March 1897.] DYAR : LlFE-HlSTORIES OF N. Y. SLUG CATERPILLARS. 7 
III,* IV, VI and VII, which illustrates the life history very well, 
though it is not a complete account of it, as it purports to be. The de¬ 
scription and figure of stage I are in error in placing a lateral horn on 
joint 5. In stage “IV” (=VI) the paired glandular dots (i) are 
again called “ warts,” and in the last stage he says “ these dots appear 
to be modified surface dorsal pdiferous warts ...” I do not think 
they are. The appearance is glandular and I have seen in T. fasciola 
a small drop of moisture in the location of each one of these depressed 
spaces which I believe was the secretion, not at the time evaporated. 
Besides, all the normal primary warts are situated elsewhere, and there 
are no warts, primary or secondary, in the whole order Lepidoptera in 
such a position (in the incisures). That they are not secondary warts 
is indicated by the fact that they are not more distinct in the early 
stages and never bear any setae, as would be expected if they were 
degenerate warts. 
Dr. Packard regards Adoneia as one of the more generalized forms 
of its group, and with this I agree, though I think it is not so generalized 
as Euclea indetermina. He says: “ This larva indicates in some points 
of its structure its descent, and that of the group to which it belongs, from 
the Attacinae; these points are the setiferous tubercles and the distinct¬ 
ness of the segments from one another, the sutures being well marked.” 
Recently Dr. Chapman also falls in with this view. He says 
(Trans. Ent. Soc. London, 1896, p. 584): “ My observations on the 
spines of Limacodes and Eac/es, and again of these and Sphinges and 
Saturnids .... and the observations of Poulton and Weissman, on the 
larvae of Aglia , Sphingidae, etc., leave no room for doubt that all these 
families are related The question of the relation between the 
Sphingides and Saturniides, which Poulton, Weissman and Muller dis¬ 
cuss, is aside from the present matter, and cannot be answered with the 
same certainty till some more generalized Sphingidae are found. But 
the relationship which is claimed between the Eucleidae and Saturniides 
on account of the spines, seems to me of exactly the same nature as that 
between the species of Apatela and the several families in which Mr. But¬ 
ler once distributed them, based with equal probability on the similar 
structure of the hairs.| 
*Mr. Bridgham is quoted as stating that this stage was drawn “after the first 
molt.” However, I imagine that the true first molt escaped his observation, as I do 
not suppose he was looking for a molt before the larva had eaten anything. 
f The stinging spines of the Saturnians (Hemileuca, etc.) are not ancestrial to 
the whole group, nor are they so in the Eucleidae, which I expect to illustrate in a 
genealogical tree to be given at the end of these articles. 
