otherwise. Whole of the underside, as well as 
the anal clasps, legs and thoracic feet bright chestnut, the latter tipped with black. 
Length, full grown, 52 mm. 
The arrangement and size of the tubercles, the comparatively small head, and 
the rows of strong, almost bristly spines, indicate the close relation of this genus to 
Ecpantheria, and it should undoubtedly hold its place in the series near Ecpantheria 
and drachnis. 
Neither of my three remaining caterpillars pupated. They spun 
flimsy cocoons, fastening pieces of lettuce-leaf together by silken threads, 
but died before transformation. Mr. Edwards was more fortnnate. He 
wrote: ‘‘The one larva has spun up, the other will do so ina day or 
two. The web is formed of a lJettuce-leaf, fastened to the top by a very 
few fine silk threads, and, after spinning, the larva ate a small piece of 
the leaf. The change to pupa took place three days after the web was 
formed. ‘The pupa at first was pale tawny yellow, changing on fourth 
day to bright chestnut.” Later he writes: ‘‘One moth emerged in the 
night of 26th (May), so that it had been 21 days in pupa state.” I also 
received from Florida specimens of second brood, about third week in 
May. 
, Notes on the Catalogue of Phycitidz and Galleriide of 
N. America by Mr. Ragonot (Ento. Am., Vol. V, p. 113). 
By Gro. D. Hutst. 
The following species of the catalogue do not belong to the fauna 
of North America: | 
Phycita arctella Rag., from the Bahamas, Luzophera sonorella Rag., 
from Mexico, and Lpimorius testaceellus Rag., from Jamaica. 
The following species described from Mexico, I have received from 
our own country, and they are therefore properly in the catalogue : 
Luzophera agleella Rag. 1 have received from Utah, and Homeosoma 
wluviella Rag. I have received from Texas. 
The following species have not yet been described: Lipographis 
subosseella Hulst, Nephopteryx gilvibasella Hulst, and Ephestia nigrella 
Hulst. These with others will probably be described later. The first 
does not belong to our fauna. 
The following species of the catalogue were described with no loc- 
ality except ‘‘N. America.” As Mr. Ragonot seems to include the 
