172 
it is easy to distinguish apart the third 
and fourth stages, and indeed it is not 
possible to mistake one for the other. 
I had bred these larvae in glasses and 
watched them several times every day. 
The moment I noticed a swelling on the 
second segment, which always precedes 
and advertises a molt in lepidopterous 
larvae, I separated the swollen larva 
and followed it carefully. I also pre- 
served the casts of the face at each molt, 
and examples of the larvae in alcohol 
both at the beginning and end of each 
stage. 
I looked further at Prof. Riley’s de- 
scription of the same moth (Fourth 
Missouri Report, p. 121). Mr. Riley 
gives four molts for this species, and 
says: ‘¢ The first stage is yellow, with 
two transverse dark hands” (to each body 
segment). ‘*In the second stage there 
is no essential change.” etc. So far 
Prof. Riley and I agree in all points. 
He goes on: ‘‘In the third stage the 
transverse stripes are more conspicuous.” 
Here we part, and this stage did not dis- 
cover itself in my observations. ‘‘In 
the fourth stage (or after the third molt) 
... the body is still paler ... the trans- 
verse stripes are broader,” etc. This stage 
also is in addition to any observed by me. 
Inthe fifth stage (or after the fourth molt) 
the appearance is totally changed, the 
body is of the most delicate bluish-white 
... the four dorsals on segments 2 and 
3” (my 3 and 4) ‘‘are at first yellow, 
with a black basal annulation, but they 
soon become red, that of joint 11” (my 
12) ‘‘remains yellow,” ete. Nothing is 
said of the crowns of spines on the dor- 
PS TCE, 
sal processes, which I found a conspic- 
uous feature at the stage after the second 
molt, or of a molt intervening between 
the processes being yellow and _ their 
being red (for the change in the processes 
which precedes the last molt is not to red, 
but to ochraceous and then orange and 
no further). It is evident then thateMr. 
Riley’s fifth stage is equal to my third and 
fourth together, and that his third and 
fourth stages did not appear at all in my 
larvae. Certainly the larvae at Albany 
behave differently from those in Missouri, 
and both differ materially from those at 
Coalburgh. It has occurred to me that 
Prof. Riley’s observations might have 
been made on larvae of C. angulifera, a 
form which he says he regards as a va- 
riety of C. promethea, but which I for- 
merly bred, and then had no doubt of 
its distinctness from promethea. The 
periods of my brood of larvae were 
thus :-— 
Eggs laid 19 April. 
Eggs hatched 1 May. Time 11 days. 
Larva, Ist molt 7 May. °% 76; 
Se eDnegiee< Vi agieg aL 
ee Brady *! 15 ae tn 
In cocoon 22 May. aii 
Three ¢ ¢@ moths issued 
Time 25 days. 
a month later. 
Whole larval period 22 days. 
From egg to imago, 58 days. 
After correspondence with Mr. Lintner 
on the discrepancy of our observations, 
in which he thought I must have missed 
a molt, I bred a second lot of larvae 
from eggs laid by a female which emerged 
from the first lot of cocoons, on 20 June. 
16 June. 
Others at intervals for 
