March 1897.] Beutenmuller : On Melittia Satyriniformis. 35 
Bull. Brooklyn Ent. Soc. Vol. VI, 1883, P- Lintner, Country Gentleman, Vol. 
XLIX, 1884, pp. 477, 487 and 517; 2d Rep. Nox. Ins. N. Y. 1885, pp. 57-68; 
Smith, Insect Life, Vol. IV, 1891, p. 30; Beutenmuller, Bull. Am. Nat. Hist. 
Vol. VIII, 1896, p. 113. 
Trochilium cucurbitce Morris, Synop. Lepid. N. Am. 1862, p. 139. 
Nigeria ( Melittia) cucurbitce Packard, 9th Rep. U. S. Geol. Geograph. Sur¬ 
vey (Hayden), 1877, p. 769; French (in Thomas’ 2d Rep.), 7th Rep. Nox. Ins. 
Ill. 1878, p. 173; 
Melittia amcena Hy Edwards, Papilio, Vol. II, 1882, p. 53; Beutenmuller, 
Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. Vol. VIII, 1896, p. 113. 
In my paper entitled, “Critical Review of the Sesiidse, found in 
America, north of Mexico,” page 113 (Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 
Vol. VIII.) I made the following statements regarding our common 
quash-borer Melittia cucurbitce. “This well-known species was de¬ 
scribed by Harris as Algeria cucurbitce , and later by Westwood as 
Trochilium ceto; consequently the former name must be used. Double¬ 
day (Harris corresp., 1869, p. 161) states that Ageria cucurbitce is 
Melittia satyriniformis Hiibner, and, if so, this latter name would have 
precedence. Mr. Samuel Henshaw kindly examined for me Hlibner’s 
work (Zutrage Exot. Schmett., 1825), in the library of Harvard Univer¬ 
sity, and writes me as follows: “The figure of Melittia satyriniformis 
differs from all cucurbitce that I have seen in coloration; the abdomen 
is dark blue-black with light blue margins to lack segment and without 
a trace of the orange so conspicuous in cucurbitce .” In view of this 
fact I thought it best to retain Harris’ name until more light could be 
obtained on the subject. Since then Prof. John B. Smith was kind 
enough to examine for me Hiibner’s Zutrage in the library of the Acad¬ 
emy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, and he writes me as follows : 
“The insect which Hiibner figures as satyriniformis is without any 
sort of question the moth of our common squash-borer. In this copy 
the coloring is good and represents our insect in a male specimen. 
The description is more full than usual and calls attention to several 
little details that correspond perfectly with our insect, and I have no 
doubt that Hiibner’s figure refers to our species.” 
It seems to me quite evident that the plates of different copies of 
Hiibner’s works are differently colored and misleading. I have no 
doubt as to Prof. John B. Smith’s conclusions regarding the identifica¬ 
tion of satyriniformis , and I would propose that hereafter M. cucurbitce 
be called M. satyriniformis. The type of M. amcena was kindly sent 
to me for examination by Prof. Snow, and it is absolutely the same as 
satyriniformis , there being no differences whatever between the two. 
