VARIATION. 21 
me on reading. (1) p. 12. Concerning number of eggs laid by moths, 
I think my record for Hcpantheria scribonia would have been interesting 
to add, viz., 2274 (see Can. Hnt., vol. xxiii., p. 106). (2) On the tree 
(p. 113) you seem to assume that the Castniidae have upright eggs. 
Is there any proof of this? The American genus Megathymus, put in the 
Castnians by Kirby and Druce, bears no relation to them, but is a true 
Hesperid. (8) p. 117. In your characterisation of Megalopygids you © 
say ‘‘ seven pairs of abnormal prolegs.”’ It should be stv. The anal 
legs are normal without accessory pads (see Journ. N. Y. Knt. Soc., 
vii., p. 69). (4) p. 125. ‘‘ The thoracic horns of Ceratomia.”’ I wish 
authors would stop quoting these as evidences of anything whatever. 
They are perfectly secondary, as I have shown, and are merely a 
special adaptation. Jn Ceratomia the ordinary oblique lines are re- 
placed by rows of teeth, and the ‘ horns ”’ are only another manifesta- 
tion of this peculiar converting of markings into structural characters. 
(5) p. 3864. ‘Cy avellana with its reversible spines on hatching.” You 
surprise me by suggesting any homology between this and the mature 
structure in Doratifera. The two are as utterly different as it is 
possible to imagine. Naturally this makes you get the evolution 
upside down. (6) p. 865. You did not improve the synopsis by 
changing the last paragraph. The presence of primitive sete and 
skin spines is not contradictory to my definition of ‘‘ smooth,’ which 
refers to the absence of warts or their derivatives. The distinction 
between the Hulimacodinae (better Prolimacodinae) and Cochlidinae is 
really a sharp one. You do not seem to have apprehended it. 
Warts in stage 1; later primitive sete only .. .. Prolimacodinae. 
No warts in any stage; strong and weak segments .. Cochlidinae. 
(7) pp. 122 and 865. Hairs not stings. I think they are stings. The shaft 
seems hollow, and on the removal of the cap on entering the skin the 
poison probably escapes (see Packard’s figures). The sensation is 
certainly a sting, different enough from the Lasiocampid hairs. Do not 
confound Packard’s ‘‘ caltropes’’ and the detachable spines with the 
ordinary urticating spines of the horns. They are quite separate 
things.—Harrison G. Dyar, Ph.D., United States National Museum, 
Washington. October 21st, 1899. [This note was sent as a private 
criticism, not specially for publication; but I have noted the facts 
involved in the criticism in my own copy, and doubt not other 
students would like to do the same.—Ep. ] 
NY ARIATION. 
CABERA PUSARIA AB. ROTUNDARIA AND A PARALLEL AB. OF C. EXAN- 
THEMARIA..—Some time since I beat a number of larve from birch, in 
Coombe Wood, Surrey, which I considered to be Cabera pusaria, and 
from them I bred a long series of C. pusaria, with a fair sprinkling of 
rotundaria, but as there were some decidedly intermediate forms I have 
ever since considered it to be only an aberration of C. pusaria. Many 
of the forms representing rotwndaria were more or less crippled, and 
looked as if they had been somewhat dried whilst in the pupal stage, 
from which I thought this may have produced the difference in shape 
and possibly in markings also. A. W. Mera, 79, Capel Road, Forest 
Gate, E. 
Some years ago I bred a number of C. pusaria from eges obtained 
