104 
SAMIA COLUMBIA. 
The claims of this fine moth to be a distinct species have been considered very doubtful, and its history is, in fact, yet to be com- 
pleted, as we have thus far no exact description or any figure of the larva. Mr. S. I. Smith, who first discovered it, obtained his 
examples, 2 1 9 , from cocoons, one of which was spun upon a maple twig and the others on Rhodera Canadensis, among which latter 
the maple was growing, also many other cocoons from which the imago failed to emerge, owing to the presence of the parasites, Cryptus 
Smithii, Pack., and C. Samice, Pack., as shown by the careful examinations of Dr. H. Hagen, of the Cambridge Museum, where all 
Mr. Smith’s types of both pupa and moths are preserved. 
The first notice we have of the larva is from Mr. G. J. Bowles. He says : “ In August, 1864, I captured a full-grown larva of this 
moth ( Columbia ) crawling along a fence in search of some place to make its cocoon. It closely resembled a Cecropia larva in size and 
appearance ; thinking it, therefore, to be a larva of that species, I did not take notes at the time, though, on a close examination, I could 
not quite reconcile the colour and arrangement of the tubercles with the description of Cecropia given by Morris. The principal differ- 
ence (as far as I can remember), was in the number of red warts with which the larva was ornamented, S. Columbia possessing more 
than the other species and further, “the larva above mentioned duly spun its cocoon, which was at first of a whitish colour, but in a 
few days gradually turned to dark brown ; the moth died in the chrysalis state, owing, perhaps, to the presence of parasites. Two years 
afterwards I found another cocoon attached to a twig of thorn ( Cratcegus ), but it was full of large parasites, all dead in the pupa.” 
He further states that he found, in fall of 1867, yet another cocoon spun on a gate-post, which in the following May produced a 
$ Columbia, of which he gives a lithographic figure, not differing materially from the figure of the on the present Plate XII. 
The above contains all that at present is known of the larva. 
The cf example, the original of fig. 3, was sent me from Montreal, Canada, by Messrs. C. IV. & G. B. Pearson, most ardent 
students of Lepidoptera, to whom I am indebted for many favours; these gentlemen wrote me, October 13, 1874, on the occasion of 
their sending the example, “ concerning Columbia we cannot say anything further than that we found the cocoon on a maple tree in the 
'east suburbs of the city, which produced the moth on the 13th of May last ; we also send the cocoon, which you will easily distinguish 
from Cecropia by its smaller size and different colour.” 
The above cited are all the examples that I know of ; i. e., the three types in the Cambridge Museum, found on maple and Rho- 
dera Canadensis in Norway, Maine, the one found by Mr. Bowles near Quebec, Canada, and, lastly, the example found on maple near 
Montreal, Canada, by the Messrs. Pearson, and now in my possession. 1 have examined those in the Cambridge Museum ; the 9 does 
not differ in appearance from the male I received from Montreal, except that the discal spots of primaries are not so plainly defined ; 
the males are both smaller, being not over 4 inches in expanse. 
The cocoons, which are attached longitudinally to the twig, are double and not much more than half the size of Cecropia ; the 
outer surface is somewhat uneven, of a dark greyish-brown, with little shining spots caused by the crowding together, here and there, 
of the silk woven around it. The inner cocoon is paler in colour and wmven closely to the outer. My cocoon is not as dark as some of 
those in the Cambridge Museum, though still much darker than any Cecropia I have ever seen. 
Dr. Hagen in his valuable paper, cited at head of this article, says : “ I confess frankly that only the peculiar features of the 
cocoons support the opinion that Columbia is a different species.” The differences in the imago are, it is true, slight ; when taken, 
however, in detail, they are the following : The average smaller size of Columbia ; the almost entire absence of red on the wings, which 
gives the whole insect a sooty appearance; the white transverse lines are much further removed inward from the exterior margin of 
both wings, making the space interior to the transverse lines much less in comparison than in Cecropia or Ceanothi, but assimilating in 
this respect to Gloveri. As regards the smallness or almost total obsolescence of the discal lunes, I have seen the same thing often in 
Cecropia, and in my own material of that species are four large males in which the discal lunes of primaries are as small as in Columbia, 
and so dark in colour that only by close inspection are they to be defined from the ground colour of the wing. I have also two examples 
of Cea'opia which have the abdomen annulated with blackish-brown and white instead of red and white, but the lateral ornamentation 
is in same style as in the normal red form and in Ceanothi, whereas in Columbia it is entirely different, as will be seen by comparing the 
figures 2 and 3 on Plate XII ; but, notwithstanding the apparent similarity, it does not take more than a glance to discern that Columbia 
is different ; it can easily be picked out amidst a hundred Cecropias through the prevalence of the sooty hue and the absence of red 
before alluded to, and it looks exactly as we might suppose a hybrid of Cecropia and Promethea would look — a possibility suggested by 
Dr. Hagen in his paper, where he cites various instances of hybrids; and, in connection with which I would state that in my cabinet 
are examples of hybrids from Anthercea Jama-mai and Peruyi, Smerinthus Ocellatus and Populi, Catocala Desperata and Retecta, Colias 
Prate and Edusa, and others ; but one fact militates strongly against the hypothesis in this case, which is that Promethea does not occur 
in Canada, or at least not in those parts where Columbia was found, though Cecropia does, I believe, abundantly. Were Promethea and 
Cecropia both found in the same locality with Columbia, I should certainly believe that the supposition of its being a hybrid of these 
would be the correct one, as the whole appearance of both cocoons and imago would seem to substantiate such a belief. 
In my assertion that Promethea does not occur in Canada I may, perhaps, be incorrect; my principal connections there have been 
in Montreal, in the neighborhood of which, my valued correspondents inform me, Cecropia and Polyphemus are found, but neither Luna, 
Angulifera or Promethea, and it is only by the non-occurrence of the latter that I am led to doubt that Columbia is the result of bastardy ; 
but we must wait until further observation and larger material will solve the riddle. 
SATURNIA G ALBINA. Clemens. 
Proceedings Acad. Nat. Sc. Phila., p. 156 (1860). 
Morris, Synopsis Lep. N. America, p. 222 (1862). 
Packard, Proc. Ent. Phila., Vol. Ill, p. 383 (1864). 
Walker, Cat, B. M. (Supplement) Vol. XXXII, p. 530 (1865). 
(PLATE XII, FIG. 4 tf, 5 9 .) 
Male. Expands 2§ inches. 
Head and body brown. 
Upper surface white; primaries, a sub-basal band formed by two brown parallel elbowed lines; a discal 
ocellus consisting of a black spot crossed in the middle by a vitreous line, and surrounded with a narrow 
yellow circle, to which is added on the inner side a fine blue crescent ; directly beyond this a narrow brown 
band crosses the wing from inner margin to costa ; midway between this and the exterior margin is another 
much broader brown band, which is traversed by an indistinct paler line ; a black sub-apical spot, connected 
at its lower side with the exterior margin by a crimson line. 
