Sept. 1897.] 
Dyar: On the White Eucleid^e. 
123 
ally into fleshy appendages of nearly equal length, the anterior ones a 
little shorter. These appendages are constricted at about the centre of 
attachment, the basal portion forming an elevated heart-shaped piece, 
bearing seta i above, the terminal part forming a tapering horn with 
seta ii at the apex. The lateral row of warts are rudimentary, consist¬ 
ing of small, naked finger-shaped papillae, hardly larger than the spira¬ 
cles. The subdorsal horns may be detached, but less readily than in 
Phobetron, and they leave a slight scar, from which a very little fluid 
exudes. The appendages are situated on joints 3 to 13, one more than 
in Phobetron, and are directed downward so as touch the leaf and cover 
the sides. The warts bear long, finely feathery fringe-hairs with smooth 
bases, other short smooth hairs, short club-shaped feathered hairs and 
the primitive setae i and ii. The skin is covered with a rather dense 
coating of fine, short, pale hairs from large colorless tubercles. No de¬ 
pressed spaces seen; the skin is hollowed laterally, but in an ill-defined 
manner. The warts are not shed on forming the cocoon. There are 
no stinging spines. 
This interesting larva is colored to escape observation. The adap¬ 
tation is the same as is Sisyrosea textula , but derived from a phylo- 
genetically dissimilar stock. The fringing horns consist of the sub¬ 
dorsal instead of the lateral series and the fringe hairs are feathered sec¬ 
ondary setae instead of degenerated stinging spines. 
Affinities, Habits, Etc. 
The only close ally of this larva among our species is Phobetron, 
and, quite unexpectedly, it is a very close ally. Dr. Packard, judging 
from the moth, was of the opinion that it was not allied to Phobetron, 
placing it near Heterogenea . I placed it still further away, in the Me- 
galopygidae. The larva has all the essential characters of Phobetron , 
even in some detail. The adaptation being different, the superficial 
appearance is different, resembling Sisyrosea rather closely, but it really 
has no near affinity with the spiny Eucleids. From Phobetron it differs 
as follows: (1) the middle tubercle of joint 4 is absent; (2) the lateral 
tubercles are reduced to insignificant papillae instead of existing as 
small warts; (3) the subdorsal horns are all of the same length, the 
weak segments of stage I appearing only in the coloration in certain 
examples, which lack the red tips on the horns that are short in Phobe¬ 
tron ; (4) there is a horn on joint 3 instead of a small wart; (5) the 
color is green instead of brown, with a thinner hair coating. The larva 
is more specialized than Phobetron on the whole. In the equal length 
