300 Forty- FOURTH Report on the State Museum 



can see no reason why there should not be even that amount of' 

 irregularity among straggling members of a brood, but the evidence 

 would have to be quite strong to justify such conclusion. The 

 specimens you refer to might perhaps be more justifiedly considered 

 as retarded individuals of Brood VIII. I shall be glad to hear from 

 you when you receive specimens. 



P. S. — If they turn out to be true septendecim, 1 will give the 

 matter more careful consideration in the light of other ufipublished 

 data, but I would like first positive evidence that we are not after a 

 "will-o'- the- wisp," from wrong identification. 



The Tivoli Insects not Referable to Brood VIII . 



Brood viii, above referred to, appeared in 1889. Its range is the 

 extreme south-eastern part of Massachusetts, across Long Island, 

 along the Atlantic coast to Chesapeake Bay, and up the Susquehanna 

 as far as to Carlisle, in Pennsylvania. 



As members of this brood have never been observed within the 

 State of New York, except on Long Island, there would seem to be 

 no reason for its consideration in connection with the Tivoli visitation. 

 Tivoli is one hundred miles north of New York city, and above two 

 hundred miles north-east of Carlisle, Pa. 



Are they the Remnant of an Unrecorded Brood? 



The letter from Mr. Clarkson, given above, having been submitted 

 to Dr. Riley for perusal, the following response was made: 



From Mr. Clarkson's letter which you inclose, I think there can be 

 no doubt that he has found this year the genuine Cicada septendecim, 

 and his account seems to be confirmed by the reported appearance of 

 the Cicada at Galway. I agree with you that the Tivoli Cicadse can 

 not be referred to Brood VIII, and if they were numerous enough to 

 be called a brood they would form one hitherto unrecorded. Refer- 

 ring to my unpublished Cicada records I find under the heading 

 " New or doubtful broods," a record of a seventeen-year brood 1839-'56, 

 in Halifax Co., N. C. To be sure this record is a little doubtful since 

 I obtained no further evidence in 1873 or in 1890, but, taken in con- 

 nection with the appearance of specimens near Washington, D. C, in 

 1890, and with those reported by you, it is possible that we have to 

 do with the scattered remnants of a formerly widely distributed and 

 numerous brood. Two other records mention the appearance of 

 Cicada in 1873, in Scott Co., Mo., Alexander Co., 111. and Holmes Co., 

 Miss. Finally, I have a report from reliable authority (the late Mr. 

 W. S. Robertson) of a brood in 1839 at Muscogee, Indian Territory. 

 But these western localities have not been corroborated subsequently 

 and, moreover, we can not tell whether they belong to a 17 or 13 year 

 brood. 



It is safe to say that we know now pretty accurately all the large 

 broods of the Periodical Cicada, but it is more than probable that in 

 many places a few and scattered specimens will appear in off years 

 which cannot be referred as precursors or belated specimens to any 



