293 



The mesonotum is three times as lono; as the pronotum, and bears 

 the front wing-cases, but no spiracle. Then follow two short pieces, 

 each half as long as the pronotum, and neither of them bearing any 

 spiracle, the anterior one bearing the hind wing-cases.* Then eight 

 abdominal segments, all but the last of which bear a conspicuous lat* 

 eral spiracle. At each end of abdominal joints 4 and 5, and at the 

 anterior end of 6, is a close-set row of robust thorns, and a sub-obsolete 

 row on the hind end of 3, 6 and 7 ; and the three grooves between 

 3-6 are very deep and wide. On the eighth or anal joint are about a 

 dozen irregular thorns, and lhe anal thorn is .19 inch long, rugose 

 beneath, tubercled above, and acutely bifid at its terminal one-fifth. 

 Total length, 1.34 inch; greatest, diameter, .39 inch. One specimen. 



Dryocampa bicolor (?) Harris. $ Three specimens, one of 

 which I bred in 1861-2, and two on June 30 and July 30, 1863, from 

 a normal DryoLjampaile larva feeding on oak-leaves in 1862, are 

 utterly undistinguishable from Sphingicampa distigma d Walsh, except 

 by the front wings being slightly more tinged with brown. In one 

 specimen the two white dots of the front wing are of equal size ; in 

 the other two the dot next the costa has twice the diameter of the 

 other one. They scarcely differ from Harris's description of hicolor 

 except as follows : — Firsts There are tioo obvious white dots on the 

 front wing above, but, as we saw, a variety of ? -S. distigma occurs with 

 only one dot, as Harris describes hicolor. Second, The hind wings are 

 lake-red above only on their basal two-thirds or three-fourths ; but, as we 

 have seen, a variety of ? S. distigma occurs with the hind wings en- 

 tirely lake-red, as Harris describes bicolor. — Length cf .90-1.10 inch. 

 Expanse cf 2.17-2.30 inch. Three d, ? unknown. As only the d of 

 bicolor was known to Dr. Harris, and as d bicolor and d distigma are 

 undistinguishable, though the larvae are entirely different, it is possible 

 that bicolor Harris is identical with distigma Walsh, and distinct from 

 bicolor Harris Walsh. Since, however. Dr. Harris's species has been 

 currently referi ed to Dryocampa, I have thought it best to leave it in 

 the genus where I found it. 



What I suppose to have been the larva of bicolor resembled pretty 

 closely that of Dryocampa pellucida, as described by Dr. Fitch (N. Y. 

 E,ep. II. § 324), so that imagining it to belong to that species, I failed 

 to note the points of difference. As, however, I bred in the same 

 cage specimens of D. stigma, and as Dr. Harris describes the larva 

 both of stigma and pellucida very differently from Dr. Fitch, it may 

 possibly have been the case that what I took for the larva of stigma 

 was in reality the larva of bicolor. Both S. distigma Walsh and D. 

 bicolor Harris Walsh differ from D. senatoria, stigma and rubicunda, 



* I consider both these two pieces to be metanotal. 



