v4

.:•■■;■■;

1

'''V "'

.

Si

i^

'^'

}•

1

VJ? ,

'lit

(,-■

;

y^v. i

1.'. ;■;

i;M'

,

!„ .'

'■

[r/J;

[,

V;' ■ '■_

w

;.;. .

V;-:

■M

;

m-^

-\

:

I
h

U'-

'.{■yi

u

i^

1

'■*

i-

1%^

Ib'Uo,^

^ibrarn of tl;e S^uscum

OF

COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY,

AT HARVARD COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

JFounUrt \iv pvfbatc subscrffltfon, fn 1861.

Deposited by ALEX. AGASSIZ.

No. i'^/^

1

(^r^^n.

-T^T^-jJ'J

OCCASIONAL PAPERS

OF THE

BOSTON SOCIETY OF NATUML HISTORY.

I

BOSTON: ■

PBINTED FOR THE SOCIETY.

1869.

ENTOMOLOGICAL COPtRESPONDENCE

OP

THADDEUS WILLIAM HAEKIS, M.D.

EDITEU BY

SAMUEL H. SCUDDER.

BOSTON:

BOSTON SOCIETY OF NATURAL HISTORY.

A-' 1869.

PUBLISHING COMMITTEE.

Jeffries Wyman,
Samuel L. Arrot,

Samuel H. Scudder,
AViLLiAM T. Brigham,

Thomas M. Brewer.

PRESS OF A. A. KINGMAN,

MUSEUM OF THE BOSTON SOCIKTY OV NATUKAL, HISTORY,
liEKKELKY STRKET.

PREFACE.

It was the habit of the late Dr. Harris to preserve complete
copies of nearly all his letters, written, sometimes, with scrupu-
lous care, in books kept for the purpose ; at others, upon odd
scraps of paper now scarcely legible from age or handling ; these,
with the answers received by him, form so rich a comment-
ary upon the history of the earlier period of American entom-
ology, and his other unpublished manuscripts are so filled with
interesting scientific facts, that the Council of the Natural His-
tory Society commissioned me to collect everything of interest
for publication in a single volume. In carrying out the trust
confided to me, I have endeavored, first of all, to have the
volume represent the author as perfectly as possible, in dic-
tion, in illustration, in method, and in the whole choice of ma-
terial. In the illustrations, I have been fortunate in securing
the assistance of Mr. E. S. Morse, who has draAvn the wood
cuts, and of Mr. S. L. Smith, who has engraved the plates.
The authorship of the figures in the body of. the work is suffi-
ciently indicated by the context ; the illustrations in the plates
are mostly from Dr. Harris's drawings, and in all cases from
drawings in his former possession ; we have endeavored to re-
produce these — even when rough or incomplete — as closely as
possible, and such a degree of exactitude has been attained as
reflects great credit upon the artists. I regret that as great a
measure of success has not attended the coloring.

VI PREFACE.

No attempt lias been made to bring the volume down to the
i*equired style of the present day ; rather tlie reverse, the
names of insects being taken from Dr. Harris's manuscript cat-
alogues, mostly prepared between 1820 and 1840 ; where no
names were given, but simply figures referring to his numbered
collection, the more modern names have been inserted ; but all
matter of an editorial character has been enclosed in brackets.

Descriptions of larvte, etc., have been placed in an appendix,
as partial histories of insects which future observers may com-
plete ; a few isolated descriptions of insects, including the basis
of a monograph of the genus Psocus, have been added, because
the colors have been mostly described from living insects ; in-
deed all of these descriptions and the letters themselves are a
record of keen and extensive out-door observation, worthy of
the author of the Massachusetts Report.

It has also seemed best to insert the original descriptions of
insects, including the "Contributions to Entomology," which
were published by Dr. Harris in agricultural new^spapers, and
are now entirely inaccessible save in the city where tlie papers
were issued ; the original paging has been inserted for con-
venience of reference. Finally, I have added, at the suggestion
of Dr. LeConte, such passages of importance in the first edition
of Dr. Harris's State Report as were excluded by him from the
second edition, to afford space for other material, and were
accidentally omitted in the posthumous edition, because it was
mainly based upon the second. Thus every important paper or
fragment, hitherto inaccessible, has been reproduced, excepting
the Hartford essay (No. 31 of the' list), which could not be re-
printed as it appeared without incurring undesirable expense.
It is presumed that the articles in horticultural journals are to
be found in most libraries which collect such works.

The volume presents rather a heterogeneous collection, but
I trust it may be acceptable to entomologists and agricultu-
rists, and prove a not unworthy memorial of Dr. Harris. I
deem myself peculiarly fortunate in having secured the intro-

PREFACE. Vn

ductory sketch by Colonel Higginson ; never having had the
priAalege of seeing Dr. Harris myself, these words renew the
vivid picture which I had gained in reading his works. At
Colonel Higginson's request I have revised my published list
of Dr. Harris's entomological papers, and have added the titles
of other papers, mainly collected by Mr. Edward Doubleday
Harris. The portrait, from a photograph furnished by the
family of Dr. Harris, was engraved by Mr. Halpin, under
their supervision.

My thanks are due to the favor of many friends, who have
furnished me with manuscripts in their possession, permitted
me to publish letters addressed to them, or have rendered aid
in other ways. In particular I may mention Mrs. L. W.
Leonard, Miss Morris, Drs. LeBaron, LeConte and Pickering,
and the late Mr. Herrick. Dr. A. S. Packard and Mr. F. G.
Sanborn have also greatly assisted me.

Cambridge, March 1, 1869.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

'reface V

^Iemoie of Dr. T. W. Harms by Col. T. W. Higginson .... xi

List of the Writings of Dr. Harris xxxviii

NTOMOLOGICAL CORRESPONDENCE WITH PrOF. N. M. HeNTZ ... 1

IJTOMOLOGICAL CORRESPONDENCE WITH Dr. F. E. MeLSHEIMER . . . 109

Ek'TOMOLOGICAL CORRESPONDENCE WITH Mr. E. DOUBLEDAY . . . 119

ENTOMOLOGICAL CORRESPONDENCE WITH JIr. E. C. HeRKICK . . . 181

EiiroMOLOGiCAL Correspondence with Dr. J. L. Le Conte . . . 209

Enpomological Correspondence with Miss M. H. Morris . . . 239

Miscellaneous Entomological Correspondence 249

Ir. Thomas Say 251

)r. C. Zimmerman 257

jEoN. NoYEs Darling 260

W. Le Baron 260

|)L. T. W. Higginson 263

Appesdices 265

■ Descriptions of Larv.e, their Metamorphoses, Habits, etc. . . 267

Selected Descriptions of Insects 325

Eei^blished Papers 337

Contributions to Entojiology 337

bxtracts from agricultural papers 359

Paragraphs from the Treatise on Injurious Insects . . 362

Explanation of Plates 367

List op Wood Cuts 369

Index .\ 371

MEMOIR

OP

THADDEUS WILLIAM HARRIS

BY

THOMAS WENTWORTH HIGGINSON.

"Were I to be required to say, in one word, what is the system of
Nature, I should say — Variety."

Dr. Harris to Edward Newman, 1844.

One of the ablest of American botanists writes in respect
to Dr. Harris, — "Of other genuine naturahsts I have read,
but he is the only one I ever knew." This is hardly too
strong a statement of the loyalty entertained toward this emi-
nent man by those who had the privilege of being his pupils
in Natural History. In him there lived for us the very spirit
of Linnaeus, or whatever name best represents the simplest
and purest type of the naturalist. The personal attachment
thus won, the healthy influence thus exerted, and the slow
and gradual recognition of the merit of his methods, are a
form of success more congenial to the temperament of Dr.
Harris than would have been any more immediate and su-
perficial applauses. *

XU MEMOIR.

Thaddeus William Harris was born in Dorchester, Mass.,
November 12, 1TU5. He was the son of Thaddeus JNIason
Harris, D. D., and Mary (Dix) Harris. The elder Dr.
Harris was a native of Charlestown, Mass., born in 1768,
graduated at Harvard College in 1787, and Avas librarian of
that institution from 1791 to 1793. He left that position
to be ordained over the First Congregational Church in Dor-
chester, where he remained until within a few years of his
death, which occurred in 1842. I remember in my boyhood
the little quaint old man, bent almost increchbly, but still
wearing a hale aspect, who used to haunt the alcoves of the
old library in Harvard Hall. It was rumored amono; us that
he had once been appointed private secretary to Washing-
ton, but had resigned from illness ; and it was known that
he was arranging and indexing for Mr. Sparks the one hun-
dred and thirty-two manuscript volumes of Washington's
correspondence. He was not without his poetic laurels, too,
since it was whispered that he had composed for Mr. Ever-
ett's youthful recitation the verses :

"You'd scarce expect one of my age
To speak in public on the stage."

He was, moreover, a learned antiquarian .and divine, and had
come to Natural History by a strictly professional path ;
lor besides his jjroper harvest of fifty-eight occasional
sermons, and seventeen other publications,^ he had found
time for an elaborate "Natural History of the Bible," which
was published in 1820, and long remained a standard work,

' Sco a list of tlicm in an atlminiblo memoir of the elder Dr. Harris, by N. L. Froth-
•ngliam, D.I)., in the Mass. Hist. Coll., 4th series, II, 130.

MEMOIR. XUl

both here and in Europe. It aimed to describe and identify
e"7ery animal, plant and precious stone mentioned in Scrip-
ture ; and must have involved, on many of these points,
enough of minute investigation to enlist the whole family
in the work. And as Mrs. Harris was at the same period
a diligent rearer of silkworms, and supplied herself for ten
years with sewing-silk from their labors, it is evident that
Natural History must have been a topic of habitual house-
hold interest. It is certain that at this time (1820), the
younger Dr. Harris began his permanent collection of insects.
He entered Harvard College in 1811, in his sixteenth
year, and graduated, with respectable rank, in 1815. One
of his classmates describes him as " a timid, sensitive, rather
nervous and recluse youth," who was not at that time con-
spicuous for his love of Natural History. There was a
college society, called first the " Lavoiserian," and then the
"Hermetic," for the study of Natural Philosophy, and
especially of Chemistry. It is very probable that Dr. Har-
ris was inclined to this last study, as he was appointed,
some years after his graduation, a member of the Examining
Committee in that department. But the college afforded no
direct instruction in Natural History at that time, except in
the lectures of Prof. W. D. Peck. These were accessible
by a special fee, and do not seem to have left a very pal-
atable impression on those who heard them. Dr. Harris,
however, attributes to Dr. Peck his first interest in his
favorite study. " It was this early and much esteemed friend
who first developed my taste for entomology, and stimulated
me to cultivate it." This probably refers, however, not to
college days but to a renewal of intercourse with the Pro-

XIV MEMOIR.

fessor, about 1820. Prof. Peck died two years later, and
his manuscripts were submitted for examination to the two
Doctors Harris, who reported adversely to the publication,
finding them apparently correct and faithful, but a little be-
hind the times. Yet Prof. Peck was reputed a man of real
science in his dav, and a recommendation of him bv Sir
Joseph Banks used to be quoted. His only memorial now
remains in the baptismal name of one minute insect, the
Xenos Peckii of Kirby, which as being at that time the only
species of its genus, and the only genus of its order, repre-
sented in a certain degree the very aristocracy of science.

After his graduation Dr. Harris devoted himself to the
study of medicine, took his medical degree in 1820, and
entered on the practice of his profession at Milton, in con-
nection with Dr. Amos Holbrook, whose daughter (Cath-
erine) he afterwards married. Dr. Holbrook was an eminent
practitioner in his day, being Vice-President of the iNIassa-
chusetts Medical Society, and Corresponding Member of
several foreign associations. After two or three years. Dr.
Harris took an office for himself in Dorchester Village, near
Milton Lower Falls. I do not know how far he became
really attached to his profession; he never refers to it in
his correspondence, and seems to have entirely quitted it
after his academical appointment, except when he once took
for a lew weeks the practice of Dr. Plympton, during the
ilhiess of that well known Cambridge physician. It was
while he was a resident of Milton and Dorchester that the
greater part of his out-door researches in entomology must
have been made. Yet he wrote to Prof. Hentz (June 5,
1820) that he " had but very little time to devote to the

MEMOIR. XV

study of insects." " My leisure moments," he adds, " are
principally employed in collecting and preserving such as I
can discover, in order to replenish my cabinet of duplicates."
For this reason, and from pecuniary anxieties, it is evident
that he was quite ready to contemplate a change of resi-
dence. For instance, when Prof. Hentz was about takins: a
professorship in an Alabama university. Dr. Harris was
evidently not indisposed to go with him. He wrote March
25, 1829:

" As to the intimation respecting a professor's chair, I can but repeat
what I once mentioned, tliat my qualifications are not adequate; but if
the climate should admit, I could prepare myself for the department of
obstetrics or materia medica. Some experience for ten years in the
former, and my knowledge of botany, and necessary acquaintance with
the manipulation of drugs, would not render it difficult to attain, in a
short time, a tolerable knowledge of eitlier of these branches."

Two months later (June 5, 1829) he wrote to the same
friend :

" I am very desirous to learn the issue of your contemplated change of
place. Sucli are the embarrassments and anxieties of my present situa-
tion, that your hints in regard to myself would receive serious consid-
eration; especially if the climate, the professional department and the
emolument should coincide with my wishes. You may not know that
my friends endeavored, some time ago, to procure for me an appoint-
ment as librarian at Harvard University, a situation which would have
suited me exactly; but unfortunately the place was pre-engaged."

This refers, doubtless, to the appointment of Mr. Ben-
jamin Peirce to the librarianship in 1826. It would appear
from this that Dr. Harris had for some time looked with

XVI MEMOIR.

hope to this appointment, wliich lie finally received in 1831,
on the death of Mr. Peirce. It would also ajjpear that he
found the librarianship attractive for its own sake, and not
(as it was perhaps viewed by some of his friends) as a. step-
ping-stone toward a professorship of Natural History. Be
this as it may, he accepted the post, and held it during the
remaining twenty-five years of his life.

No doubt he looked forward with delio;ht to the change.
The librarian's salary was low, but the dignity and perma-
nence of the new ])ost must have appeared in agreeable .
contrast to the struggle for life of a country physician,
whose very acquirements as a naturalist may have impeded
his professional career. Then the methodical and accurate
habits of Dr. Harris promised to make the daily routine uf
duty agreeable ; he had a genuine love of antiquarian re-
search, though always kc})t under by the greater attractions
of natural science ; and he might reasonably hope for many
books and some leisure. In both he was disappointed ; of
leisure he had almost none, and of books no liberal su])ply.
The library at the time of his accession numbered but about
thirty thousand volumes, though he left it swelled to sixty-
five thousand. Its means of increase were then, as now,
very small, and the great cost of works on natural history
precluded much investment in tliat direction.

Dr. Ilan-is was ajipointed ere long to a quasi-scientific post
in the college, in addition to his librarianshij). The ])rofes-
sorsliip of Natural History was at this time vacant for want
of funds, and Dr. A. A, Gould gave, until 1837, an annual
course of lectures on this subject to the senior class. On his
resignation, Dr. Harris took his place, and had charge of that

MEMOIR. XVll

department from February 16, 1837, till the appointment of
a permanent professor in 1842. I was fortunate enough to
be among his pupils. There were exercises twice a week,
which included recitations in " Smellie's Philosophy of Nat-
ural History," with occasional elucidations and familiar lec-
tures by Dr. Harris. There were also special lectures on
Botany. This was the only foothold which Natural History
had then secured in what we hopefully called the " univer-
sity." Even these scanty lessons were, if I rightly remember,
a voluntary affair; we had no "marks" for attendance, and
no demerits for absence, and they were thus to a merely
ambitious student a waste of time, so far as college rank
was concerned. Still they proved so interesting that Dr.
Harris formed, in addition, a private class in entomology, to
which I also belonged. It included about a dozen young men
from different college classes, who met on one evening of
every week at the room where our teacher kept his cabinet,
in Massachusetts Hall. These were very delightful exercises,
according to my recollection, though we never got beyond
the Coleoptera. Dr. Harris was so simple and eager, his
tall, spare form and thin face took on such a glow and
freshness, he dwelt so lovingly on antennse and tarsi, and
handled so fondly his little insect-martyrs, that it was
enough to make one love this study for life, beyond all
branches of Natural Science, and I am sure that it had that
effect on me.

As one fruit of these lessons, several of us undertook dur-
ing the following year to arrange for the Harvard Natural
History Society its collection of insects, then very much
augmented, and only partially arranged by my predecessor

OCCAS. PAPERS B. S. N. H. — I. B

XVlll MEMOIR.

in the Curatorship of Entoraolooy, Hcnrv Bryant, since well
known to the world of science. This task kept us in con-
tact with • Dr. Harris ; we had tlic aid of his cabinet m
identifying the species ; hut the more we used this ready
assistance, the more profound became the wonder how Dr.
Harris himself had identified them. There were no manuals,
no descriptions, no figures accessible to us ; even in the col-
Iqctq library there were only a few books on tropical insects,
and a few yast encyclopedias, which appeared to hold eyery-
thinjT but what was wanted. It seemed as if a special flin;lit
of insects must haye come to Dr. Harris from the skies, all
ready pinned and labelled. Older heads than ours were
equally perplexed, and the mysteiy was neycr fairly solved
until after the death of our dear preceptor, and the transfer
of liis cabinet and papers to the Boston Society of Natural
History.

It was then apparent by what vast labor Dr. Harris had
compiled tor himself the literary apparatus of his scientific
study. A mass of manuscript books, systematized with French
method, but written in the clearest of Enjilish handwritin";s,
show how he opened his way through the miglity maze of
authorities. First comes, for instance, a complete systematic
index to the butterflies described by Godart and Latreille, in
the Encyclopedic M(3thodique. Every genus or species is
noted, with authority, reference and synonymes ; the notes
l)eing then rearranged alpliabeticully and pasted into a vol-
mne — perhaps three thousand titles in all. This was done
in 1835.

Then comes a similar conipilatiyn of the Coleoptera from
Olivier ; twenty Ibolscap pages, giving genus, species, locality,

MEMOIR. XIX

and even measurements, to the fraction of an inch. Then
there are three manuscript volumes containing an index to
the four volumes of Cramer's " Papillons Exotiques "; one
dev.oted to Stoll's " Supplement," and two to Hiibner's " Ex-
otische Schmetterlinge." For Drury's " Illustrations of Nat-
ural History" there are two of these elaborate indices, made
at different periods ; one based on the original edition in
1770-3, and the other on Westwood's reprint of 1837. So
beautifully executed is all this laborious work, that it is still
as easily accessible as print, though the earlier sheets are
yellow and torn. The Natural History Society thus possesses
not merely the results of Dr. Harris's researches, but the
very tools which he himself forged for their prosecution.

This immense preliminary labor always brings with it some
compensation to the isolated explorer, in the thorough drill
it implies. " Writing maketh an exact man." But the per-
son who will undertake such labor is generally exact by
nature, and Dr. Harris, at any rate, needed no such drudg-
ery to fit him for the higher work of science. Yet there is
an inestimable moral in his labor for our younger generation
of savans, and the saying of Rivarol that " genius is only
great patience," had never a better illustration.

In this destitution of books and cabinets, there was an-
other compensation which gave to Dr. Harris a more prac-
tical satisfaction. The conditions of a new country, implying
these drawbacks, imply also a great wealth of material. In
older countries it is rare to discover a new species ; it is
somethina; to detect even a new habitat. But these lonelv
American entomologists seem, as one reads their correspond-
ence, like so many scientific Robinson Crusoes, each with

XX MEMOIR.

the insect-wealth of a new island at his disposal. They are
monarchs of all they survey. With what affluence they
exhibit their dozens of undescribed species ; with what auto-
cratic power they divide and recombine genera ! How ar-
dently writes Hentz to Harris, " Oh ! why must we live at
such a distance from each other? What pleasures we might
enjoy together." Or, " Mourn no longer for the singleness
or solitude of your Amphicoma vulpina ! I have found an-
other." Yet they were richer for the loneliness, and per-
haps it was better that Massachusetts and Carolina, even in
scientific jurisdiction, should remain at a reasonable distance.
Had these students shared one entomological region, they
would have had less wealth to interchange.

Nothing among the papers of Dr. Harris contains so much
of his scientific biography as a letter written by him to Dr.
D. H. Storer of Boston, from which I shall therefore take
ample extracts.

Cambridge, Nov. 2, 1836.
Dear Sir : —

Your kind note will cause you the trouble of reading a long answer, if
indeed you can spare the time to do so. My plans are by no means so
nearly matured as you seem to imagine, nor indeed is tbere any very great
chance of the object of my wishes being speedily accomplished. The want
of a manual of American Entomology struck me very forcibly fifteen years
ago, when I was turning some of my attention to the study of insects, and
this want greatly impeded my progress. There were then very few persons
who paid any attention to Entomology in this country ; none of them,
excepting Prof Peck, were then known to me; and the information which
I could have gathered from him was suddenly lost to me by his death.
Sometime afterwards I became known to Mr. Say through our mutual ac-
quaintance, Prof. Nuttall, and a correspondence was continued, at protracted

MEMOIR. XXI

intervals it is true, between us till his decease. I often urged Mr. Say to
prepare a manual which would serve for American insects, as Pursh's
Flora and Eaton's Manual did for plants, and he assured nie that he was
collecting materials for the purpose. The describing of an immense num-
ber of new, or supposed new species, occupied all the time that he could
give to Entomology, and I do not find among his papers anything like an
outline or commencement of the desired work.

In the meanwhile I had formed the Idea of a local fauna insectorum,
which should include only the species common in this vicinity, and I began
to write descriptions of these species, but found myself embarrassed for the
want of books. This difficulty rather increased, or appeared of more im-
portance, as my knowledge of species was enlarged, and I soon found my-
self ib possession of a very large number of insects, which could not, with
any propriety, be arranged in any of the genera described in my books.
To supply myself with all the works necessary for determining these species
and reducing them to their proper genera, required a much larger sum of
money than I could command, and I have been compelled to wait even till
this time without having my wants in this respect supplied. In the mean-
while some of my descriptions were published in the " New England
Farmer," and the series would have been continued there if I could have
hoped to excite any interest in the science among those who had the power,
if not the inclination, to aid it.

The lectured which I was called upon to deliver before the Natural His-
tory Society in Boston, gave a different direction to my studies for a Avhile;
but about that time I wrote an introduction, or rather made something like
a systematic abstract from the scientific part of Kirby and Spence's Ento-
mology on the subject of the external anatomy, transformations, and differ-
ent states of insects; which I supposed It would be necessary to prefix to
my local fauna. Additions to this and to the descriptive part of the con-
templated work have been made at subsequent periods, but still a large part
of the labor remains to be done. I have no Idea how larsre a book It would
make when finished, nor do I see any prospect of my being able at present
to finish it, and indeed I have nearly abandoned all hope of bringing It to a
successful termination.

XXll MEMOIR.

The difficulties met with, at length led me to think of some means of
making Entomology popular, and I looked to the young as tlie proper sub-
jects to begin with. With the hope that by exciting a taste among children
for this branch of natural history, the parents might become interested also,
I have rewritten my introduction in plain and simple language, divested as
much as possible of all hard words, and intend to add to it brief descriptions
of some of our most common insects. This you may think is small business,
but 1 liope it may at least be useful and entertaining to those for whom it is
intended.

Dr. Pickering of Philadelphia some months ago urged me to undertake a
synopsis of American insects, and said so nuu-h on this subject that I was
induced to take his proposition seriously into consideration. I then wrote to
him that if he would examine Say's insects ibr me, and answer such enqui-
ries as I might find it necessary to make respecting the species contained in
his cabinet, I would undertake to make " a descriptive catalogue of the in-
sects named in the second edition of Prof. Hitchcock's Report on the Geology,
etc., of Massachusetts," but I could i)romisc nothing more ; for I was deter-
mined not to undertake to describe any insects but those which I had before
my own eyes. Hereupon Dr. Pickering obtained leave of the Academy
of Natural Sciences to send me the wliole of Say's collections, only stipulat-
ing that I should put them in good order, and return them in a condition to
be preserved after I had examined and arranged them. They an-ived about
the middle of July; but on oxauiination were found to be in a deplorable
condition, most of the pins having become loose, the labels detached, and
the insects themselves without heads, antennie and legs, or devoured by
destructive larva*, and ground to powder liy the perilous shakings which
they had received in tlieir transportation from New Harmony. Tliis ir-
remediable destruction has in great measure defeated my expectation of
deriving benefit from examining the specimens and comparing them with
those in my own collection, and in that of Prof. Ilentz

Mr. Hentz's collection of insects is a most (-apital and valuable one; it
proves on examination to be far hotter than I had anticipated. I am sorely
disaji])ointed and mortified in not liaving been able to raise subscriptions
enough to pay for it, and lor the beautiful and useful works of Olivier and
Voct which accompanied it.

MEMOIR. XXlll

In Spite of the closing sentence of this letter, it appears
that the books and cabinet of Professor Hcntz were finally
paid for (the price being $1,350), though mainly through the
personal efforts of Dr. Harris. Professor Hentz was of French
birth, but American by adoption, and it is sui'prising to find
that his name does not occur in our encyclopedias, except in
connection with his wife, well known as a novelist. He has
not even the meagre mention which these works assign to
those other pioneers of American entomology. Say and the
elder Leconte. They, with Melsheimer, were the early com-
peers of Dr. Harris, whether they were or were not his
peers ; while his chief aid in collecting seems to have come
from his friend and classmate, Rev. L. AV. Leonard, of Dub-
lin, N. H. In truth, the number who seriously applied them-
selves to this science, in those days, might almost have been
counted on one's fingers. His foreign correspondence, when
it came, gave more substantial assistance, and I especially
remember the zeal aroused in Cambridge by the visit of Mr.
Edward Doubleday.

Yet the society of accomplished foreign naturalists perhaps
made Dr. Harris feel his own loneliness the more. He writes
(Sejt. 23, 1839) to Mr. Doubleday:

"You have never, and can never know what it is to be alone in your pur-
suits, to want the sympathy and the aid and counsel of kindred spirits ; you
are not compelled to pursue science as it were by stealth, and to feel all the
time, while so employed, that you are exposing yourself, if discovered, to
the ridicule, perhaps, at least to the contempt, of those who cannot perceive
in such pursuits any practical and useful results. But such has been my
lot, — and you can therefore form some idea how grateful to my feelings must
be the privilege of an interchange of views and communication with the
more favored votaries of science in another land."

XXIV MEMOIR.

Dr. Harris prepared his catalogues of insects as laboriously
as he made his indices of books. They were made on the plan
of the card-catalogues now used in libraries, upon uniform
pieces of paper, three or four inches square, which he after-
wards tied in bundles, and carefully labelled. Each card
contained the name of the insect with synonymes and au-
thorities, and the number it bore in his catalogue, — but no
description. Mr. Say's collection was catalogued by Dr.
Harris in the same manner. Most of this sort of work Avas
apparently done in 1837, and all these manuscripts arc in
possession of the Boston Society. This institution also holds
copies of almost all his entomological letters, transcribed with
a neatness and clearness peculiarly his own.

His entomological cabinet,^ — of which he wrote to Mr.
Westermann, February 22, 1842, " My collection is not only
the best, but the only general one of North American in-
sects in this country,*' — is now in possession of the same
association. He wrote of this cabinet to Mr. C. J. Ward
of Ohio, March 8, 1887, as follows :

"My object in making a collection, and for this purpose asking the aid of
my friends, has not been merely personal gratification; it has been nty de-
sire to add something to the cause of science m this country

Even should death surprise me before the results of my labors are before the
public, I shall leave an extensive, •well arranged and named collection,
which, from the care bestowed upon it, will be in a condition for j^reservation,
and will remain as a standard of comparison when I am gone. You will
judge of the importance and value of such a collection when I assure you
that Mr. Say's cabinet does not contain one half of the species which he has
described ; of the insects in it, many arc without names, and all more or
less mutilated, and so badly preserved that most of them are now absolutely
■worthless."

MEMOIR. XXV

The value thus claimed for this collection is not too great.
The delicate and systematic care with which Dr. Harris
preserved his insects has secured for them a permanent
usefulness. It is well known that no class of specimens in
Natural History requires such watchful pains. Almost all
his American insects remain labelled and arranged as he left
them, thus fixing firmly and indisputably every step he made
in their classification. His foreign collection was almost ruined
before it came into possession of the Natural History Soci-
ety, and that of Prof. Hentz was long since almost totally
destroyed.

Yet with all this care in his indoor labors, no man knew
better than Dr. Harris that the best work of a naturalist
must be done out of doors. He had few leisure hours, and
even the blessed summer vacation must be largely devoted to
the annual examination of the dusty library. But his minute
observations on insect-transformation still remain something ex-
traordinary, and many an experienced entomologist has won-
dered how or where Dr. Harris traced from the egg the
varied forms of some little insect which others hardly knew
in its completeness. His rare skill with the pencil aided him
in this work, as in his studies of classification. As he learned
to classify butterflies by drawing the nervures of their wings,
so he fixed by copying each successive stage of development.
His excursions, too, though rare, were effectual ; he had the
quick step, the roving eye and the prompt fingers of a born
naturalist ; he could convert his umbrella into a net, and his
hat into a collecting-box ; he prolonged his quest into the
night with a lantern, and into November by searching be-
neath the bark of trees. Every great discovery was an

XXVI MEMOIR.

occasion for enthusiasm, and it seemed the chmax of his life
wlicn he found for tlie first time, on August 5, 1840, the
larvae of the southern butterfly, PapiHo Philenor, on a shrub
in the Botanic Garden.^ He had previously Avritten of it to
Hentz (Feb. 18, 1838), " this insect must belong to a type
of which there is no other in the United States." I very
well remember that he gave me one of his few specimens,
and when I deposited the lovely butterfly in the cabinet of
the Harvard Natural History Society, I felt as if I had
founded a professorship.

But tlie zeal of Dr. Harris was not confined to entomol-
ogy — it extended to all branches of zoology and to botany
too. Indeed this was his favorite study next to that of in-
sects, and he left in manuscript an. elaborate monograph of
the natural order Cucurbitacete. I remember the perennial
eagerness with which lie lu'ged upon us, each spring, to re-
discover the Corallorhiza verna in a certain field near the
Observatory. It had been found there once, and once only,
■by my classmate. Dr. Woodward. It had certainly been found
— and yet it seemed improbable that it should have been
found, and it never Avas found again — and Dr. Harris's eyes
would always kindle when the little flower was mentioned,
and he would ])onder, and debate, and state over and over
again the probabilities and imiJiobabilities, and discuss tlie
possibility of some error in the precise location, and draw
little plans of that field and the adjoining fields, and urge
us on to the jmrsuit or cheer us w hen drooping and defeated,
until it seemed as if the (piest after the Holy Grail Avas a

» See p. 147 foUowiug.

MEMOIR. XXVll

thing insignificant and uninspiring compared with the search
for that plain httle orchid. This was the true spirit of the
observer, — appreciation of the unspeakable value of a fact.

Still the certainty remains that for all productive purposes
of Natural History the last fifteen years of his life ^-ielded
constantly less and less. Genius works many miracles, but
it cannot secure leisure for science to a man who has twelve
children, no private means, and the public library of a Uni-
versity to administer. As the library grew larger, his op-
portunities grew less, and it is pathetic to read in his cor-
respondence the gradual waning of his hopes of release.

He wrote (Nov. 10, 1837) to Dr. Charles Zimmermann,
of Columbia, S. C. (the italics being his own) :

" I look forward to all your future sendings with much hope, and beg
that you will favor me with such insects as you can conveniently part with,
as soon as possible. At present I may not have it in my power to make
full and adequate returns : but the time may come when I shall no longer be
so closely confined to one spot, and so much absorbed Avith other duties;
and when that time does come, I mean to go forth into the neglected parts
of this and the neighboring States, and collect largely of the insect treas-
ures contained in them. Then you shall share fully and freely of my
gatherings."

These eager visions faded, and he wrote five years after
(Nov. 3, 1842), to Mr. E. C. Herrick, librarian of Yale
College, this final abandonment of the hopeless attempt to be
librarian and naturalist at the same time :

" The business of the public library of the University takes up nearly
all my time, and unless something more favorable turns up, I shall not be

XXVIU MEMOIR.

able to pursue the study of iiatiiral history any longer. I hope that some
others may be found to take up, follow and finish the history of Amex-ican
insects ; — hosts of which are now waiting for a biographer to name and de-
scribe their charactei's."

It is easy to conjecture the circumstance which seemed
thus finally to close Dr. Harris's hopes of obtaining leisure
for science. The Professorship of Natural History in the
University, which had remained vacant for want of funds
since 1834, was filled (April 20, 1842) by the appointment
of Dr. Asa Gray. During this interval, the duties of the
department had been partly discharged by Dr. Harris, and
it was inevitable that he and his fi'iends should indulfic a
hope of his permanent appointment. The matter was the
subject of much conversation at the time, and is several
times mentioned in his more familiar correspondence. It
was fortunate that the very eminent claims of Dr. Gray,
and the especial propriety of selecting a botanist to take
charge of the Botanical Garden, relieved the appointment
from all appearance of discourtesy to Dr. Harris. But all
lovers of science must regret that no way Avas found of
securing for its exclusive benefit the maturity of a naturalist
so gifted.

In spite of all obstacles. Dr. Harris always contributed
very largely to scientific, agricultural and other periodicals,
and a catalogue of these papers, more or less complete, is
appended to this memoir. l>ut he rarely came before the
])ublic for any more extended work. He prepared in 1831
the catalogue of insects appended to Hitchcock's Massachu-

MEMOIR. XXIX

setts Geological Report. In the condition of American sci-
ence at that day, it was a work of inestimable value, though
his only material compensation was one copy of the Report,
and several copies of the Appendix. At a later period he
was appointed by the State as one of a scientific commis-
sion for a more thorough geological and botanical survey.
In this capacity he prepared his " Report on Insects Injuri-
ous to Vegetation," first published in 1841, reprinted by
himself under the name of "Treatise," instead of "Report,"
in 1842, — and again in a revised form in 1852. The whole
sum received by him, from the State, for this labor, was
$175. After his death, the book was reprinted by the
State, in an admirable form, with engravings, and it is upon
it that his scientific reputation will mainly rest.

It is admitted by all who read this treatise that it is
almost a model combination of the strictly scientific spirit
Avith the clearest popular statement. In the words of a
younger entomologist, writing of Dr. Harris :

" He was remarkably exact In his obse'rvations, careful in his statements,
and painstaking in a high degree. His generalizations have stood well the
tests of subsequent research, and a more extended array of facts. He
never lost sight of the end at which he aimed ; never allowed undue weight
to any set of observations, even when they were his own, and never left any
thing to conjecture. His insight into nature and relations of affinity, al-
though they might be based upon a meagre series of natural objects, was
truly enviable. Conservative in his methods and tendencies, he was never-
theless quite independent, and had a clear, well-balanced and penetrating
mind. His acquaintance with American entomology was broader and more
exact than that of any one before or since his day, and yet in nothing that
he has written do we find him proclaiming his own discoveries."

XXX MEMOIR.

His later entomological correspoudence bore chiefly on the
topics covered by this treatise, as he had not the leisure to
enter on new ground. There exists, however, a letter to
Mr. Edward Newman, which should here be included, both
from its personal interest, and from its expression of opinions
on general scientific problems. The letter is in acknowledg-
ment of a work entitled " The System of Nature ; an Essay,"
published in 1843 by that eminent naturalist, and by him
dedicated to Dr. Harris.

" Cambridge, Jan. 7, 1844.

" Edward Newman, Esq.,

"•No. 9, Devonsliirc Street, Bishop's Gate, London.
''Dear Sir: —

"On the 23d of December I received the beautiful volume which you have
done me the honor to dedicate and send to nio, and offer you my sincere
and respectful thanks for the same. The copies for the Public Library of
Harvard University and for the Boston Society of Natural History, were
duly forwarded as soon as received.

" I have often read the very intei-esting letter which you wrote to me some
years ago; as well as your valuable contributions to the Entomological Mag-
azine. These, with your " Sphinx Vespiformis," your Grammar of Ento-
mology, and }our very ingenious essay on the System of Nature, are full of
instruction.

" In a i)rivate course of lectures on Entomology given to some of the stu-
dents of the University, four years ago, I endeavored to explain your sys-
tem, and made diagrams for the purpose, some of which still remain hanging
in tlic mom wlicrc our excellent i'riend, ^Ir. Doublcday, saw my collection
of insects. I have often wished you would combine in one work all that
you have ])ubli;ihed on the classification of insects, and t lie characteristics
of the groups. Your papers on this subject in the Entomological Magazine,
with an abridgement of what is contained in the " Sphinx Vespiformis,"

MEMOIR. XXXI

would form a very useful and acceptable addition to a futui-e edition of
your Grammar of Entomology.

" If I cannot give an unqualified assent to all your views, I tlilnk them
Avell Avorthy of attention, consideration and study.

" You have often very happily illustrated what before was obscure, and
have pointed out some striking resemblances, or affinities, as it is the fashion
to call them. You have proved to my satisfaction the centrality of certain
groups or types of form, combining some of the characteristics of the sui--
rounding groups, together Avith a character peculiarly their OAvn. This, it
appears to me, must be the key to affinities, if such exist. That there are
rerfUy seven great and perfectly natural groujis of insects, and that they
approach each other, as you have represented, appears undeniable. Divide
any one of them, and the parts lose their relative value Avhen compared
with the other groups. Whether there ever Avere, or ever will be, other
equally natural groups of insects, and — if so — Iioav they can be connected
Avith your circle, is more than I can tell. It seems to me, hoAVCA'er, upon
taking a more extended vieAV of nature, that living bodies are infinitely
varied in structure, and were 1 to be required to say in one word, Avhat
is the system of nature, I should answer, variety. We see only a part of
the series, the beginning and the end are lost to our vIcav — avc knoAv only in
part Avhat is — avc know but little of Avhat has been, and Ave knoAV nothing
of Avhat is to be. And yet to form a perfect, philosophical system, or
rather to trace out the Avhole plan of the Creator, Ave should have at once
before us all the living beings that ever have been, and ever avIII be created.
Hence all our attempts to discover a natural system, either in Zoology or
Botany, must fall far short of perfection.

" AlloAv me again to make my acknowledgments for the unmerited honor
that you have conferred upon me, — and be assured that such notice froiii
one for whose valuable contributions to science I have a high respect, is a
source both of pride and of pleasure to

" Your friend and servant,

" T. W. Harris."

XXXU MEMOIE.

But if this letter shows tlie maturity of his scientific
judgment, another, written in the same year, shows his over-
taxed physical condition. It is addressed (January 30,
1844) to My. Doubleday of the British Museum, the favor-
ite entomological correspondent of his later years :

" Your letter shows me what I feared would be the case, that the cares
and responsibilities of your situation absorb most of your time, and under-
mine your health. My friend, be warned in season, if it be not now too
late, by my own sad experience, that the um-eraitting devotion to duties in a
public establishment will wear out body and spirit, will deprive you of
leisure, of necessary exercise and relaxation, and will give you in return
only a petty compensation, at the expense of your time, health and happi-
ness. Your account of your own labors, cares and anxieties in the museum,
seems to me an echo of my own in the public library of the University,
which now for two yeare has added a double burden to my before overtaxed
powers of mind and body."

In spite of this habitual overwork, sometimes leading to
nervous exhaustion or severe headaches, the general health
of Dr. Harris was good. It was a rare thing for him to be
confined to the house by illness. During his later years he
had occasional attacks of pain in the chest, which he thought
to be pleurisy. On the 9th of November, 1855, he w^as
attacked with pleurisy of the right side, followed by an effu-
sion into the cavity of the chest. This confined him to the
house, wliich he never again left, although it did not prevent
him from receiving the visits of his friends. During the
month of December he suffered mainly from shortness of
breath and weakness ; later he had an affection of the veins
of the legs, followed by their obstruction. Early in January

MEMOIR. XXXUl

of the following year, lie had a sudden famtness, from which
he hardly rallied, and which he himself thought at the time
w^ould he fatal. He died at last from a similar attack on the
16th of January, 1856, at the age of sixty. An hour before
his death he had a conversation on library affairs with his
assistant and successor, Mr. John L. Sibley, — and then ex-
pired, in the act of rising from his bed. The disease proved
to be pleurisy, with what is known as embolism.

The life of Dr. Harris, with whatever disappointments
and drawbacks, must not be regarded as a sad one. It was
certainly a great loss both to himself and the world that the
maturity of his powers should have been given to anything
but Natural History. Yet the work which was assigned him
was not uncongenial, except by comparison. As he could not
be wholly a naturalist, he found enjoyment in being a libra-
rian. His father had held the same office, almost to the
year of his own birth, and he seemed born with the libra-
rian's instinct for alcoves and pamphlets and endless geneal-
ogies. He had in preparation a very elaborate genealogical
history of the* Mason family, and was often consulted as an
expert upon such matters. He kept his official records with
exquisite accuracy, and described his methods to other libra-
rians as lovingly as if he were describing a chrysalis. To
that indeed the College library of those days had much re-
semblance, nor has its period of active development yet
come.

His official cares thus brought their own compensation,
and this was yet more true of that home-life which no man
ever enjoyed more, though its solicitudes and blessings, as

XXXIV MEMOIR.

t

usual, multiplied together.^ Constant references and expres-
sions in his letters, in regard to his own family and those
of his correspondents, show his afFectionateness of disposition
and delicate sympathy. I mention this the more, because it
may be that the engraving in this volume Avoiild give a wrong
impression, in this respect, to those who did not know Dr.
Harris. There is a certain rigidity about it Avhich belonged
to his face, perhaps, when in repose, — the result partly of
overwork and partly of the frequent headaches which, m his
own Avords, " kept him always thin." But the moment he
spoke, his face had the kindest smile and such a play of sen-
sitive expression that I cannot possibly associate with it any-
thing like sternness.

The eldest son of Dr. Harris (William Thaddeus) was a
schoolmate of mine, and had a career somewhat remarkable
for the energy and perseverance shown by him in struggling
against severe physical infirmities, and preparing himself for
Harvard College, where he graduated in 1846, at the age
of twenty. In him the antiquarian tastes of the family

1 The children of Dr. Harris were as follows :

1. William Thaddeus, b. Jan. 25, 182C [H. C. 1846], d. unmar. Oct. 19, 1854.

2. Sarali Catherine, b. Nov. 7, 1827, d. Sept. 10, 1828.

3. Harriet Gardner, b. Jan. 2, 1829, mar. Prof. George Phillips Bond of the Astro-
nomical Observatory of H. C, and d. Dec. 12, 1858, leaving issue.

4. Emma Forbes, b. Dec. 16, 1830.

5. Catherine J i, 0^ ^^

6. Charles ) ( I'esident of Boston.

7. Amos Holbrook, b. July 9, 1834, Resident of Boston.

8. Clarendon, b. Mar. 24, 1830, resident of Laporte, Ind.

9. Edward Doubleday, b. Sept. 20, 18^9, resident of Cambridge.

10. Thomas Itobinson, b. Juno 15, 1842 [H. C. 1863], clergjTnan of Prot. Epis.
Church, resident of Long Island, N. Y.

11. Elizabeth, b. Nov. 1, 1844.

12. Sarah Harriot, b. Sept. 23, 1849.

MEMOIR. XXXV

passed to a third generation ; he prepared with assiduous
labor, while in college, a volume containing the quaint epi-
taphs in the Cambridge churchyard ; he had also prepared
for publication a transcript of the still quainter inscriptions
of the old Watertown burial-ground, a work soon to be pub-
lished, under the supervision of his younger brother ; he had
projected a continuation of " Prince's Chronology,'' and at
the time of his early death in 1854, was already a Corre-
sponding Member of scA^eral European archseological societies.
He was admitted to the Suffolk Bar a few months before
his death, having pursued his legal studies in Cambridge.

The scientific portion of the library of Dr. Harris — includ-
ing about two hundred and fifty volumes — was purchased
after his death by John P. Cushing, Esq., of Watertown, —
who was also the largest contributor for the purchase of
his cabinet and manuscripts, which also became the property
of the Boston Society of Natural History. The following de-
scription of the library was orally given to the Society by
the Curator of Entomology, on its reception :

" Among tlie volumes is one containing all the rarer tracts of Say, most
of wliicli are extremely scarce ; among them his New Harmony pamphlets,
one of which (on the Heteropterous Hemiptera of North America) is prob-
ably the only copy in this country, if indeed it can be found anywhere else.
There is a volume of colored drawings by John Abbot, of the Lepidoptera
and Coleoptera of Georgia, presented to Dr. Harris by Edward Doublcday,
Esq., of England, containing all the originals of the drawings in 'Abbot
and Smith's rarer Lepidopterous Insects of Geoi'gia,' besides many others
yet unpublished. Most of the important European works are here, — such
as those of Fabricius, Herbst, Dejean, Boisduval, Macquart, Wiedemann,
Audinet-Serville, Sahlberg, Coquebert, Schonherr, Gory and Percheron,

XXXVl MEMOIR.

Aiibe, Laporte and Gory, Westwood, Knock's ' Neue Beytrage,' and the
'Wiener Verzeicliniss' ; together with nearly complete sets of most of the
publications of entomological societies and entomological periodicals. Some
of these are from the library of Mr. Say, and contain a few of his notes;
many were once possessed by Prof. Peck, the predecessor of Dr. Harris,
and one is from the library of Dru Drury; and nearly all are enriched by
copious notes by Dr, Harris."

At a meeting of tlie American Academy of Arts and Sci-
ences, held February 12, 1856, a series of resolutions was
presented by Dr. A. A. Gould, one of which included the
following summary of the services of Dr. Harris.

" Resolved, That as a bibliographer and an archaeologist, in relation es-
pecially to the history of our own counti-y, he held a distinguished rank;
that as a naturalist he has not been surpassed by any of his countrymen,
and has exhibited a patience, thoroughness, and accuracy of obsei'vation in
the various departments of Natural History, a truthfulness in the delinea-
tions, both of his pencil and his pen, and a singular facility in employing
language intelligibie to the common reader, and at the same time fulfilling
all the requirements of science, which render him a model for the inter-
rogator of Nature; and that, through a long life of untiring industry, he has
accumulated and published a mass of original observations, of an eminently
practical bearing, which have won for him high consideration, both at home
and abroad, and will constitute for him an enduring monument."

It appears by the record that " the resolutions were sec-
onded by Professor Louis Agassiz, who added that Dr.
Harris had had few equals, even if the past were included
in the com])arison" ; and that Dr. A. A. Gould was ap-
pointed to prepare a memoir of the life and labors of Dr.
Harris, for publication by the Academy. It is greatly to be
regretted that this work was never accomplished.

MEMOIR. XXXVll

The steady growth of Dr. Harris's reputation is not due
alone to his position as pioneer in American science during
its barest period. It has grown because he proves to have
united quahties that are rare in any period. He combined
a fidehty that never shrank from the most laborious details
with an intellectual activity that always looked beyond de-
tails to principles. No series of observations made by him
ever needed revision or verification by another; and yet his
mind always looked instinctively towards classification and
generalization. He had also those scientific qualities which
are moral qualities as well ; he had the modesty and unsel-
fishness of science, and he had what may be called its chiv-
alry. He would give whole golden days of his scanty sum-
mer vacations to arranging and labelling the collections of
younger entomologists. And it roused all the wrath of which
his soul was capable when even a rival was wronged, as
when Dejean ignored Say's descriptions, because he had not
learned English enouo;h to read them.

I remember his once holding up to us, as the true type
of a scientific reputation, that of Robert Brown, supreme
among botanists, unknown even by name to all the world
beside. More fortunate than Robert Brown, Dr. Harris
combined with this high aristocracy of science a peculiar
capacity of practical application, and has left a rare exam-
ple of the scientific and the popular spirit in one.

nST OF THE WEITINGS

OF

THADDEUS WILLIAM HAllEIS, M.D.

i

I

1. Upon the natural history of the salt-marsh caterpillar (Arctia pseuder-
minia), with a plate. Mass. Agric. Eep , Vol. VII, No. iv, pp. 322-331,
June, 1823.

(a) Reproduced without figures in the N. Engl. Farm., Vol. I,
No. XLix, pp. 385-386, July 5, 1823.

2. Description of four native species of the genus Cantharis. Bost.
Journ. Phil, and Arts, Vol. I, pp. 494-502, 1824.

(rt) Ditto in the New Engl. Journ. of Med. Surg., etc.. Vol. XIII,
No. Ill, pp. 243-250, July, 1824.
8. Caterpillars (Clisiocanipa americana). N. Engl. Farm., Vol. IV, No.
XLV, p. 354, June 2, 182G.

4. Peach tree insect (iEgeria persica^). N. Engl. Farm., Vol. V, No.
V, p. 33, Aug. 25, 1826.

(a) Reproduced in part in Harr., Entom. Corresp., p. 359.

5. Insects which destroy oocoons of silk worms (Dermestes lardarius).
N. Engl. Farm., Vol. V, No. v, p. 33, Aug. 25, 1826.

6. Trees. Abstract of a report on the state of the elm tree in St. James
and Hyde Parks, by W. S. MacLeay (with additional remarks). N.
Engl. Farm., Vol. V, No. xxii, pp. 169-171, Dec. 22, 1826.

7. Dr. Hunt's insect (Trcmex columba). N. Engl. Farm., Vol. V, No.
XXVII, p. 211, Jan. 26, 1827.

(rt) Reproduced in part in Ilarr., Entom. Corresp., p. 360.

8. Descriptions of three species of the genus Chremastocheilus. Journ.
Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., Vol. V, pp. 381-389, Feb., 1827.

9. Minutes towards a history of some American species of Melolonthae,
particularly injurious to vegetation. Mass. Agric. Rep., Vol. X, No. i, pp.
1-12, July, 1827.

(«) Reproduced in the N. Engl. Farm., Vol. VI, No. li, pp. 9-10,
Aug. 3, 1827; No. in, pp. 18-19, Aug. 10, 1827.

10. Insects on peach trees (Aphides). N. Engl. Farm., Vol. VI, No.
L, p. 393, July 4, 1828.

11. Insects (Gastropacha velleda, TEgeria cucurbita;, Arctia textor).
N. Engl. Farm., Vol. VII, No. v, pp. 33, 34, Aug. 22, 1828.

(a) Reproduced in part in Ilarr., Entom. Corresp., p. 360.

LIST OF WKITINGS. XXXIX

12. The curculio, or -worm in fruit (Conotrachelus nenuphar). N. Engl.
Farm., Vol. VII, No. xr, pp. 81-82, Oct. 3, 1828.

13. Contributions to Entomology [No. I.]. N. Engl. Farm., Vol. VII,
No. XII, pp. 90-91, Oct. 10, 1828.

(a) Reproduced in Harr., Entom. Corresp., pp. 337-341.

14. Contributions to Entomology, No. II. N. Engl. Farm., Vol. VIX,
No. XV, pp. 117-118, Oct. 31, 1828.

(a) Reproduced in Harr., Entom. Corresp., pp. 341-344.

15. Contributions to Entomology, No. III. N. Engl. Farm., Vol. VII,
No. XVI, pp. 122-123, Nov. 7, 1828.

(a) Reproduced in Harr., Entom. Corresp., pp. 344-346.

16. Contributions to Entomology, No. IV. N. Engl. Farm., Vol. VII,
No. XVII, p. 132, Nov. 14, 1828.

(a) Reproduced in Harr., Entom. Corresp., pp. 346-348.

17. Contributions to Entomology, No, V. N. Engl, Farm,, Vol. VII,
No. XX, p. 156, Dec. 5, 1828.

(a) Reproduced in Harr. , Entom. Corresp., pp. 348-351.

18. Contributions to Entomology, No. VI. N. Engl. Farm., Vol. VII,
No. XXI, p. 164, Deo. 12, 1828.

(a) Reproduced in Harr., Entom. Corresp., pp. 351-354.

19. Insects on fruit trees (Cocci). N. Engl. Farm., Vol. VII, No. xxrv,
pp. 186-187, Jan. 2; 1829.

20. Additional remarks on the bark louse or Coccus. N. Engl. Farm.,-
Vol. VII, No. XXXVII, p. 289 CAvoodxuts), April 3, 1829.

21. American turnip butterfly (Pontia oleracea). N. Engl. Farm., Vol.
Vn, No. LI, p. 402, July 10, 1839,

(a) Reproduced in part in Harr., Entom. Corresp., p. 361.

22. Corrections and additions for the " Contributions to Entomology."
N. Engl. Farm., Vol. VIII, No. i, pp. 1-2, July 24, 1829.

(a) Reproduced in part in Harr., Entom. Corresp., pp. 354-355.

23. Contributions to Entomology, No. VII. N. Engl. Farm., Vol. VIII,
No. I, pp. 2-3, July 24, 1829.

(a) Reproduced in Harr., Entom. Corresp., pp. 359-359.

24. Insects (iEgeria pyri. Ichneumon hordei). N. Engl. Farm., Vol.
IX, No. I, pp. 1-2, July 23, 1830.

(«) Reproduced in part in Harr., Entom. Corresp., p. 361.

25. Extracts from a paper entitled " Some account of the insect known
by the name of the Hessian Fly, and of a parasitic insect that feeds on it,
by Thomas Say" (with additional remarks). N. Engl. Farm., Vol. IX,
No. II, p. 9, July 30, 1830.

26. Locust (Locusta Carolina, Pterophylla concava, Tettigonia vitis^

Xl LIST OF WRITINGS.

Cicada septemdecim). Encycl. Amer., Vol. VIII, pp. 40-43. 8vo. Phila-
delphia, 1831.

27. A discourse delivered before the Massachusetts Horticultural Society,
on the celebration of its fourth anniversary, Oct. 3, 1832, pp. 54; in a pam-
phlet entitled: Fourtli Anniversary of the Massachusetts Horticultural So-
ciety. 8vo. Cambridge, 1832.

(a) Reproduced in N. Engl. Farm., Vol. XI, 1833. No. XXVI, p.
204, Jan. 9; No. xxvii, pp. 212-213, Jan. 16; No. xxviii, pp. 200-
201, Jan. 23; No. xxix, pp. 225-226, Jan. 30;- No. xxx, pp. 236-
237, Feb. 6 ; No xxxi, pp. 244-245, Feb. 13; No. xxxii, pp. 252-
253, Feb. 20.

28. Report on the Geology, Mineralogy, Botany and Zoology of Massa-
chusetts, by Prof. Hitchcock. 8vo. Amherst, 1833. Part viir, Insects.
pp. 5G6-595.

(«) Second edition of the same, corrected and enlarged. 8vo. Am-
herst, 1835. Part viii, Insects, pp. 553-602.

(b) The latter part of (a), published separately at the same time,
under the title, — Catalogue of the Animals and Plants of 'Massachu-
setts, with a copious index. 8vo. Amherst, 1835. Part viii, Insects,
pp. 33-82.

29. On a parasite of the honey bee. Hort. Reg. and Card. Mag., Vol. I,
pp. 44-45, Feb., 1835.

(a) Reproduced in N. Engl. Farm., Vol. XIII, No. xxx, p. 233,
Feb. 4, 1835.

30. Upon the economy of some American species of Hispa. Bost. Journ.
Nat. Hist., A^ol. I, No. n. pp. 141-151 (wqod cuts), 1835; read Feb. 18.

31. Characteristics of some previously described North American Coleop-
terous insects, and descriptions of others which appear to be new, in the col-
lection of Mr. Abraham Ilalsey. Trans. Nat. Hist. Soc. Hartf , No. i, pp.
65-91 (with a colored plate), 1836. Communicated Dec. 23, 1835.

32. Report of the Commissioners on the Zoological Survey of the State
(containing) Dr. Harris's Report (on Coleoptera). pp. 57-104. ]\Iass.
House Document, No. 72. 8vo. >rVprIl, 1838.

33. Remarks upon Scaraba;us goliatus, and other African beetles allied
to it. Journ. Essex Co. Nat. Hist. Soc, Vol. I, No. ir, pp. 101-107. 8vo.
Salem, Mass, 1839.

34. Remarks upon the North American insects belonging to the genus
Cyrchus of Fabricius, with descriptions of some newly detected species.
Bost. Journ. Nat. Hist., Vol. II, No. ii, pp. 218-204, Feb. 1839; read Aug.
15, 1838.

35. Worms in seed corn (Butalis ceitjalella). Yankee Farmer, Vol. V,
No. VI, p. 43, Feb. 9, 1839.

LIST OF WRITINGS. xli

36. Descriptive catalogue of the North American Insects belonging to the
Linnfean genus Sphinx in the cabinet of the author. Amer. Joui-n. Sc. and
Arts, Vol. XXXVl, No. ii, pp. 282-320, July, 1839.

37. A Report on the Insects of Massachusetts, injui'ious to vegetation,
published agreeably to an order of the Legislature, by the Commissioners on
the Zoological Survey of the State. 8vo. pp. viii, 459. Cambridge: Fol-
som, Wells & Thurston, 1841.

(a) Another impression of the same, printed at the charge of the au-
thor, entitled — A Treatise on some of the Insects of New England,
which are injurious to vegetation. Svo. Cambridge: published by
John Owen, 1842.

(b) A Treatise on some of the Insects of New England, which are
injurious to vegetation; second edition. Svo. pp. viii, 513.- Boston:
printed by White & Potter, 1852.

(c) A Treatise on some of the Insects injurious to vegetation.
Third Edition (posthumous; illustrated by eight coloured steel plates
and two hundred and seventy-eight wood cuts ; edited by Charles
L. Flint.) Svo. pp. ix, 640. Boston, 18G2.

[I have thought it unnecessary to give any references to the numerous
extracts from, or reviews of, this work, which have appeared in various
places.]

38. "Wheat insects (Calandra granaria, Trogosita mauritanica. Tinea
granella; (Ecophora cerealella). N. Engl. Farm., Vol. XIX, No. xxxviii,
p. 300, March 24, 1841.

39. Wheat insects, continued (Cecidomyia tritici). N. Engl. Farm., Vol.
XIX, No. XXXIX, pp. 306 307, March 31, 1841.

40. Memorandum on the larva of PapiUo Phllenor. Newman's Entomol-
ogist, Part II, No. IV, pp. 60-61, April, 1841.

41. Remarks on some North American Lepidoptera, by Edward Double-
day, Esq., including a communication from T. W. Harris, M. D., of Boston,
U.S. (Dryocampa? -Saccophora- Melsheimeri). Newm. Ent., No. vii,
pp. 99-191 (wood cuts), May, 1841.

42. Plum tree gvubs. N. Engl. Farm., Vol. XIX, No. li, p^ 405 (wood
cuts), June 23, 1841.

43. Apple tree borer (Saperda blvittata). Mass. Ploughm., Vol. I, No.
XVII (wood cut), Jan. 22, 184-2.

(a) Reproduced in N. Engl. Farm., Vol. XX, No. xxxiii, pp. 260-
261, Feb. 1«, 1842.

44. The squash vine destroyer (iEgeria cucurbitas). N. Engl. Farm.,
Vol. XX, No. xxxiii, p. 260 (wood cut), Feb. 16, 1842.

45. Squash vine destroyer (.^geria cucurbltse). Mass. Plouglim., Vol I,
No. XXXVII, June 11, 1842.

xlii LIST OF WRITINGS.

46. A new disease of the plum (Tbrips). Hov. Mag. Hort, Vol. VEH,
pp. 247-248, July, 1842.

47. Blight beetle (Tomicus pyri). Mass. Ploughm., Vol. II, No. xxxvrii,
June 17, 1843.

(fl) Reproduced in N. Engl. Farm., Vol. XXII, No. iii, p. 21, July
ID, 1843.

48. The disease of the sycamore tree (Tingis, Noctua;). N. Engl. Farm.,
Vol. XXI, No. L, p. 40G, June 21, 1843.

49. Apple worm, curculio, plum grub (Carpocapsa poraonella, Conotra-
chelus nenuphar). N. Engl. Farm., Vol. XXII, No. li, p. 13, July 12, 1843.

50. Description of an African beetle allied to Scarabaeus polyphemus,
with remarks upon some other insects of the same group (extracts). Proc.
Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist., Vol. I, pp. 151-153; read Nov. 1, 1843 (signatures
Nov. and Dec. 1843).

51. Description of an African beetle allied to Scarabaeus polyphemus,
with remarks upon some other insects of the same group (with a copper
plate). Bost. Journ. Nat. Hist., Vol. IV, No. iv, pp. 397-405, Jan., 1844.

52. Coated Saperda of the linden tree (Saperda vestita). Farm. Cab.,
Vol. VIII, No. VII, pp. 213-214, Feb. 15, 1844.

53. Some account of the insect that attacks the grape vine (Procris
americana). Hov. Mag. Ilort., Vol. X, pp. 201-205 (wood cuts). June,
1844.

54. A new depredator of the orchard (Clisiocampa sylvatica). N.
Engl Farm., Vol. XXII, No. Lii, p. 412, June 26, 1844.

55. Destructive insects on peach trees and grape vines at Nantucket
(Cocci). N. EngL Farm., Vol. XXIII, No. i, pp. 4-5, July 3, 1844.

56. Cucumber skippers (Smyuthurus cucumeriy). Mass. Ploughm., Vol.

III, No. XLTi (wood cuts), July 20, 1844.

(a) Rejjroduced in Ilarr., Entom. Corresp., p. 362.

57. Remarks upon Saperda vestita, the borer of the Linden tree, with ex-
tracts from letters upon tiie same insect. Hov. Mag. Hort., Vol. X, pp. 311,
330-333 (woodcuts), Sept. 1844.

58. Insects in tlie corn (Butalis cerealella). Farm. Cab., Vol. XI, No.

IV, pp. 106-107, Nov. 16, 1846.

59. Microgasters. Bost. Cult., Vol. IX, No. xviii, p. 138, May 1, 1847.

60. On the blights of the pear tree (Tomicus pyri). Down. Hort., Vol.
II, No. vnr, pp. 365-367, Feb. 1848.

61. Canker worms (Anisoptcryx vcrnata). Prairie Farm., Vol. VIII,
No. VI, pp. 172-173, Jime, 1848.

(a) Reproduced in Mass. Ploughm., Vol. VII, No xxxix, June 24,
1848.

62. The potter wasp (Eumenes fraterna). Bost. Cult., Vol. X, No. XXix,
p. 225 (wood cutj, July 15, 1848.

LIST OF WRITINGS. xlHi

63. Correspondence on the black wart of the plum tree (Cicada).
Down. Hort., Vol. Ill, pp. 277-279, Dec, 1848.

64. Canker worms (Anisopteryx vernata). Bost. Cult., Vol. XI, No.
XLVil, p. 376, Nov. 24, 184a.'

6a. Termites. New Oi-leans Picayune, January, 1850.^

66. Description of some species of Lepidoptera from the northern shores
of Lake Superior; In Lake Superior, by Louis Agasslz (lithographic plate).
8vo. Boston, 1850. Art. ix, pp. 38G-3D4, pi. vii.

67. Saw-fly of the raspbeiry, Selandria (Hoplocampa) rubi (In a letter
to Miss Darling). N. Engl. Farm., n. s., Vol.11, No. ii, p. 33 (wood
cuts), Jan. 19, 1850.

68. Insects on potatoes (Baridius trinotatus). N. Engl. Farm., n. s..
Vol. n, No. XIII, p. 204, June 22, 1850.

69. Potato bug (Cantharls vittata). Prairie Farm., Vol. X, No. viii, p.
247, Aug., 1850.

70. Injurious insects (Conotrachelus nenuphar, Carpocapsa pomonella,
Aphides, Cllsiocampa americana, Anisopteryx vernata, Macrodactylus sub-
spinosus). N. Engl. Farm., n. s.. Vol. II, No. xvi, p. 252, Aug. 3, 1850.

71. The cranberry worm. N. Engl. Farm., n. s.. Vol. II, No. xxii, p.
348, Oct. 26, 1850.

72. Canker worms (Anisopteryx vernata). Mass. Ploughm., Vol. X,
No. VIII, Nov. 23, 1850.

73. Canker worms (Anisopteryx vernata). Mass. Ploughm., Vol. X, No.
XXXIII, May 17, 1851.

74. The currant tree borer (^Egeria tipullformis). Hov. Mag. Hort., Vol.
XVII, pp. 241-244 (wood cut), June, 1851.

75. Plum weevils (Conotrachelus nenuphar). Bost. Cult., Vol. XIII, No.
XXIV, p. 187, June 14, 1851.

(a) On the curculio. Down. Hort., Vol. VI, p. 341, July, 1851.

76. Letter on potato rot. Salem Obs., Vol. XXIX, No. xxviii, July
12, 1851.

(a) Keproduced in Bost. Cult., Vol. XIH, No. xxix, p. 228, July
19, 1851.

(h) Insects not the cause of potato rot. N. Engl. Farm., n. s., Vol.
in, No. XVI. pp. 259-260, Aug. 2, 1851.

77. A new Insect depredator (Capsus quadrlvittatus). N. Engl. Farm.,
Vol. Ill, No. XVII, p. 268, Aug. 16, 1851.

1 1 have not seen this paper. It is thus referred to by Mr. Thomas Affleck of Missis-
sippi, in a letter to Dr. Harris, dated Jan. 23, 1850. " I send you herewith a copy of
the number of the New Orleans Picayune, our most influential Southern paper, which
contains your article on the Termites I sent you." The specimens were sent to Dr.
Harris in a letter dated Nov. 10, 1849: and which bears the memorandum of Dr. Harrsi,
" Answered Nov. 29, Dec. 20, 1849."

xHv LIST OF WRITINGS.

78. The potato disease not caused by insects (in a communication to J.
W. Proctor). N. Engl. Farm., n. s., Yol. III. No. xviii, p. 287, Aug. 30,
1851.

79. Insects on the potato vine (Aphides, Phytocoris hneolaris, Criocerus
triUneata, Galeruca vittata, Haltica striolata, Scatophaga postilena, Sphinx
quinquemaculata, Baridius triuotatus). Journ. Agric, Vol. I, No iv, pp.
99-102, Sept. 3, 1851.

80. Chinch bug (Rhypai'ochromus devastator). Alb. Cult., Vol. \TIII,
No. XII, pp. 402-403, Dec, 1851.

81. On Cincindelae. Fam. Vis., Vol. II, No. xxxix, p. 305 (wood cuts),
Feb. 3, 1852.

82. Canker worms (A. vernata). N. Engl. Farm., n. s., Vol. IV, No. iv,
pp. 155-15C, April, 1852.

83. Letter to Di'. Princle, giving a history of his report. Faiu, Vis., Vol.
II, No. L, p. 398, April 20,. 1852.

84. The joint-worm (Eurytoma hordei). N. Engl. Farm., n. s., Vol. IV,
No. vxii, pp. 385-386, Aug., 1852.

85. The oak pruner (Steuocorus putator). N. Engl. Farm., n. s.. Vol.
IV, No. IX, p. 425, Sept., 1852.

86. The oak pruner. N. Engl. Farm., n. s., Vol. IV, No. x, p. 453,
Oct., 1852.

87. Insects in the wheat (Em-ytoma liordei). Journ. Agric, Vol. Ill,
No. X, pp. 290-291, April, 1853.

88. Palmer worm (Rhinosia pometella). Cambridge Chronicle, Vol.
VIII, No. XXX, July 23, 1853.

(a) Reproduced in Trans. New York St. Agric. Soc, Vol. XIII, pp.
190-192, 1854. (See No. 92.)

89. The palmer worm. N. Engl. Farm., n. s.. Vol. V, No. viii, pp. 370-
371, Aug., 1853.

90. The rosy Ilispa and the drop worm (Hispa rosea, Oiketicus conifera-
rum). Down. Ilort., Vol. VIII. pp. 401-464 (wood cuts), Oct., 1853.

91. Report on some of the diseases and insects affecting fruit trees an.l
vines. Proc. Amer. Pomol. Soc, pp. 210-218, 1854.

(r/) Reprinted under the title — Report on insects and diseases inju-
rious to vegetation. 8vo. Boston, 1854. pp.11.

(b) Repi'oducod in Journ. U. S. Agric. Soc, 1854, pp. 197-210.

92. Letter from Dr. Harris (Ithycerus noveboracencis). Trans. N. Y.
St, Agric. Soc, Vol. XIII, pp. 188-189, 1854. . '

(o) Reprinted with 88 («) and otiier matter as — Apple tree pests,
pp. 11-13. 88 (rt) formed pp. 13-16.

93. Description of Rhinosia pometella Harris. Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat.
Hist., Vol. IV, pp. 349-351; read July 20, 1853.

LIST OF WRITINGS. xlv

94. Extract ofalettei* to Dr. Kirtland, from Dr. Thaddcus W. Harris,
dated Cambridge, Marcli 13, 1854 (Vanessa Milbertl). Ann. of Sc, Vol.
II, No. IV, p. 100, April, 1854.

95. Note. ujDon the insects injurious to the roots of the cultivated grape
vines in North Carolina ; in a pamphlet entitled, — The grapevine borer;
in a communication on the grape vine, by Dr. E. Mitchell, in the Raleigh
Register for April 5, 1854. 8vo. pp. G-7.

9G. Larvae of the crane fly (Tipula). N. Engl. Farm., Vol. VI, No. v,
p. 210, May, 1854.

97J Canker worms (A.vemata). N. Engl. Farm., n. s.. Vol. VI, No.
viir,p. 363, Aug. 1854.

98. The Cetonia Inda. N. Engl. Farm., n. s., Vol. VI, No. x, pp. 457-
458, Oct., 1854.

99. The Indian Cetonia. N. Engl. Farm., n. s.. Vol. VI. No. x, p. 485,
Oct., 1854.

100. The measure worm (Geometra niveosericeai'ia) . Hov. Mag. Hort.,
Vol. XXI, pp. 418-423 (wood cut), Sept., 1855.

101. Rose bug (Macrodactylus subspinosus). Bost. Cult., Vol. XVII, No.
XXXVI, p. 283, Sept. 8, 1855.

102. Observations on the transformations of the Cecidomyise (posthu-
mous). Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist., Vol. VII, pp. 179-183.

103. On Cicindela Hentzii (posthumous). Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist.,
Vol. VII, pp. 185-189.

104. On the synonymy of three North American butterflies (Danais
Berenice Cramer, Danais Erippus Cramer and Limenitis Misippus Fabr.)
(posthumous). Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist., Vol. VII, pp. 189-190.

105. Description of Hoplocampa rubi (posthumous). Proc. Bost. Soc.
Nat. Hist., Vol. VII, pp. 235-236.

106. The Entomological Correspondence of Thaddcus William Harris,
edited by Samuel H. Scudder. Occ. Papers Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist., I (with
a portrait, four steel plates and fifty-four wood cuts). 8vo. pp. xlvii, 375.
Boston, 1869.

107. Description of a nondescript species of the genus Condylura (C.
prasinata). Bost. Journ. Phil, and Arts, Vol. II, No. vi, pp. 580-583,
1825.

108. Free Martins ; in a letter from Hon. John Welles. Bost. Med. and
Surg. Journ., Vol III, No. xv, pp. 239-240, May 25, 1830.

(a) Reproduced in N. Engl. Farm., Vol. IX, No. viii, pp. 61-62,
Sept. 10, 1830.

xlvi LIST OF WRITINGS.

109. List of native plants discovered growing near Boston, the present
season; in a letter read before the Massachusetts Horticultural Society.
Hov. Mag. Ilort., Vol. VI, No. vii, pp. 245-247, July, 1840.

110. Custard squash. N. Engl. Farm., n. s., Vol. Ill, No. iv, p. 59
(woodcut), Feb. 15, 1851.

HI. Acorn squash. N. Engl. Farm., n. s.. Vol. Ill, No. xxiii, pp. 366-
367, Nov. 8, 1851.

112. Pumpkins, Squashes. N. Engl. Farm., n. s., Vol. IV, No. ii, pp.
58-59, Feb., 1852.

113. The late Dr. Holbrook. Bost. Med. and Surg. Joum., Vol. XXVI,
No. XXIII, pp. 358-360, July 13, 1842.

114. Notes on the Josselyn Family, of Massachusetts. N. Engl. Hist,
and Gen. Reg., Vol. II, No. iii, pp. 306-310, July, 1848.

PERIODICAL WORKS REFERRED TO IN THE PREVIOUS LIST.

1. Massachusetts Agricultural Repository and Journal, Vols. VII, X.
8vo. Boston, 1823, 1827.

2. New England Farmer. Vols. I, IV-IX, XI, XIII, XIX-XXIII. 4to.
Boston, 1823, 1826-30, 1833, 1835, 1841-1844. Ditto, n. s., Vols. H-VI.
8vo. Boston, 1850-1854.

3. Boston Journal of Philosophy and the Arts. Vols. I, II. 8vo. Boston,
1824-1825.

4. New England Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and collateral branches
of Science. Vol. XIII. 8vo. Boston, 1824.

5. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Vol.
V. 8vo. Philadelphia, 1827.

6. New England Historical and Genealogical Register. Vol. II. 8vo.
Boston, 1848.

7. Boston Journal of Natural History. Vols. I, II, IV. 8vo. Boston,

1835, 1839, 1844.

8. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History. Vols. I, IV,

VII. 8vo. Boston, 1843, 1854, 1860.

9. Horticultural Register and Gardenei*'s Magazine. Vol. I. 8vo. Bos-
ton, 1835.

10. Transactions of the Natural History Society of Hartford. No. I.
8vo. Hartford, Conn., 1836.

11. Yankee Farmer. Vol. V. 8vo. Boston, 1839.

LIST OF WRITINGS. xlvii

12. Journal of the Essex County Natural History Society. Vol. I.
8vo. Salem, Mass., 188!).

13. American Journal of Science and Arts. Vol. XXXVI. Svo. New
Haven, 1839.

14. Newman's Entomologist. Svo. London, 1841.

15. Massachusetts Ploughman. Vols. I-III, VH, X. Folio. Boston,
J842-1844, 1848, 1850, 1851.

16. Hovey's Magazine of Horticulture. Vols. VI, VIII, X, XXI. Svo.
Boston, 1840, 1842, 1844, 1855.

17. Farmer's Cabinet. Vols. VIII, XI, XVII. Svo. Philadelphia, 1844,
184G, 1851.

18. Boston Cultivator. Vols. IX-XI, XIII, XVII. Folio. Boston,
1847-1849, 1851, 1855.

19. Downing's Horticulturalist. Vols. II, III, VI, VIII. Svo. New
York, 184S, 1851, 1853.

20. Prairie Farmer. Vols. VIII, X. Svo. Chicago, 1848, 1S50.

21. Boston INIedical and Surgical Journal. Vols. Ill, XXVI. Svo. Bos-
ton, 1830, 1842.

22. New Orleans Picayune. Jan., 1850.

23. Salem Observer. Vol. XXIX. Folio. Salem, Mass., 1851. '

24. The Journal of Agriculture. Vols. I, III. Svo. Boston, 1851, 1853.

25. Albany Cultivator. Vol. VIII. Svo. Albany, 1851,

26. Family Visitor. Vol. II. Folio. Cleveland, Ohio, 1852.

27. Cambridge Chronicle. Vol. VIII. Folio. Cambridge, 1853.

28. Proceedings of the third session of the American Pomological Society
at their fifth meeting held in Boston. Svo. Boston, 1854.

29. Annals of Science. Vol. II. Svo. Cleveland, Ohio, 1854.

30. Journal of the United States Agricultural Society for 1854. Svo.
Boston, 1855.

31. Transactions of the New York State Agricultural Society. Vol.
XIII. Svo. Albany, 1854.

CORRESPONDENCE

BETWEEN

THADDEUS WILLIAM HARRIS

AND

NICHOLAS MAECELLUS HENTZ.

COERESPONDENCE.

HARRIS TO HENTZ.

Milton, August 19, 1824.

This v/ill announce to you the entire failure in the pubhca-
tion of the late Professor Peck's Lectures, and I regret also
that the time which you have devoted towards that object is
to be lost.

I have met with but a few spiders ; none perhaps on inspec-
tion will appear new to you. One very large species, which
forms a web on bushes, must be a formidable enemy to the
winged creation. It is velvety black, with six spots of light
yellow on the abdomen ; eyes eight, in two double rows which
curve backwards ; mandibles strong, hairy and toothed beneath
and terminated with a short, crooked claw ; fourth pair of feet
the longest ; third pair shortest ; first and second pairs nearly
equal ; legs with a few scattered bristly hairs ; maxillae and lip
obtuse, and very hairy. The sketch I have added may perhaps
bring the species to your recollection if you have ever seen
it ; it is exactly of the natural size. I would observe that the
two largest eyes are not round, but irregular, and, at first

view, I thought they were geminated. If it is new to you, I
shall present it to you on the first opportunity.

Fig. 1.

I would take the Hberty to request of you to lend me your
volumes of Schonherr, or any other work on Entomology which
you think would assist me in making out the genera and spe-
cies of insects, if you are not about to make use of them during
the ensuing vacation ; be assured that they will be used with
care and returned safely to you. Since the publication of Prof.
Peck's lectures has been given up, I have had some thoughts
of devoting a portion of my leisure to describing the insects in
this vicinity, and though I feel incompetent to the task, still I
would undertake it, unless I find it likely to be undertaken by
some one else ; any assistance you could afford me would be
gratefully received and duly acknowledged.

1 See also the letter of Sept. 4, 1828 (Harris to Hentz).

HAERIS TO HENTZ.

Milton, May 16, 1825.

I have devoted some of my leisure to determining the species
of my collection, about eight hundred in number. I have been
most sure of foot in Coleoptera, having ascertained the names
of two hundred species ; and about one hundred and fifty still
remai'n unknown to me. I expect to be able to affix the spe-
cific names to these with the assistance of Mr. Say, and for
this purpose am about making a case to contain the unde-
termined species of all orders remaining in my collection.
These I shall send by water to Philadelphia for the examina-
tion of Mr. Say, after which they will be returned to me by
the same conveyance. I am under the necessity of resorting to
this method because I have so few duplicates, and so many of
the most interesting species are unique. If you are disposed
to cooperate with me in this undertaking and will entrust to
my care one individual of each species that you have, I will
return to you such of them as I have determined, with the
names affixed, and will unite the remaining undetermined spe-
cies with mine to be restored, if desirable, as soon as they shall
have undergone investigation by Mr. Say and myself. I will
confide to you that my principal object (after having become
acquainted with the specific names and characters of these
insects) is to prepare something like a Faunula Insectorum Bos-
toniensis. This I would not attempt from any confidence in
my own ability of doing justice to the task, but from a convic-
tion that such a work might be useful, and would supply the
young entomologist with a cheap and concise account of the
species which are common to this vicinity, without obliging
him to have recourse to many voluminous, expensive and rare
works.

To accomplish this thoroughly, I must request the assistance
of such of my friends as have made entomology a pursuit, so
far at least as to ascertain what species may have been observed
here.

HARRIS TO HENTZ.

November 28, 1825.

Your letter afforded me great satisfaction, and the box "which
was received soon afterward furnished me with another proof
of your kind remembrance.

I have carefully examined the insects you sent me, several
of which have not occurred in this place, and Avhich, therefore,
are very interesting to me ; particularly jour two species of
Chremastoclieilus ; one of Avhich, as I before observed to you, is
assviredly the C, castanece of Knoch (not castaneus, as it is fre-
quently written) ; the other, I am inclined to think with you,
is a distinct species. It would be worth while to distinguish
the sexes of these species, which would probably be determined
by an examination of the antennae ; the laminas of the club are
longer and larger in the males of most Scarabcei. Your new
species you have named lyiger^ I suppose from its dull and slug-
gish habits. I wish you would furnish an account of these two
species for the Boston Journal of Philosophy, with reference to
the authors who have described the castanece. Some remarks on
this insect are to be found in Latreillc's Avork, which makes a
part of Sonnini's Buifon ; and also in Cuvier's Regno Animal.
Saperda canadensis Oliv., is new to me, as is also the insect you
have marked Rhynchceniis pj'ohoscldeus ; but which cannot be
the prohoscidcus of Fabricius, his insect having the rostrum
twice the lenrjth of the hodij ; it seems nearer allied to H. nucum
Fabr. Your larece Prionus is certainly the hrevicornis of Fabri-
cius ; it is a female. The smaller one is a male, and probably
of the same species. I have four females which vary in size,
the smallest being not much larger than the male you sent me,
wliich is the only one I have seen. Of Ilelops micans I for-
tunately obtained last summer an individual (though inferior to
yours in beauty) in the tan or debris beneath the bark of a
decayed tree, where also I discovered two specimens of the
]ar«;e smooth Tenebrio. Of this latter insect I could lind no

description, and therefore send you the name I had attached to
my specimen, which is Tenehrio glaher, from its smoothness, in
which it differs from all others I have as yet seen. It may be
amono; those mentioned in Melsheimer's Catalogue, and until
this can be ascertained the name is given only provisionally.
This remark applies also to the name of the Ceramhyx, allied
to tornator, of which I found one small specimen on the
Asdepias syriacea. It stands in my cabinet as Stenocdrus
ohliquans, from the oblique or rhomboid fascia on the elytra;
it may perhaps be Lamia M-nigra of Melsheimer. The un-
armed Ontliopliagus ( Copris) I have always taken to be the
female of latehrosus. Individuals of the male sex vary consid-
erably in the size and projection of the thoracic protuberance.

HENTZ TO HARRIS.

Northampton, Dec. 4, 1825.

In the Chremastocheilus I have observed no material differ-
ence in regard to the antennas, but the sex you can ascertain
by softening the abdomen in warm water. If you are inclined
to publish an account of these two very distinct species, you
are fully authorized by me to make use of my communication
to you, as well as any other remark I may have made on other
subjects. The reason why I called the larger species piger is
this : the first specimen I found (alive and in perfect health) I
observed on dried leaves moving with swiftness and likely to
escape me, but when I came near, I perceived that it was not
by means of its own powers that it travelled at such a rate, but
that it had taken a new mode of performing its journey,
namely, the legs of a little ant, that dragged it peaceably and
unopposed by one of its hind legs, an admirable coursier, and
an unheard of method of travelling with speed among insects.
I never found one actually walking by its own impulses.

8

Rliynchcenus proboseideus, I am still inclined to. think is
the prohoscideus of Fabricius, as the length of the proboscis and
the color of the body vary in every specimen which I have
observed. The proboscis of one was at least longer than the
body; but that method of giving the measure of insects I
find very incorrect in most authors, and liable to deceive
the student.

Pelecinus polycerator is common among us. I have usually
found it on the oak trees, flying slowly, and easily caught ;
its turns its abdomen like a wasp, or an ichneumon, appar-
ently striving to sting the hand that holds it. 3Iidas filata is
not very rare, but caught with difficulty.

HENTZ TO HARRIS.

Northampton, Jan. 1, 1826.

I have taken pains to dissect two specimens of Chremas-
tocheilus ; this is the result. The different parts of the mouth
do not materially differ in shape ; but in the smallest spe-
cies, 0. castmicus, I could not see any trace of the labium
(upper lip), whilst in 0. p>iger that part is quite large.
Thinkino; that I mioht have lost or left unobserved the labium
In the first dissection, I took another insect of the same species,
the last but one in my cabinet, and became convinced that that
part was certainly wanting in C. castaneus. I sent a draw-
ing of both species to Mr. Say, Avith descriptions, more than
three months ago, and thought my letter might not have
reached him ; but some days ago I received an obliging answer
to my various questions. He thinks both species are new, as
both diffc'r from the description of 0. castaneus ; that I can-
not decide, for all the knowledge I have of that species is de-
rived from a very short description by Latrcillc (in the Hist,
des Crust, et dcs Ins.) which describes it as being tout noir,
and refers to Knoch, but I have not the work of that naturalist.

9

Mr. Say proposes to me to publish those two msects, but he is
now gone to the West, and may not return for some time, so
that I would advise you to do it yourself if you are inclined.

Of Vanessa C-alhum I have not sufficient recollection to
assist you; but would rather be inclined to think that the
American butterfly is a distinct species. Several insects which
would have appeared to me to be the same as the European,
before examination, proved to be quite distinct when compared
carefully.

Cicindela sexguttata I have freqviently observed, and have
many accidental varieties. The color varies from a deep blue
to a bright green. I have several with the additional spot
which you mention ; but if you examine your specimens with
care you will, I think, discern that mark, or a faint trace, in
most of them.

I have Garahus sihosus, which I recognized by your de-
scription, and named it thus in my cabinet ; but I have a
beautiful Calosoma closely allied to C silvosus, in shape and
color; it is, however, much smaller, and has no violet mar-
ghi ; I have reasons to think that species very rare, and
possibly not described. (Is it Calosoma ohsoleta Say ? Journ.
p. 149. T. w. H.) Oh ! why must we live at such a distance
from each other ? What pleasures we might enjoy together.
I feel the want of books still more than you do. You have
access to libraries, and can consult Olivier's valuable work.

Omophron lahiatum is quite common here in May.

HARRIS TO HENTZ.

Milton, Feb. 6, 1826.

So long a time had elapsed since my last letter without my
having heard from you, that I had made some examination of
the mouth of Chremastocheilus in order to enable me to com-
plete the paper which I had drawn up. [PI. iv, figs. T'^-T''.]

10

This paper was sent to the publishers of the Boston Journal of
Philosophy before I had received your letter, and is now prob-
ably in press. ^ As to the labium supcrius or lahrum of these
insects, I was contented with the observation of Latreille
(Hist, des Crust, et des Ins., Vol. 3, p. 153). He observes that
the '•'•upper lip is concealed, corneous according to Knoch,
probably membranous." Knowing this, I made no search for
it. But it is the form of the mentum which takes the place of
the labium infcrius or labium, that particularly interested me.
This part appears on examination to have a semicircular notch
in the edge, which divides it into two lobes, and the lobes them-
selves are ciliated. Have you observed this character? I
think I can hardly be deceived, and should like to know
whether this circumstance was as evident to you as to me.
The publishers have agreed to furnish an engraving of these
and some other insects which I have described for the number
to appear in April, when I shall gladly give you credit for the
observations you have made of the parts of the mouth, and
have only to regret that I cannot avail myself of them in the
present number. The insects which I am about to describe
are the two goliath species of Trichius, and one or two Ceto-
nia, genera closely allied to Chremastocheilus. Descriptions of
T. eremicola and seaher and Cctonia harhata are ready, and I
shovdd' like to obtain one other native Cetonia that has not
already been figured, to complete the paper. I found two
specimens of C. fulgida last summer, and you gave me C.
nitida ; but both have been described by Olivier. I have one
other, which I sent to Mr. Say, and he named it C. vestita ;
but it is of doubtful origin, and may have been introduced from
Europe. If you have any other native species than the four
named above, I should be very glad to borrow it for the pur-
pose of giving a figure or description in the Ajiril number of
the Journal.

• [This paper did not appear in the Boston Journal of Pliilosophy, but was after-
wards sent to the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia and published in the
fifth volume of their Journal.]

11

You ask me where I found the description of Triehius eremi-
cola. That name occurs in Melsheimer's catalogue, and I was
led to suspect its identity from the supposition that the name
was giA^en it because of some similarity which it might bear to
T. eremita of Europe. 1 afterwards found it described by Mr.
Say in Vol. Ill, p. 240 of the Journal of the Academy of Nat-
ural Sciences. T. scaler is described by M. Palisot de Beauvois
in his mao;nificent work, which we have in the Colleo-e Li-
brary. Do you recollect the potent smell of this insect, and
do both species exhale an equally powerful odor ?

This winter has been to me a most propitious time for the
study of entomology, about which I have employed myself in
good earnest. The Papilionidoi have occupied me some time ;
and I have discovered excellent generic characters in the ner-
vures of the wings.

Have you ever seen a Rhagium? In January I obtained
from beneath the bark of a tree nearly twenty males and
females of R. lineatum Olivier. It was the first time I had
ever found a specimen of the genus, and you can conceive the
pleasure it afforded me. In the same month I also found
numerous specimens of a species of Polyxenus.

I/ytta (or more properly, Cantliaris^ cenea I have never
seen. Mr. Say observes that it is rare. I cannot but regret
that Mr. Say should have adopted the name of Lytta on the
authority of Fabricius and Dejean alone, when the name Can-
iharis is sanctioned by commercial usao;e and the authorities of
Geoffroy^ DeGeer, Olivier, Lamarck, Latreille, Dumeril and
Leach. The same vicious nomenclature occurs in his use of
the name Cantliaris (with Linnaeus and Fabricius) instead
of Telepliorus, which latter is adopted by Schaffer, DeGeer,
Lamarck, Latreille, Olivier, Dumeril and Leach.

12

HENTZ TO HARRIS.

Northampton, Feb. 19, 1826.

I am glad that you will publish an account of the ChremastO'
cheili and Ceto?iice. Let me make one remark on the C. harhata
of Mr. Say. Before I had read his description I had marked
it C. Inda, the Trichius Inodus of Fabr., who remarks in his
first book on Entomology that the insect is probably a Cetonia.
It is marked as inhabiting India, but there are many errors to
be found in the account of the residence of insects in Fabri-
oius ; for instance, in that of the Melolontlia lanigera. It may
then be an error, and the description is exact in Fabricius. I
even think that Olivier's plate corresponds with the insect.
You know it is extremely common in the North and South, and
must have been early sent to European collections ; in a word,
I still think Mr. Say may have given a new name to an insect
described before him, which I also fear he has done in Silpha
lapponica^ and this is more likely, since many species of that
genus and Necroplwrus are common to both continents.

T have no Cetonice to offer you ; but of the genus Trichius I
have the hibens of Pennsylvania, and a very beautiful insect
probably belonging to that genus, of which I have but one
specimen ; it is certainly not described by Fabricius, though it
may be the Trichius ca^mcinus of Melsheimer, as its color is
that of our capiieinus, namely, a chestnut color ; the thorax,
scutel, body and abdomen are covered with yellowish or ferru-
ginous hair. Its elytra, shorter than the abdomen, are also
narrower towards the end, and being separated naturally, do
not form a regular suture. Do you know this insect ?

Your discovery for the classification of Lepidoptera by the
nervures of the wings, as Jurinc has done for Hymenoptera,
must be of high importance in a class which naturally requires
more divisions ; you may believe that I shall be happy to learn
your method, when you have leisure to explain it to me.

13

When do you think your Faunula will be prepared for the
press? I am very anxious to have the use of it. I trust
you will have plates. Can. you obtain the lithographic stone ?
If you can, you might have your own drawings printed in
Boston, by a man, who, I see by the papers, has just estab-
lished himself there for that purpose.

HARRIS TO HENTZ.

April 8, 1826.

Your last letter received February 23d, is before me, and has
afforded me a subject of some useful study and reflection.
But before replying to its contents, I will recur to your pre-
vious communication in which, on a review of its contents, I
regret to find a query unanswered by me. You remark that
the insect marked by me, Ips fasciata, does not correspond with
the Fabrician description. This is true ; for Fabricius does
not appear to have known our insect. It is, however, correctly
figured and described by Olivier as Nitidula fasciata, and is
also described by Latreille under the same name. The genus
Ips is now restricted to a few Fabrician species allied to the
quadripustulatus of Europe, and some others, of which two or
three are natives of this State. Among these Ips sanguinolen-
tus (^Nitidula sanguinolenta Oliv., Latr.) most nearly ap-
proaches fasciata in size and figure. The head and thorax
are black, the elytra reddish, each with a central black dot,
and black tip. Ips quadriguttata ? Fabr. (Nitidula quadrigut-
tata Olivier) most nearly resembles fasciata in markings,
but is much smaller, being only between two and three twen-
tieths of an inch in length. Our Ips fasciata might at first
be easily taken for a miniature representation of two noble
native species of the genus Ungis, to which genus Ips is closely
allied. One is Engis fasciata, the other, a still larger species,

14

is Engis heros of Say, whose description is very accurate.
These are probably the largest of the genus.

Having now endeavored to atone for my past omission, I
take up your last letter. Cetonia larhata does not agree Avith
Olivier's description and figure of Tricliius Inda Fabr., and
although I have made the comparison, not having the volume
at hand, I cannot point out the peculiarities of the two species,
but think they differ most in the form of the thorax.

The brief description and slight sketch of a species which
you think may probably belong to the genus Tricliius^ has con-
siderably interested me, and at the same time has led me
to believe that it belongs to none of Latreille's new genera,
separated from 3Ielolontlia Fabr., and more closely allied to
TricMus. No species I have ever seen agrees with your de-
scription, nor indeed did I know that any species of the genera
in question were natives of this country. The genera to which
I allude are Glaphyrus^ Amphicoma and Anisonyx. An exam-
ination of the nails, with a description of the genera, will prob-
ably determine your doubts.

Although I have already taxed your patience so long about
examination of the nails, permit me to make another remark
now brought to my recollection ; viz.,- there is an extremely
natural section of the genus Elater^ distinguished by having
pectinated nails, and also easily recognized by the broadness of
the thorax and elytra at base, and the attenuation of the elytra
behind. This character has not, to my knowledge, been de-
scribed by any entomological writer ; the section or subgenus,
has perhaps as much claim to be considered a distinct genus as
Lehia Latr. and Bonelli (a genus separated from Carabus'),
which is also distinguished by pectinated nails.

In the Boston Collection I find your ChrcinastocJicilus jjigcr,
and Dr. Pickering possesses the other, which he obtained on
Lynn beach. The dimensions of these insects vary. Will you
send me accurate measurements of the largest and smallest
of each of your species ; I should be glad to know them.

15

HENTZ TO HARRIS.

Northampton, April 23, 1826.

I thank you for the information about Ips fasciata ', it is not
the first error detected in Fabricius.

My doubts about Cetonia harlata are removed ; I knew that
OHvier had described it, and that you could inform me of the
truth. I have examined the insect which I had called TricMus
vuljnnus too hastily, and though I have not dissected it, having
but one specimen, I am convinced that it cannot belong to the
genus TricMus since the labrum is prominent, nor to Glaphy-
rus of Latreille, as the club of the antenna has its lamellas dis-
engaged. It belongs, therefore, to Amphicoma, as you thought,
if on dissectino; it we find it to have corneous mandibles. The
characters of Anisonyx do not agree with it, the labrum being
very prominent. RojMa trifasciata I have called 3Ielolontlia
variabilis Fabr. or Hqplia variabilis, as it certainly belongs to
that subgenus if adopted. That insect agrees with the phrase of
Fabricius, varietas americana tomento aureo tecta, and the name
variabilis also agrees with it, as you hardly ever find two speci-
mens with the same colors or markings ; it varies from piceous
or black to bright testaceous or rufous. The fasciae are quite
obsolete or wanting in some, and very distinct in others. I
may be mistaken, but your remarks will solve my doubts.
I have three specimens, of which one is still at your service.
How is it that the MelolontJia polyphaga of Melsheimer, which
forms the type of your subgenus Stenothorax, is called sub-
spinosa by Fabr., and angustata by Beauv. ? Has the name
been changed, or was Melsheimer mistaken ?

Your subgenus Stilbopttera seems strongly marked and useful
in a genus which has still so many species. Of the subgenus
Dichelonyx I cannot judge, not having the insect with which
you form its type. Your subgenus vii, without a name affixed,
having the M. lanigera for its type, is also strongly marked ;

16

but, having only one species for it, as well as for yoni* Steno-
tliorax, will it sert'e the science as much as your other divisions ?
The great defect of the system of the Father of Natural
History was that it had often too many species in the same
genus ; it became necessary to make more divisions, but some
authors fell into the opposite defect, creating a confusion with
an intention to simplify. Now the genus 3IeloIo7itha, a division
of Linnaeus' enormous genus Scarabeus, is still too large, and I
conceive your divisions will be highly useful, when you can
comprehend in them a certain number of insects. Should you
find more species for your seventh subgenus I should think it
an excellent one ; and I doubt not your being able to do so,
and, moreover, your adding new divisions as you study the
minute parts of the insects of that genus and otheirs ; for I do
not doubt that every species is possessed of some mark in its
formation, which, independent of its colors, could distinguish it
fi"om the rest ; the object is to find such a mark, not common
to the whole genus, occm'ring in a sufficient number of species
to permit us to separate them into a limited division, which
may be easily run over by the student.

Your proposed division of the genus Elater is very necessary ;
and I hope you will make it. Should you find a similar one
for the genus Buprestis you would much improve the science.

I subjoin the dimensions of the elytra of the Chremastochei-
lus, measuring its length from its apex at the suture to its union
with the thorax near the scutel. As the thorax, or the head,
is more or less bent, the measurement might be more incorrect
if I took the whole insect, than if I gave you the length of
the elytra.

: C. piger. Largest, nearly ^ in. ; smallest, a httle more than

C, eastanca. Largest, a little more than -^ in.; smallest,
fdlly -j^^ in. This species varies less in size than C. piger.

17

I do not remember having perceived any odor in the Trichkis
eremicola, but in the other it is constant. You may remember
my having discovered one with you in a cherry tree in Dr.
H.'s garden, merely by the odor diffiised in the air. Both are
found in great abundance on the chestnut trees of Round Hill.
The largest T. eremicola when taken emits from its abdo-
men a milky fluid, which may have a smell, but I did not
perceive it..

By the way, I have a new species of Malachius allied to the
quadrimaculatus which I have described and named after you.
That, and the description of two or three other insects, I mean
to send to the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

HARRIS TO HENTZ.

Milton, June 20, 1 826.

I have been looking in the office every morning these four
weeks for a letter from you, from which I should learn the re^
suit of your application for an appointment in Carolina.

I have not dissected your Trichius vulpinus, but am satisfied
the insect is referable to the genus AmjyJiicoma. Around
Sweet Auburn, Cambridge, I spent several hours, and found
many interesting insects, among them 3Ielolontlia sordida of
Say. Another Melolo7itlia^ probably Im'ticida, being uniformly
covered with hairs, and therefore distinct from hirsuta, which
has the hairs disposed in lines, and from halia (the one
I found on Round Hill) which has a transverse band of hairs
between the eyes. These species are about the size of, and
nearly allied to, our common species, quereina, and I pro^
pose to associate them with i^d^osicollis^ longitarsa^ etc., under
the name of Phyllophaga, reserving that of 3Ielolontlia for those
species which have seven laminse to the clavola. ]^ forget
whether you have the M. moesta of Say belonging to the genus

OCCAS. PAPERS B. S. N. H. — I. 2

18

AiJogonia of Kirby. Having found two specimens this spring,
I can send you one if desirable. I have not yet met with M.
halia here ; the one found near Round Hill is the only spec-
imen I have seen, and unfortunately that was imperfect.

At Cambridge I found Malacliius quadi'imaculatus, on the
flowers of Chrysanthemum leucantJiemum, but, though females
occurred in abundance, I obtained but two males, distinguished
by the singularly enlarged joints near the base of the antennae;
they confirmed the observation I had before made that the an-
terior tarsus of this sex has 'but four joints, whereas the inter-
mediate and posterior tarsi as well as all those of the female
have five joints to each ; it was this circumstance that per-
plexed me in ascertaining the genus when my first specimen
(which was a male) was discovered.

In the course of the next winter I propose revising and
publishing my subgenera of the genus 3Ielolontha, and any
observations or new species you could send me would be very
acceptable. It appears to me that Trichius eremicola^ scaber^
and the European eremita, should constitute a new genus,
or at least a subgenus. These species are distinguished by the
want of a hairy covering, and by having three teeth on each
of the tibi;e, whereas in other Triehii there are but two, and
the body is more or less hairy. Other diagnostic characters
might be pointed out, but these are the most obvious. One
important difference exists in their habits. The species in ques-
tion are active only in the night, never found, like other Triehii^
feeding (as the bees, which they often resemble, do) on the
pollen and nectar of flowers during the brightness of the day,
but secreting themselves in dark recesses, whence they emerge
at night and fly abroad, ]irobably to feed, like the 3Ielolonthidce
and Lucanidce, on the leaves of trees.

I had almost forgotten to urge you to visit Goshen, taking in
comj)any the lad who found the two specimens of Amphieoma^
and solely for the purpose of finding duplicates of this most
interesting insect. To Europeans it Avould be worth a journey

19

of twenty miles, or even more, if certain of obtaining a speci-
men, and I think Mr. Say would be willing to walk that
distance for the sake of finding one.

HENTZ TO HARRIS.

Northampton, July 30tli, 1826.

Mourn no longer for the solitude or singleness of your Aon-
phicoma vulpina ; J have found another, which, though rather
darker in color, is a perfect specimen, and has its posterior
tarsi. Those tarsi are like the rest, entire, equal, slightly
toothed at their base. You shall see it when I go to Milton,
along with a number of very interesting insects, among which
you will see with pleasure two new species of Meloloyitha (new
to me I mean) ; both are larger, or as long, at least, as any
other American species ; one is closely analogous to the M. fullo
of Europe ; do you know it ? The other is covered with very
close hairs over the elytra and thorax, and resembles no species
which I know. I believe, with you, that the Trichius eremicola
and scaher ought to form a new division ; they differ in every
respect from that genus.

I thank you for the characters of the genus 3Ialachius given
me by you. I think I will figure them all, as the male of the
M. quadrimacidatus differs so much from the female. I have
found two males this season, and observed the difference in the
tarsi. I have another species of that genus which seems to be
new also. If so, I shall have quite a paper upon that genus and
the Antliicus. I have found one more specimen of my Anthi-
cus ancliora. Will you think of looking for that spider which
you found on trees near the water ? Observations on that
subject would be highly valuable. It would be quite anoma-
lous for that species to spin any web and abide on trees ; as
much so as for a Cicindela to feed on the nectar of flowers.

20

HARRIS TO HENTZ.

MiLTOx, Oct. 14, 1826.

Your favor of the 8th inst. was very acceptable. As to the
ncAv insects I sent you, I sliould be happy to have you describe
them, particularly the Cicindelas, both those species and vari-
eties named varians, and the other labelled eri/thror/aste)- ; as
you have permitted me to describe the Chremastocheilus, it will
be no more than a " fair exchange,'" which you know " is no
robbery." Indeed I shall be gratified if you will do it in your
own name, merely indicating the place where, and person by
whom communicated. On looking; over Schonhcrr's Svno-
nyms, I find the name Cicindela varians jDreoccupicd. Schon-
herr places the name varians next to sexguttata. It is barely
possible my insect may be the same, although it is not prob-
able, and therefore I think you may pretty safely describe it as
a new species, rejecting, however, the name varians, for which
denticulata, variata, or mutans may be substituted. As you
may not have time to compare this species with the sexguttata,
I will endeavor to give you the result of my diagnosis. The
other beautiful but small Cicindela has not a very appropriate
name, and I should wish it changed for two reasons. First ;
it is a compound Greek term, and therefore not so strictly
proper for a specific appellation, which, according to the best
received rules now in vogue, should be in Latin. This rule,
however, has not been mvicli regarded. Second ; the inferior
is called veoitcr, to which the Greek yaffrr^p does not strictly
apply. Hcemorrlioidalis is a better name, but perhaps you may
select one more appropriate. I have given it the following
characters in my notes.

C. (licemorrhoidaUii) brownish obscure ; elytra witli a hu-
meral and terminal lunule, an intermediate sigmoid band, and
two dots behind the band, white. Abdomen and thigh green,
tail sanguineous. Leno;th half an inch. Milton, Mass. «

21

Description. Antennae green at base. Head cupreous, with
two green abbreviated lines between the eyes ; mandibles white
at base, black at the points ; lip white, with a single tooth.
Thorax cupreous obscure, with the margin and breast
green. Elytra obscure, somewhat cupreous, lunules and spots
greenish white. Abdomen green, terminal segments sanguin-
eous. Thighs green, but obscure. I think it would be well to
mention the occurrence of C. formosa of Say in Cambridge,
Mass., first described from specimens brought by Mr. Nuttall
from the Missouri above the Platte River. Also, that in the
vicinity of Boston has been found Clytus speciosus, described
by Mr. Say in Long's Expedition, as discovered on the banks
of Wisconsin River, Prairie du Cliien.

HARRIS TO HENTZ.

January 19, 1827.

From Dr. Pickering I learn that there is a great deficiency
in material for the Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences
of Philadelphia, and having been chosen a correspondent I have
sent on descriptions of our Chremastocheili. I have taken the
liberty of giving your name to the species you denominated
piger, and that of &'ai/i to the small one. Of this latter I made
a good sketch of natural size, but neglected taking an enlarged
drawing of it. My friend Pickering thinks that it would
appear better to be represented enlarged to about thirteen-
twentieths of an inch in length, and advises me to request you
to ma]\e a drawing of that dimension. If you can send me one
soon after the receipt of this letter, it will be forwarded with
mine, and these three species will then appear on the same
plate with the four insects which you described when in Phila-
delphia.

If you could assist the publishers of the Journal in this

22

emergency by accounts of any of our undescribed objects of
natural history, you will do them a thankful service, and they
will furnish engravings for such drawings as you may send. I
would suggest to you that among yoiu* insects are several
which appear to be new, such as two species of Cicindela,
two species of Serapfia, and one each of Thymalus and Phry-
ganea. Two large species of Melolontha may possibly also be
new, though I think it likely that one may prove to be occi-
dentalis ; it certainly is not decemlineata of Say as I once
supposed. To this list you may probably add several more,
or perhaps give a paper on our spiders.

If your avocations are such as to compel you to decline giv-
ing a necessary description of the above mentioned insects, I
would be glad to add the two Cichulelce and two Melolonthce to
a paper which I am now preparing. Of the Melolonthce I
made drawings and took full descriptions, while they were
lodged in my hands for examination. In making this proposi-
tion I am actuated by an esprit du corjys, a desire to uphold an
institution which is in want of support.

HENTZ TO HARRIS.

CiiAPEL Hill, N. C, Jan. 21, 1827.

Are you acquainted with Lamia amputator? Under almost
every hickory tree here we find a vast number of twigs
about the size of the little finger, which that insect has sawed
fi'om the tree, having inserted half a dozen or more of its eggs
under the bark. The number must be prodigious ; they injure
these trees very much. The insect, I am told, has been de-
scribed in the Linnean Transactions.

23

HARRIS TO HENTZ.

MiLTOX, March 10, 1827.

The only living insect I have seen since November was a
minute Tipula, which is just appearing, and occasionally a lazy
fly, roused from its winter's sleep by the sun and the heat of
our apartments. Neither with Lamia amputator nor Stenoco-
rus garganicus am I acquainted. We have, however, a small
insect (^Stenocorus putator Peck) which you have in your col-
lection., and which is well known here as injurious to the oak,
by pruning its branches. You may have an opportunity of
ascertaining whether your insects proceed in the same manner.
The female of S. p^itator deposits an egg on the limb, the grub
penetrates to the pith, which it perforates to some extent, and
when it has attained its growth it eats off all the woody parts
of the branch at one point, leaves the bark only to support it,
retires beyond the point of division, closes its aperture with
castings of the wood, and remains at rest awaiting the
winds of winter to bring it, with the amputated limb, to the
ground; it then assumes the pupa state, and in spring emerges
from the branch, and in its perfect state. Many undoubtedly
perish from the violence of the concussion produced by this
fall, but many still survive, to commence the work of destruc-
tion anew. The severed limbs, which are strewn in abund-
ance on the ground, exhibit an appearance of having been
removed by a saw, so regular is the point of separation ; and
by splitting these fallen branches at different times, the insect is
observed in its various stages of larva, pupa, and imago.

For your beautiful drawings of the Chremastocheili I give
you my best thanks ; they will appear with a note on the species
in the first number of the, next volume. [They are published
now for the first time. PL iv., figs. 4-6.] I examined the
mouth of another specimen of C Mentzii, which I obtained
from Fenton's collections, and find the upper lip Qahrum)

/

24

very distinct. The figures of the trophi were from this speci-
men, and I trust will prove to be exact. [PI. iv, fig. 7.]

I have lately received an interesting letter from Mr. Kirby,
in which he makes some remarks on the species of Chremasto-
cheilus. Some time since I wrote to him for Mrs. Peck, and
sent to him, as I have before informed you, a specimen of the
ChremastocJieilus which we supposed to be the castanece. He
says that he has seen the true O. castanece^ which, according to
figure and description of Knoch, has the thorax broadest be-
hind, and that the specimen sent him must therefore be dis-
tinct. It is a matter of reo-ret to me that this information was
received too late to alloAV me to make use of it in mv account
of the species : but it will be communicated in a note accom-
panying the plate. Mr. Kirby further says that he has two
other species, which he names; one, C. canaliculatus, is from
Berkshire Co., Mass., and is the largest; the other is the
smallest of the three, and is from Georgia; neither have been
described. Mr. Kirby has subdivided the genus Trichius
thus: — T. fasciatus is the type of Trichius; T. hemiptcrus of
Acantliarus ; T. eremita, eremicola, etc., of Gymnodus, and T,
marginatus of Campapus.

IIENTZ TO HARRIS.

CiiAPKL IIiLi., March 25, 1827.

I cannot as yet give you a full account of Stenocorus gargan-
icus^ of which, however, I have already a great number of
specimens. The first found were discovered near the centre of
a hickory h>g, in which they had made long galleries in the
direction of the fibres. Those foupd lately in numbers flying
near night are much larger, which circumstance would imply
the possibility of their growing before they came out, as the
first were found in winter. But the hickory and pei simmons

25

are attacked by another insect, which Mr. Mitchell thinks to
be Lamia amputator. There is a figure of it in the Linnean
Transactions ; its color is a pale grayish-yellow, the elytra
spotted with little red points. I have not seen the insect
yet ; but its ravages are too evident to be unnoticed by
the most common observer. No less than thirty branches
with their leaves have been counted under a single little bush.
The number of these insects must be enormous, but their
mode of propagating their species is different from that of Sten-
ocorus putator. The female bores a hole through the bark of
small bi'anches for each egg, and having deposited five or six
on these sticks she saws them off, or nearly off, and they fall to
the ground, Avhere they dry with the leaves on, whilst the
parent stem is entirely destitute of foliage. How long the
eggs remain in that state I know not; for even now I find
them as they were last fall, just under the bark, which is
slightly raised at that place, the aperture being closed with a
thin pellicle. I will Avatch those which I preserve and give you
the results of my observations.

You probably have in your collection a species of Cicindela
which I gave you; it is from Pennsylvania; its color is a fine
green, and its elytra have white dots and curved bands. By
some mistake I had, till lately, thought it was described ; but I
am certain it is not in Fabricius, and Say has not mentioned it
any where to my knowledge. Will you look at it, and tell me
what you think about it ; I will not send my paper till I hear
from you. Since writing to you I have found among many
other interesting insects another species of the same genus ; it
is allied to C. mar-ginalis or pwpurea of Fabricius and Olivier,
and possibly Mr. Say would include it among the many varieties
of that species ; but I think it has a right to independence ; the
head and thorax are of the brightest green, and the elytra are
bright purple, nearly crimson, with an abbreviated band and
terminal spot. The edge is green as in C. marginalis, but the
color much brighter; in a word, it is one of the most bril-

26

liant insects I ever saw ; it is very common now, and I will
send you specimens. In other respects it has the habitus of C.
marginalis, and in its form differs from it only in having its
thorax narrow and slender.

Can you furnish me with the descriptions of two species of
a new subgenus of Aranea^ published by Rafinesque in Ken-
tucky? I have not his paper, but you may possibly find it
in Boston; I forget even its title. He blundered into the
truth in that instance, and I ought to quote him. Insects
begin to swarm here, and few hours pass without making
some discovery. I have now five or six species of Clytus not
determined yet ; one is beautiful. Dipterous insects are nu-
merous, and I have beautiful specimens which I can hardly
place in any genus, but it may be owing to my want of knowl-
edge of that class, which I have but just begun to study. But
what will you say when I tell you I have found three individu-
als of a fourth species of Ghremastocheilus. It may prove to be
the 0. castanece, however, as it is entirely black, and the thorax
somewhat narrower before. I will send you a design if you
wish, and would have done so were it not that it would be too
late for your paper.

I found to-day a fine Nbtoxus, a large immaculate species,
with a yellow horn, but I lost it ; I have no doubt I may find
many to-morrow ; it seems that insects of this genus, as of
Lijtta^ feed on vegetables.

IIARRIS TO HENTZ.

Milton, April 9, 1827,

Many thanks, my dear sir, for your prompt reply to my last.
Your history of the habits of Lamia amputafor was new and
interesting to me ; it differs from all others of the Capricorn
tribe with which I am as yet acquainted, and will probably
serve as a clue to others of the genus.

27

The great naturalist, MacLeay, who has departed both from
the cibarian or maxillary system of Fabricius, and someAvhat
from the eclectic system of Latreille and Leach, in his arrange-
ment of insects, which is called the Quinary system, has laid
great stress on the primary forms of larvse. "For the basis of
his system he assumes a relation of analogy between the larvse
of insects that in the progress of their metamorphosis assume
wings, and those that do not, which form his class, Ametahola,
so that the prototypes of the former shall be found amongst the
latter." I Avill not enlarge on the subject, which you will find
well explained in Kirby's third and fourth volumes, and only
introduce it now to recall to your recollection the name which
you had forgotten, to show the importance which MacLeay's
investigations will give to the study of the larvae of insects,
and to induce you to embrace every opportunity to ascertain
and describe those with Avhich you may become acquainted.
Even in the wood-eating coleoptera great differences obtain in
the appearances of the larva?. Thus that of Saperda is en-
tirely destitute of legs, while those of many other Ccramby-
cidce have six small ones. The larva of Bitjjrestis is flattened,
vermiform, apod, with an enormous head, while that of the
only iSerrojyalpus which I have seen, though flattened, is of the
same width with six less and an anal fork. It is found between
the loosened bark of trees. The perfect insect very much re-
sembles a Cistela, but is more slender.

In describing the Cicindela from Cambridge, you will please
recollect that it was found on the sand near Sweet Auburn, in
company with C.formos% Say. No other species appeared to
frequent the place. The Cicindela which you gave me from
Pennsylvania, I have always supposed to be the decemnotata
described by Say in his American Entomology, Vol. I. No de-
scription, either in Fabricius, Schonherr or Say, agrees precisely
with that of your other species, thovTgh O. p)urpurea^ var. sec-
ond, comes nearest to it. It must also greatly resemble O.
pulchra Say. In considering it as a new species, I should be

28

determined by the difference in proportions (e. g., you think
the thorax is proportionally more slender than in O. purpu-
rea) ; second, by difference in punctures, length of mandibles,
number of teeth and punctures on the labrum, etc., if any dif-
ference is observable ; third, by difference in colors and spots
(e. g., that of the head and thorax, which in your insect are
green ; and the absence of the oblique band, Avliich in pur-
purea never attains the external margin, whereas the abbrevi-
ated band in your figure appears to be rather a triangular
marginal spot) ; and lastly, by distinctness of locality. On this
head you would do well to observe whether your Cicindela is
found isolated, and not in company Avith purpurea (which
last I have never found except in dry pastures) ; and whether,
if, aggregated with purpurea, it keeps itself unconnected with
that species, uniting only with such as resemble it entirely
in color and marking. You probably Avell knoAV that the $ in
this genus has the anterior tarsi dilated, with white pulvilli be-
neath, while that of the 9 is slender and simple.

Your having met with another species of Chremastocheilus
confirms INIr. Kirby's conjecture that we probably have several
species of this genus. My paper has been ])ul)lished, and you
probaljly have seen it. Since I wrote you I have seen the
Zoological Journal for April, 1826, in which Mr. Kirby ac-
knowledges the receipt of an insect of the genus from me,
which he describes in full as the O, castaneoi, but which, as I
have informed you, he subsequently considered as distinct.
He describes, also, in the same Journal, the species from
Georgia, by the name of variolosus. This a|)pears somewhat
to resemble C. Sayi mi, but no mention is made of the abun-
dant hairs which clothe the latter.

In the note which I am to furnish the next volume of the
Journal, which will also contain the figures of these insects, I
shall propose a new name for the first species. Mr. Kirby has
already redescribed and named it.

Your mentioning the habits of Notoxus and Cantharis (JLytta

29

Fabr.), brings to my recollection some observations made by
DeGecr, Kirby and others, on a kindred genns, Mcloe, which
has been thought to be parasitic in the larva state, on certain
flies QSi/rphidce^ and bees (^Andrence') . Kirby observes that it is
to be wished some skilful person would search for this larva by
dio-o-inp; round the roots of the ranunculus, and other acrid
plants on which the Meloe is found, that by discovering its
larva this mystery might be cleared up. I have found M. an-
gusticollis in great abundance on Ranunculus hdbosus, and
intend to look for the larva. From the affinities of this genus
with Oantharis, I am led to question the accuracy of the state-
ment that the larva is parasitic, knowing as I do that the larva
of Cantharis is subterraneous at the roots of plants.

No true Clirysomela of Fabricius or Say appears to answer
the description of your large, yellow, black-striped one ; hence
I tliink it probable it will prove to be the Dorypliora decem-
lineata Say, which is said to have the thorax liturate (not
litterata as in Say), and each elytron quinquelineate with black.
You will easily determine it to be a Dorypliora by the short-
ness and breadth of the last joint of the maxillary palpi, as
well as the projection of the sternum between the intermediate
legs, whence the name of the genus. It is not found in this
State.

After closely examining the Creotrupes in my collection, 1
find we may muster between us five species. I found among
your duplicates one which, from the whitish powder covering
the abdomen and legs, I suspect to be among the relics of your
box of bran, put up in Carolina ; please inform me if this be
the case. The male of this species is black, the elytra with a
purplish bronze, the thorax with a greenish lustre ; the inter-
mediate tarsi large and strong, terminated by two very large,
falciform, incurved nails ; the anterior tibias with the last or
terminal tooth very small, but with a process extending for-
ward, and terminated within by an incurved short tooth ; the
spine which covers the inner emargination very short. Spines

30

of the posterior tibiae very long. Striae of the elytra not cre-
nated or punctured. In form this species is more jflattened
than the others, and the thorax is proportionally shorter. The
anterior tibije and intermediate tarsi of the female have the
usual conformation and the colors of the only two specimens
are less brilliant.

Second, probably G. excrementi Say, more convex than the
others, thorax so gibbous as nearly to resemble a quarter of a
sphere, more than one third the length of the body. Anterior
tibiai of the male, as in the first species ; intermediate tarsi simple,
spines short or moderate. Color black, polished, and slightly
bronzed, striae very slightly crenated within, beneath chalybe-
ous black.

The third species in form more nearly resembles the second
than the others ; the body is not quite so thick and convex ;
color brilliant green, bronzed, sometimes cupreous, beneath
bright chalybeous and light green ; thorax proportionally
stouter, body proportionally more oblong than in the second
species, thorax not gibbous. Striae with small punctures within.

Fourth species. Broad, convex, dark green. Strise with
deep, distinct punctures ; club of the antennjc large, ful-
vous ; anterior tibiae of male, as in the second species, green-
ish-black beneath, with dense ferruginous hairs.

The fifth species somewhat resembles the second, but is
smaller and less brilliant, and not so broad in proportion.
Striae of the elytra indistinctly crenato-punctate ; club of an-
tennfc small, dark brown ; thorax with a longitudinal, deeply
impressed line ; beneath polished black, hairs minute and
distinct.

Length of No. 1, ^"^ in., breadth, -^^ in. ; No. 2, over -j*'^ in.,
by nearly -^^ in. ; No. 3, ^^ in., by -^^ in. ; No. 4, ^ in.,. by
nearly -^^ in. ; No. 5, nearly -f^ in., by 2^0 "^- ^"'^ over.

31

HARRIS TO HENTZ.

Milton, June, 1827.

Your specimen of Ohremastoclieilus arrived in due order;
the head, however, was wanting, and the mentura was so much
bruised as to leave me at loss to determine whether the jugular
eraargination was deep as in C. Hentzii and C. castanece (H.) ;
or shallow, as in C. Sayi (H.) and C variolosus Kirby.

Taking only the form of the thorax into consideration, C
castanece? (H.) may be characterized as having that part sub-
quadrate, the lateral margin nearly straight and the tubercles
prominent, subglobate. C. Hentzii (H.), thorax subquadrate,
the lateral margin arched, the tubercles somewhat triangular,
subacute. O. Sayi (H.), thorax transverse, a little broader be-
hind the middle, suddenly contracted behind, lateral margin
arched, tubercle slightly top-shaped or sub-tuberculate. Your
Carolinian species appears to have the thorax transverse, con-
spicuously broadest behind the middle, then suddenly con-
tracted ;. the lateral margin arched, the posterior tubercles
large, turbiniform. But the following is the description I have
drawn up from your specimen, and I would thank you to supply
the deficiencies, correct the mistakes, and suggest any improve-
ments which may appear proper. '

C. , black, opaque, setose ; palpi piceous ; thorax broad-
est behind the middle ; anterior tubercles very small, acute
and incurved ; posterior ones large, polished, turbiniform.

Head — Clypeus ? Mentum ? Palpi pale piceous.

Thorax one third wider than long, with sharp distinct vari-
oles, and short whitish hairs ; anterior tubercles very small,
acute, incurved ; lateral margin arched to behind the middle,
where the thorax is much the broadest ; behind this, on each
side, a deep emargination, within which is situated a large,
polished, turbinated tubercle. Elytra with oblong, distinct,

32

setiferous varioles on the disk, and circular crowded ones on,
the margin ; hairs long, yellow, depressed.^

Length, nearly ^^ of an inch.

The tufts of ferruginous hairs within and beneath the tho-
racic tubercles and emarginations, as well as the small, umbili-
cated, anal tubercles, appear to be common to all the species
of this genus.

You are certainly correct in separating Clirysomela rhois
Forster, from the genus AUlca, in which I had incorrectly
placed it from its possessing saltatory powers. The situa-
tion of the antennas does not correspond with that of Al-
tica; and this insect, with your allied species, may, for the
present, be placed in a subgenus of Ckri/somela, forming the
connecting link between Altica and Chrysomela in having the
incrassated saltatorial thio;hs of the former with the distinct
antennae of the latter.

Harris to hentz.

Milton, Sept. 3, 1827.

Are you not tired of the name Chremastocheilus? Neverthe
less, I will once more beg youi' patience for a few minutes.
The very hurried manner in which I examined the Carolinian
insects for which I am so much indebted to you, must excuse
me for so readily taking the specimen of Chremastocheilus to
be identical with the one forwarded in your letter. A more
careful examination has nearly convinced me that it must
be distinct. The specimen last received has the posterior
tubei'cles of the thorax formed precisely like those of C
llentzii ; it has also on one elytra a whitish spot, which at
first sight would appear to be fortuitous, but the microscope
shows on the other a corresponding spot, which, cursorily ex-

•

1 What are the most characteristic differences between this and C. Sayif

amined, seems obsolete. I have found G. Hentzii in Milton,
with the spots obsolete in the same way. Can yours be a
small individual of that species ? The specimen received in
the letter is obviously distinct from the other ; the thorax
not only being much the widest behind, but the posterior
tubercle rounded or top-shaped. This being the case, I
am still ignorant of the appearance of the mentum, and will
be greatly obliged to you to inform me whether the gular
emargination is deep or shallow, and to note any other particu-
lars in which in that part it may differ from its congeners. I
am suspicious that this insect will prove to be the C. variolosus
of Kirby, in which the notch of the back part of the mentum is
very small, as in C. Sayi, and does not extend down to the
bottom, as in 0. castanem?^ C. Hentzii^ and your specimen.
This can be ascertained without dissection.

HARRIS TO HENTZ.

MiLTOX, Nov. 3, 1827.

It is an undoubted fact that in generalizing the characters
of great divisions, as M. Latreille does, many insects allied by
natural affinities must be included, which, in some one or
two particulars, may form exceptions to the general defini-
tions. That this may be the case in regard to the Phen-
godcs I think is highly probable, as it is in that of other
genera ; but these exceptions, though embarrassing to the
student, are of no consequence in a philosophical view. You
may have observed that the Pselaphi are dimerous, yet are
they most correctly arranged by Leach (in Samouelle's Com-
pendium) and by MacLeay in the family of Staphylinidce, to
which they are obviously related by natural affinities. On the
contrary, Parandra and some of the Cucujidce are really

OCCAS. PAPERS B. S. N. II. — 1. 3

34

pentainerous, yet are so closely related to Tenebrio that they
preserve a place near them in the Heteromera. .

Your ficrures of the mentum and thorax of Chremastocheilus
were highly gratifying to me, and I shall duly acknowledge the
favor when I describe the Carolinian species, which certainly
is not the C. variolosus of Kirby, although I think C. Sayi
may be.

In regard to the folding of wings in Hymenopterous in-
sects, all I can say is, that Leucospis^ all of the Vcspidce
Cexcept only Ceramius') and the Masaridce^ have them folded
longitudinally, and no others to my knowledge. The way then
to ascertain from the wings themselves whether the insect be-
longs to the Vespidce, is to observe whether the nervures follow
this type — one marginal and four submarginal cells, the fourth
being apical and incomplete. With Leucospis there can be no
doubt.

Ceramius, which is another instance of exceptions to general
rules, is known by the extreme smallness of the maxillary
palpi, which consist of only three or four joints, while those
of the allied genera, Eumenes, Odynerus, etc., have six, and
are nearly as long as the labial palpi. According to these
characters, the two Hymenopterous insects which you sent me
are Vespidce : they are PoUstes, because the mandibles are not
longer than broad, are not prolonged into a beak, but have
their apices truncated ; because the clypeus is nearly quadrate,
and the middle of its anterior margin produced into a little
tooth, the abdomen oval (not conic,) and peduncled. The
maxillary retractile ap})endagcs or tongues of your Malthhii
are really most singular and anomalous chai'acteristics. I
must, however, beg of you a full description of each species
before I can feel qualified to determine the identity of one with
Cantharh hhnaculata. You may recollect that you gave me a
specimen which you caught in Pennsylvania on the thistle.
Two years ago I compared it with Olivier's description and

35

figure, and marked it Telepliorus Mmaculatus, perhaps incor-
rectly. For the sake of future reference I will call it No. 1.

P. S. Before you publish the monograph on Tentlircdinidce
allow me to consult for you Palisot de Beauvois, who has de-
scribed several species, and who makes much use of the little
hooks (hamidi) which hold the anterior and posterior wings to-
gether, in determining species.

HARRIS TO HENTZ.

Milton, Feb. 26, 1828.

In my collection are about eighty species of Carahidce^ but
I have not been very successftil in determining species. Say's
genus Harpalus is a kind of magazine for doubtful species, sev-
eral of which have the apex of the elytra sinuato-emarginate,
as you observe in that common and very beautiful species, H.
viridis Say, or as Prof. Peck more judiciously named it (fi'om
its great variation of hues) jjroteus. I am not sure but that
this species may prove to be the viridi-ceneus of Beauvois,
whose figure and description correspond very well to our in-
sect. Another species, for which I am indebted to you, has
the elytra also emarginate at tip. It is a large insect of an
ochreous color, and I suppose it to be H. pennsi/Ivanicus Say,
though it does not agree entirely with De Geer's pennsylvani-
cus. It certainly is a Harpalus, according to Say, for the male
has the anterior and intermediate tarsi dilated ; whereas in
Feronia only the joints of the anterior tarsus are dilated in the
males. Say's genus Feronia is nevertheless a heterogeneous
mixture, a complete pot-pourri, out of which several natural
•genera may be rescued. Feronia impuncticoUis Say, is a true
Zabrus ; the distinguishing character of that genus is to have
the spine, which arms the apex of the anterior tibia within,
trifid or triple ; Harpalus rusticus is also a Zabrus, while

36

Feronia ohesa Say, which resembles the latter in form, and is
a larger species than jP. impmicticoUis, hut so much like it as
hardly to be distinguished, belongs, with it, to Amara and is
destitute of the triple spine.

HARRIS TO HENTZ.

Milton, June 17, 1828.

Buprestis femorata Fabr., differs from the species marked
characteristica? Herbst, in many respects. The distinctive
characters of B. femorata appear to be, face plain, with two
large metallic impunctured raised spots ; body slightly convex,
the impressed portions of the elytra metallic, distinctly and
densely punctured, serratures of the elytra minute.

B. character isticaf Face divided by a transverse line be-
tween the eyes, the inferior portion below the level of the supe-
rior, which seems to lap on it like a cap; metallic facial spots
very small or obsolete. Body more dilated, more depressed
than in B. femorata; elytral impressions not very distinctly
metallic, nor so densely punctured; serratures very obvious,
especially at tip. Color tinged with purplish brown. The
first character alone, viz. : the division of the face by a trans-
verse line, is sufficient to separate the two insects.

I have examined Telephorus bilineatus, and observed that the
maxillaj and lingua were so feoft as to yield on pressing the
abdomen, and jut out into cai'uncles from what appeared to be
a crowd of the fluids ; whether these parts are susceptible of
voluntarv dilatation I cannot determine. Mv friend, Mr.
Leonard, has promised to send me a quantity of du})licates
from his parish in Dublin, N. II., near the Grand Monadnoc
Mountain. Many among those wliich I have already received
from him are entirely new to me. Mr. Leonard is indefatig-
able in studying the habits of insects, and very successful in

37

ralsino; them from the larvae. Through him I have ascertained
the larvae of many species in my collection, and particularly of
the Lepidoptera.

HARRIS TO HENTZ.

Milton, Sept. 4, 1828.

On the 30th of July I obtained another specimen of the
Dolomedes described to you in my letter of August, 1824, and
of which you have the individual then found. The second was
discovered on the top of a high bush, near a running stream.
It forms a large, irregular, loose, horizontal web, at one extrem-
ity of Avhich Avas situated its follicle or egg-bag, covered with
the young. The parent appeared watching them at some dis-
tance. Unfortunately the insect was subsequently lost, but not
till after I had compared it with a drawing I had made in 1824,
[Fig. 1], with which it entirely agreed. It is not a little singular
that after looking every year in vain for this spider, I should at
length discover it within fifteen days of the same time of the
year, and within a stones throw of the same place where the first
one was observed. You considered it as paradoxical that this
spider should inhabit bushes, and make a web, and I was
therefore unwilling that you should take my word for it, until
further examination was made. You may now be assured that
its location was not fortuitous, but a matter of choice, and con-
sistent with its economy.

Your attempt to procure a correspondence for me with Pro-
fessor Germar, is a very acceptable service ; there is no Euro-
pean, perhaps, who could better furnish information respecting
the modern genera of the nocturnal Lepidoptera than that dis-
tinguished entomologist. This branch of the science is, you
well know*, particularly interesting to me, and lias received
much of my attention. I have already distinguished sixteen
subgenera of the Bomhycidoe^ five of the Arctiadce^ and sev-

38

eral of the Nbctuadce, and have completed accurate drawings
of the nervures from specimens in my collection ; and I delay
completing my labors in this department only till I can obtain
a better knowledge of the larvse and their habits ; for where a
marked' difference obtains in these I have fomid a correspond-
ing difference in neuration ; and on these principles united
(together with other easy characters taken from the imago), I
should wish the genera which I may propose to be established.

The small Chremastocheilus you sent me last summer, which
had white spots on the elytra, and appeared to be a variety of
C. Hentzii^ is certainly a distinct species, and comes nearer to the
C. castanece than any other I have seen. Knofch remarks that
such spots existed in a specimen which had not been rubbed.
The form of the posterior part of the thorax and its angles and
punctures are different from those of C. SeiitzU, although it
resembles it so closely in many respects. The one you sent
me in a letter also somewhat resembles the C castmiece ; but
from Kirby's figure and description of the variolosus, I judge it
to be identical with the latter. Kirbj' has described C. Hentzii
by the name of O. canalicidatuSy but besides his not noticing
the white spots of that species, his description was posterior
to mine, and your name must be retained as the specific
designation.

C castanece? mi, Kirby calls C. Harrisii', it is certainly most
distincit from the true C. castanea: of Knocli.

HENTZ TO HARRIS.

CiiAPEL Hill, Oct. 24, 1828.

I tliank you for your very accurate design of the Dysdera.
I liave no^x one hundred and four drawings of that family, and
think I have not more than two thirds of our American spi-
ders. The circumstance of your finding the young with the

39

Dolomedes, renders the fact of its making a web less strange,
as the insects of that subgenus are known to spin some threads
in the shape of a Httle tent, at that time ; but none as yet has
been observed to make so regular and extensive a web as you
describe.

My genus 3Iacrosiagon is composed of the following insects :
Rijjiphorus dimidiatus, R. Umbatus, and JR. tristis of Fabr.
The remarkable elongation of the upper lobe of the maxillse is
the chief character of that proposed division. These are the
characters : Family 3IordeUides, genus Macrosiagon (^Ripiphorus
Bosc, Fabr.). Tarsi with all their joints simple; palpi sub-
filiform ; antennee pectinated ; maxillce with the upper lobe
filiform, longer than the palpi ; scutellum not apparent ; abdo-
men abruptly truncated; elytra dehiscent, longer than the
abdomen. What is really unaccountable to me is that Fabri-
cius, who saw every one of these insects, should not have
examined -the mouth of any of them. It is strange that the
Germans should so long cling to the system of a man who cer-
tainly imposed upon himself, if he thought it suflicient or true.

I have just found vast quantities of an insect, the larva of
which feeds on the beans of the Crleditscliia triacantlia. It is a
Rruclms, which must be closely related to R. robinice Fabr., if it
is not that insect, but it does not feed on the locust. It is t^\ice
as large as the R. pisi, though some specimens are not lai*ger,
and the elytra cover nearly the whole of' the abdomen. Do
you know it ? In Abbot I observed a plate representing a
moth, which at once brought to mind your Arctia pseuder-
minea ; and in looking over your delineation I find but slight
difi'erences ; still, as I have not studied this subject, I may be
mistaken in supposing it to be the same. Abbot's insect,
which he calls Phalcena acria, is considerably larger. I have
observed, however, that insects in the South are very much
larger in many instances than the same species in the North.

40

HARRIS TO HENTZ.

Milton, Nov. 19, 1828.

Your dissertation on the culture of silk came safely to hand,
and after reading the papers I sent them to my friend, I. M.
Gourgas, a German by birth, who is zealously engaged in pro-
moting this pursuit. My honored mother has raised silk
worms for more than ten years, and supplied herself with all
her sewing-silk from their labors. On my fathers place are
many of the white mulberry trees, which are found to produce
the best silk. Mrs. Harris never raises but one crop in a year.

Having been repeatedly called upon for entomological com-
munications in the "New Enoland Farmer," I have concluded
to publish in it some of my manuscript descriptions, with the ad-
dition of popular remarks. Several numbers have been printed,
which I send you as a sample. The next communication contains
eleven new Dyticidce. This will be followed by some of the
Elateridoi, including two new subgenera of my own, viz. : No-
thora, containing the species with pectinated nails ; and Tapliei-
cerus, in which the suture between the ora and antepectus is
dilated to receive and bury the antenna. In this subgenus the
antennas are very short, the thorax is gibbovis, and the body
is very much covered with scales, or short, flattish bristles;
though nearly related, it differs from Eucnemis Ahr. and
Mann., in which the mouth is entirely retracted, the antennaa
very much njtproximated at base, the prosternum very short, so
that the power of lea])ing is weak ; and the posterior coxa3 very
much dilated, so as to conceal the greater part of the thighs.

I am aware that the "New England Farmer" is not likely
to be much circulated among men of science, and therefore
will not be considered the best authority ; but it is a conven-
ient vehicle at present ; and, such is the ambition of European
entomologists to anticij)atc Americans, that I willingly yield to
the solicitations of several friends in publishing what may pos-

41

sibly contain many new species ; and, in doing so, I am not
actuated so much by personal considerations as by a desire to
aid several young entomologists in this vicinity, and by the
wish to promote American science in general : joro patria.
The "Farmer" is taken at New Harmony, and will therefore
come under the eye of Prof. Say: it is my intention, after
these descriptions shall have undergone his rigid scrutiny, to
republish them, either by themselves, or in some respectable
scientific journal.

HENTZ TO HAKRIS.

Chapel Hill, Dec. 3, 1828.

The mark (?) which you find on some of my insects indicates
that they may diifer from the one marked without it in my col-
lection. Thus, till just now, I was in doubt about 133 ? My
No. 133 I caught in Northampton and marked E. mat'moratus.
Last spring I found 133 ? in vast numbers in February, under
the bark of decayed pine trees ; and finding great resemblance
with the former, I marked it as you have it. Now, in order to
answer accurately your letter, I gave it a careful examination,
and discovered this remarkable difference, that whilst my 133 ?
and 163 have, besides a dilated suture for the antennae, a distinct
and deep groove between that and the edge of the thorax for
the reception of the tarsi, Avhen at rest (see Fig. 2), r-n
No. 133 has nothing like a groove for the tarsi. The W j/j
bristles of this are silvery white on the elytra, but ''"'V^
become of a golden yellow, as in 133 ?, as you advance ^^s- 2.
towai'ds the head. Besides this, those bristles or scales form
two oblique lines near the end of the elytra, which are obsolete
or wanting in 133 ? If I were you, however, I would not
add 133 to your genus Tapheicerus, as the want of the groove
may be a good character to make another subgenus of that

42

enormous genus Elater. It is probable that 133 ? is the one
described by Fabricius. " Elater j^ennatus is very common here
— at least I have thus marked one which is black, with the
head and thorax of a golden orange color, and the disk of the
thorax black. It is congeneric with 133, having no groove
for the reception of the tarsi. But the suture for the recep-
tion of the antennse is very distinct.

[In Hentz's mss. Catalogue, in the possession of the Society,
No. 133 is named Tapheicerus excissatus ; No. 133 ? Elater
pennatus Herbst and No. 163 Tapheicerus fehruarius.'\

HARRIS TO HENTZ.

Milton, Mass., Dec. 19, 1828.

Your extract in a former letter from the article on Morio^
with Palisot de Beauvois's figure and description of the 31.
G-eorgice, will suffice for the present. But you will please
inform me whether you consider your No. 740 as appertaining
to the genus in question. It is a much smaller insect than that
figured by Beauvois, and is found in the Middle as well as the
Southern States. [It is marked in Hentz's MSS. Catalogue as
Cratacanthus pennsylv aniens Dcj.]

Your plan in regard to dividing our labors in Entomology is
certainly a judicious one. Prof. Say appears tacitly to have
resigned the Araneidoi to you, while he has left little to be
done with the Diptera. There are several reasons, however,
which will not permit me to enter fully into a farther division
at present, though, in declining your proposal, I have to en-
counter many compunctious visitings on the scores of friend-
ship. And now, my dear sir, I will tell you my reasons, which
I hope will exculpate me from any inclination to disoblige. It
has long been a favorite project with me to publish at some
future time a little work like Dr. Bigelow's Florula Bostonien-

43

sis, but with plates. The title contemplated is : '■'-Insectorum
Faunula Bostonietisis,''^ including, with few exceptions, the
common species to be found in this vicinity.

Notes and descriptions of about five hundred Coleoijtera were
made for this purpose, and my leisure moments last winter
were devoted to the study of the Symenopterous genera, with
the assistance of Jurine's incomparable work on that order, the
introductory plates of which I copied. The great work of
Stoir, which I have consulted, affords a clue to the Hemipterai
and in the publications of Meigen, Wiedemann and Say, the
Diptera will be done to my hand. In the Lepidoptera a most
patient investigation of the nervures, palpi, antennse and larvae,
has been made in order to elucidate this intricate and confused
section of insects. From Dr. Pickering and yourself I hope to
receive in due time the results of your investigations in the
departments which have occupied your attention. Any of our
northern insects, which you may think proper previously to
describe, will most readily be introduced, and due credit given.
However inadequate to the undertaking, I haA'e entered upon it
with the conviction that something of the kind was wanted,
and would be useful to others. You were apprized of it in
letters dated August, 1824, and May, 1825 ; it has been men-
tioned to several who approved of it, among others Mr. Oakes,
Rev. Mr. Leonard, and Mr. Greenwood, who have offered the
use of their insects ; those of the latter comprise the often
mentioned collection of Mr. Fenton, containing twenty-six hun-
dred species found in Connecticut and New York.

The third A'olume of American Entomology I presume you
have seen, as it has been printed several months. Prof. Say's
Hipparchia semidea appears to be the Papiilio fortunatus of
Fabricius. I have a specimen from the White Mountains,
N. H. The little grooves in the ora of Taptheicerus for the
reception of the tarsi had not escaped my notice, and you will
also find that the posterior angles of the thorax are excavated
beneath to receive the femora and tibiae when folded together.

44

The following very brief characters may enable you to distin-
guish the species which I have, if in your collection. No one
of them has the scales disposed in tw^o oblique lines on the ely-
tra, as in your 133, Avhich I have not seen ; nevertheless, in
the species here numbered 1, the lines, may have existed,
though now obsolete. Will you inform me whether it agrees
in other respects with your 133. It will not be necessary for
me to publish your Nos. 133 ? and 103, and I only proposed it
on account of the paucity of species in the sub-genus which I
proposed to illustrate.

1. Fuscous black, punctured ; varied with ochreous and
black oval scales ; thorax tri-foveolato-indented on the disk, pos-
terior angles robust, incvu'ved at the points, mentvmi very much
produced and rounded in front beneath the mouth ; tarsal
grooves obsolete. Leno;th 1% inch.

2. (your 133 ?) Brownish black, punctured, squamose ; tho-
rax canaliculate, posterior angles excurved ; elytra substriate.
N. Car. Length || inch.

3. Black, punctured ; variegated with pale yellowish and
black cuneate scales above, and with silvery white, short, flat
bristles beneath ; thorax canaliculate, posterior angles nearly
rectangular. Length a little over -| inch. Dublin, N. H.

4. Dark chestnut, j)unctured ; thorax covered with yellow
oblong-ovate scales ; elytra with ■ paler cuneate ones ; body
beneath w itli short flat w^hite bristles ; thorax canaliculate, pos-
terior angles excurved. Length 2^Q inch. Dublin, N. H.

5. (your 1G3.) Castaneous, punctured, setose ; thorax elon-
gated, canaliculate, posterior angles excurved ; elytra striato-
punctate. Length nearly | inch. N. Car.

6. Black, pinictured ; head and sides of thorax with brilliant
reddish-tawny flattened bristles; elytra with black, antl body
beneath wdth white ones. Lengtli nearly t^q inch. Can this
be the j>c?ma<M8 of Fabricius ? The thorax is not canaliculate,
nor the elytra striate.

Your number 410 appears to be Necydalis thuraclca Fabr.,

45

and No, 90 apparently differs only in size from Pcederus
riparius of the same author, yet it may prove to be a dis-
tinct species from his which I have received from Russia.
[It is marked Pcederus littorarius in Hentz's mss. Catalogue.]
This reminds me that the Russian specimens of Dermestes
lardarius are very inferior to ours in size. Gmelin describes
a Bnichus gleditschice], and has called the Brentus you sent
me Brentus Druryanus ; it is found here under the bark of

prostrated logs.

December 21.

P. S. On Saturday afternoon I received between five and
six hundred Coleoptera from my friend, Mr. Leonard, of Dub-
lin, N. H. Among these is an Plater which nearly corresponds
with your 133 ; it has, however, only one oblique line of yel-
lowish scales on each elytron. I think it is the male of the first
described in this letter, having an oblong indentation on the
posterior disk of the thorax, and a small round one on each side
in front of it, and much more conspicuous than in the other sex.
I forgot to notice that in the first five species, the feet were
more or less brown, and in the last blackish. I have reexam-
ined Helops obliquatus and the allied species, compared them
together, with another specimen from Dublin, and with several
Helopi, and have come to the conclusion that they neither belong
to Hallomenus, nor are strictly admissible into the genus Helops,
though Fabricius and Latreille include one of them in the
latter. They seem to possess characters requiring the forma-
tion of a new genus for their reception. Some slight differ-
ences are visible in the sculpture of the elytra of these two
species, but they are easier seen than described. The female
of the one with naked scutel, has antennge precisely similar to
those in the same sex of H. ohliquatus. Beauvois has justly
remarked that there is no sense in this specific name imposed
by Fabricius, there being no obliquity observable about this
insect. The above mentioned insects from the New Hampshire
hills are valuable acquisitions, and many of them are new to

46

my collection. The following species are unique and highly

mterestmg.

A. Pentaraerous. Trophi porrect, mandibles large, broad at
base, or triangular, apparently simple and obtuse at tips ; palpi
with obconic joints, terminal ones largest, rounded at tips ;
antennae 11-jointed, first joint obconic, second globular, third
largest, obconic remaining ones submoniliform, or very short
obconic, terminal ones ovate. Very dark castaneous above,
badious beneath; densely punctured, holosericeous with short
decumbent yellowish hairs. Head nutant ; eyes large, glo-
bose, almost meeting beneath, emarginate in front above the
insertion of the antenna3 ; the latter with the palpi ferruginous ;
posterior part of the thorax deeply indented each side ; feet
slender, tarsi elongated, joints undivided ; nails simple. Be-
longs to the Cehrionidae^ genus Boscia ?

B. Heteromerous. Brown, inclining to a pale snuff color,
scabrous with black tubercles ; antenna! joints short obconic,
first largest, last three transverse, forming a club, terminal one
small, truncate at tip ; ])a]pi with ,obconic joints, terminal ones
ovate, acuminate ; mandibles grooved or bifid at the points.
Head retracted to the eyes ; thorax with two large tubercles
in front, one on each side, and two elevated sinuated lines ex-
tending from the middle to the base ; wings none ; coleoptra
with irregular series of deep foveoli, on each elytron a short
elevated line from the middle of the base, a longer one on the
disk, a submarginal one, two tubercles btfore the tip, the
inner one very much elevated, and a small one on the tip ; ex-
ternal maro;in embraces the bodv. Joints of tarsi undivided,
equal, short, except the last, which is about twice as long as the
preceding one ; nails strong, curved, simple. Inhabits decayed
wood.

C Apparently tetramorous. Polished, body ferruginous ;
antenna) and feet paler ; head black ; thorax reddish, a black
dorsal fusiform spot, extending from the base to near the tip ;
elytra pale reddish, a dilated fascia across the middle, and an

47

apical one black. Antennas slightly haiiy, 11-jointed; first joint
obconic, large, second to eighth (inclusive) small, subequal,
moniliform, last three dilated, transverse, convex above, slightly
concave beneath. A fascicule of hairs beneath the apex of
each tarsal joint, excepting the last, which is largest ; nails sim-
ple. The natural situation appears to be between Phloiotrihus
and Cerapterus.

D. A Cistela. Fuscous, pubescent, elytra with punctured
striae; feet fulvous ; last joint in the anterior tarsi elongated,
dilated towards the apex, flattened or foliaceous. Tarsi of the
female simple.

HENTZ TO HARRIS.

CaAPEL Hill, N. C, Jan., 1829.

When I come to examine my Tapheicerus No. 133 ? with
No. 133, I wonder how I could have supposed them to be the
same species, but when I made~ my catalogue I had but little
leisure. Your description marked No. 1 [in letter of Dec. 19,
1828], does not quite seem to correspond with 133, which is
nearly || inch, and has silver white scales on the elytra that
become yellowish, however, near the base and golden on the
thorax and head. The thorax I would de-
scribe by saying that it has two elevated
ridges rather than that it has three grooves,
because, althouo;h there are indeed three de-
pressions, the ridges do not quite reach the
base, and they have a widening space at
base between them. The mentum, as in
yours, is very much produced. This, the
outline of the insect, though roughly made
with the pen, will give you an idea of the

Fig. 8.

48

proportions. I have but four species of your genus Taphei'
cerus, namely, the one here represented, No. 133 ? and No. 163 ?
which does not seem to differ from No. 163 of my catalogue,
and lastly, U. 2y^nnatus, which varies in size from ^-^ to nearly
I inch. Those described in your letter are not known to me.

No. 220 has affinities to MalacMus and belongs to the tribe
Melyrides of Latr., but must constitute a new genus, which I will
publish as soon as possible. It has caruncles like 3IalacJiiics^
but we cannot place it in that genus with propriety.

No. 250. These are my notes on this insect, which I call
Necropliorus oequaUpes in my catalogue. " Characters in which
it is distinct from N. vespillo ; margin of elytra yellow ; tro-
chanters with acute spines ; elytra glabrous ; posterior tibiae
slender ; frontal yellow spot narrow."

As I am still in doubt about 740, I will

(V I J) give you here a delineation of the trophi of

d c that insect which I have dissected. You will

observe that the rio'ht mandible differs from

the left.

The four insects you have described in
your letter are entu'ely new to me. A. is
probably a Boscia. B, as far as I can judge, would seem to
come between BoUtojjliagus and Biaperis. I cannot make
anything of C\ which you have described admirably. I do
not know your B.

I am more troubled with the Tillidce than

¥with any other family of insects. You aided mo
much in a former letter, but I have several
species which cannot be arranged under any
eenus. One, wliicli seems to come between Til-
Fig. 5- ^

luH and Clems, has the last joint of the antennfB
nearly as long as tlie elytra. It is flat and oblong. The
insect has something of the habits of Priocera of Kirby.
The other might be a Cylidrus were it not for its filiform

49

anteimffi. Its tarsi have five veiy distinct joints and the penul-
timate is deeply bifid. It is marked 874. [874, Hentz mss.
Cat. = Priocera undulata Say.] I do
not know whether you can make out
anything by these wretched scratch-
ings of my pen ; but if you can, I
would like to have your opinion, for ^^ g

neither answers the description of

Priocera, and yet neither can be referred to any genus that I
know.

HARRIS TO HENTZ.

Milton, January 16, 1829.

Your 874 has the number of tarsal joints, the palpi, and form
of Tillus, as defined by Latreille and Leach, and the antennge do
not greatly differ. Those of Tilhis are stated to be " subfili-
form," although they are also somewhat serrate towards the
ends, but probably not more so than in many Elaters. For the
present, then, No. 874 may be considered as a Tillus. You
mention a genus by the name of Cylidrus. By whom was it
established, and where is it defined ?

Your Tapheicerus, No. 133, figured in the letter, agrees in
many respects with mine (No. 1) found in Milton, and lately
received from New Hampshire. The thorax is not grooved in
my insect, but has an oblong indentation on the posterior half
of the disk, and the male has two smaller round ones in front
of it.

Your insect measures J^ in. longer than mine, and the
thorax does not seem to be quite so broad before the middle.
In mine the scales are not white nor so regularly disposed as
in yours ; but this may arise from the effects of time and rough
usage. The trophi of 740 apparently resemble those of Morio

N. H. — I. 4

50

— but T may be mistaken, and after all the insect may be
a Feronia or Badister. I liave sent you the insect figured in my
last. Mr. Oakes found one on tree ftine;i on the sides of the
White Mountains, N. H., and Dr. Pickering, who has the speci-
men, supposed it might be a Boletoj^har/us. The eyes are reni-
form and undivided; in Boletojjhagus and Biaperis they are
globose and bisected by a projection of the anterior orbit : the
antennas are much like those of CossT/phus, the terminal joints
forming a club precisely similar to that figured by Dumeril, but
the basal joint is shorter and larger, and the intermediate
ones shorter ; the nails also are simple. The name of Elcdona
has the priority and should be adopted instead of Boletopha-
ffus, and therefore no confusion can arise if I call my insect
Boletohius ynontanus. You will also receive the Cistela de-
scribed in my letter wdiich may be called manicata, or, with
gauntlets, for these are appropriated to the male sex only.
Also a Buprestis, described by Prof. Say as the macidiventris,
the extremity of the arm of which (anterior femur) is fur-
nished with a long acute spine directed backward, just as a
Spaniard conceals his stiletto. This insect is the type of a sub-
genus, which I call Xyphephorus, literally, assassin. Also sev-
eral Elaters new to me, but common in the hioh reo-ions of
New Hampshire. The northern part of New England has
been less explored by entomologists than any other part of the
United States east of the Mississippi ; and hence in this high,
wooded, and uncultivated region, many new species will proba-
bly be detected ; and I am most haj)]\y in having so excellent
and friendly a correspondent in that quarter.

Do you ever set traps for insects? The idea was suggested
by an observation of Mr. Leonard, who says that ho obtains
many curious insects that get stuck in tlie juice which oozes
from the sugar maple of New Hampshire. A mixture of mo-
lasses and mini Avatcr in a shallow i)late miolit allure and retain
many small Coleoptera. Beating the trees is another good
method. In this way I have caught on a white clotli, or in an

51

inverted umbrella, many insects which would otherwise escape
observation. A covering of white silk for the umbrella v/ould
be best ; and it would also make the best screen against the heat
of the sun. Numerous small beetles may be taken by sweep-
ing the grass, or trailing over it a deep bag net. A wide
mouthed bottle partly filled with meat, and suspended in a tree,
would be likely to entrap Necrojphori^ Silpha'^ etc.

Dr. Pickering wants to know what peculiarity in habits is
caused by pectinated nails. Can you aid him and me in this
question? My observation tends to this explanation Avhich I
suggested to him. The Lcbice., Gymindes^ Notliorce and Cistelce
are all anthophagous in their perfect state, and may possibly
use these little combs to gather pollen, or to cleanse their bodies
when covered Avitli it. Although spiders, which have two of
their three claws pectinated, use these organs in keeping sep-
arate the threads of their webs, we do not know that the above
named Coleoptera are furnished with serictera, silk secretories,
or fusuU, spinners for the manufacture of threads. Indeed
EJydropliilus is the only coleopterous insect known to fabricate
such tissues, which it uses for the~ protection and envelopment
of its eggs. The nails in this genus are not pectinated. I
have also observed that the insects with fissile, bifid, and den-
tated nails were phyllophagous in the perfect state, for example,
the IfelolontJice, Telephoj'us, etc. We know that the former,
which in the division of the nails makes an approach to the
pectinungulated Coleoptera, do not manufacture silk, nor enclose
their eggs in a web. Tlie nails, then, most probably are thus
cleft or toothed, for some purpose connected Avith their mandu-
cation, perhaps to tear the leaves before they are eaten, or to
retain the insect more firmly upon them while feeding.

I shall call the insect C, in my last, Ropaloceros fasciatus ;
the name of the genus being taken from the singular bat-shaped
antennae.

52

HENTZ TO HARRIS.

Chapel Hill, N. C, Jan. 19, 1829.

Your letter, dated Jan. 16, arrived this morning, and gave me
great pleasure. Latreille says about Tillus : "Ow la majeure
jyartie des aoitennes est en forme de scie."'' In my 874 the an-
tennae are filiform, the last joint only being large and fusiform.
That is the reason why I did not place it in that genus. Cylid-
rus is the name of a o-enus established bv Latreille, I know
not in what work, given in the Dictionnaire classique d'histoire
naturelle thus : " Tarses de o articles distinctes ; antennes forte-
ment en scie, dejyuis le t^""" article inclusivement ; le dernier des
palj^es tres long ; celui des maxillaires de la grosseur des pre-
cedens, cglindrique ; le meme dans les lahiaux en forme de cdne
renversc et allonge ; mandihules longues et croisees ; tSte allongee,
corps long et cylindrique. Ce genre se comjwse d''u7ie seule
esjjece, Trichodes cganeus, Fabr.^^

The antenna} of my insect, it is true, do not agree, but I have
another species marked in my catalogue 860, where the antenna?
arc " en scie depuis le 5"" article inclusivement,^^ and this closely
related in every other particular to 874 ; only the mandibles
seem to be lono-er, which would be an additional character
to place it in Cglidrus. I say " seem to be longer," because this
being a unique, I have not dissected it, but the mandibles
are certainly crossed. I am still in doubt about these two in-
sects, and shall be glad to receive your farther suggestions
about them. Your Tapheicerus seems different from my 133.
The groove is not so deep in front, it is true, as at base ;
but when you turn the head towards you the outline of the
thorax yn-escnts a perfect bow. On the subject of the Cicindela
of Pemisvlvania, I will extract the followinoj from my iournal :
*'No. 3. This can scarcely be the deccmnotata of Say. The
front is not hairy, the bilobate disk of the thorax not cupreous,
the scutel not blue ; elytra green all over. The refracted band

53

of the elytra does not terminate in a transverse line with pe-
nultimate spot. Say insists on the differently colored margin,
as in C. purpurea, which is not visible in this. Q. decemnotata
is said to inhabit sandy alluvions of the Missouri ; this is always
found on mountains. It must be a new species, and may be
called Cicindela montana. I have never found it here, but Mr.
Mitchell brought me a phial full which were taken near the Pilot
Mountain.

This is an extract from my journal on Feronia 49 : "This can-
not be F. limhata Say, if his description be correct. This is
much larger, and has some punctures on the marginal intersti-
tial line. It must be related however to Say's insect, and may
be the same." [49 Hentz mss. Catal. ^ yl^/ormw palliatum
Dej., limhatum? Say.]

No. 799 is probably Clivina pallida, badly described by Say.
It is found as his Avas, under the bark of decaying pine trees, and
stinks exquisitely when alive, and for a considerable time after-
wards ; I know of no insect that has a worse smell. There is
no" marginal series of short transverse lines" that I can see,
but impressed dots, such as are seen there in so many insects.
When recent, the insect has on its elytra several dark
lines which are curved in the followino; manner. I
think, notwithstanding these lines, that it is not C. pal-
lipennis. The size, which is very uniform in all the '^' '
specimens I have caught, does not correspond with the descrip-
tion of the latter, and the body is not black. If you strike out
the M'ord deeply before impressed punctures in Say's description
it will apply perfectly well to my 745. I think it must be that
insect. It is extremely common here in Boleti, or decayed
wood. The followino; is an extract from mv iournal on the
subject of 754, the last of those on which you wish for inform-
ation : "754. Uleiota Latr. (^Brontes c??//Jms ? Fabr.), The
male of this insect has an anomalous projection of its mandibles
which has not been mentioned by naturalists, at least to my
knowledge. The mandible which is simple in the* female,

64

has on the male an outer projection which exceeds it in
length, as in the figure. That piece is an apophysis, not con-
nected to the mandible by a joint. The male prob-
ably uses it to hold and secure the female. I
have not seen them in the act of uniting, but have
Fig. 8. often found them already in sexual connection ;

they seem to remain some time in that state. The male is
not above the female, but they are coimected end to end, the
heads in opposite directions. Found in great numbers in
March under the bark of decaying pine logs. It is doubtful
whether this is the B. dubius Fabr., the apex of the elytra be-
ing rufous, and these are not black, but piceous or obscure."

By the by, can you explain the confusion which exists about
this family? Dumcril places his Cucuje ou Bronte testace in
his family of Omaloides, then he gives the Cucuje jjcittes j amies
in bis genres anomaux Tetrameres ! so that we find the same
genus not only in different families, but in different divisions.
Latreille mentions no anomaly of that kind so far as I know ;
and yet I am induced to think that some pentamerous species
must have been in Dumdril's hands which led him to make that
mistake, because I have an insect which is pentamerous and
which I cannot place near any genus except Cucujus. It is also
related to Trogosita. I have it numbered 762. The head is
not triangular, and the eyes are not remarkably prominent, but
it resembles very much the insect you named for me Cucujus
flavipes Oliv.

I have made no observations which could add anything to
yours on the subject of pectinated nails, except that most of
the insects that I know, with tliat ])eculiarit3', are nocturnal or
crcpuscularian in their habits. Tlie beautiful and very large
Lchla grandis which I have described, is never seen but at
nigiit, and its nails are remarkably pectinated.

I have not set traps yet, but will avail myself of your sug-
gestions. This reminds me that in France, in almost every
garden^ a number of flower-pots without a hole at the bottom

55

are sunk in the ground so as to be even with the surface, and
then nearly filled with water. Myriads of insects, injurious to
plants, are caught so, but unfortunately one of the insect de-
•stroyers is the chief sufferer ; I mean Carabus auratus, which
the gardeners think very injurious to the roots of vegetables.

Can you tell me what to make of my 807, the tarsi of which
are so anomalous, being 3, 4, 4 ? And yet I think the insect
should be regarded as heteromerous. (It is indeed heterom-
erous according to etymology, but not as we understand it
for coleopterous insects — 5, 5, 4.) I have three more species
which are congeneric, but the anomaly seems to be sexual, one
of the sexes being tetramerous. [807 Hentz mss. Catal.=
3Iycetophagus punctatus.'\

I have sketched here an insect which I have marked Rhip-
ieera. I never found but one. It is undoubtedly rare here.
Do you know it? Its color is a lit-
tle lighter than that of Platycerus
securidens. The pulvilli are pale
yellow. The antennse are supporte'd
on a peduncle. The thorax has a
double impression each side in front,
which is separated from the other by
an elevated line ; this line presently
disappears, and in its stead an im-
pressed line, which is obsolete at
base, is seen on the disk. The elytra are very much punc-
tured, interstitial, spaces forming at least three somewhat dis-
tinct lines ; the other spaces are irregular, or not continued.
The insect is a female. The male has probabl}^ the antennae
en panache.

You remarked on 814 that the palpi, in a recent or living
specimen, are forked; have you made the observation yourself?
Previous to your communication, I had marked it Ulodes, and,
according to Latreille's description, supposed that the labial palpi
might be forked; but after several observations I am still

Fig. 9.

5Q

in doubt, and shall remain so till yon answer my letter, for I
have not been able to see a fork.

HARRIS TO HENTZ.

Milton, Feb. 20, 1829.

Since I wrote to you I have found the genus Cylidrus^ with
Latreille's definition of it, in that valuable work, the Nouveau
Dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle, which is in the college library.
It appears to be closely related to Tillus. and probably your 860
belongs to it. Not having seen any of the genera belonging to
Kirby's section Serricornes of the family Clerii, except Enop-
lium, I do not feel fully competent to decide upon your 874,
which should be closely compared Avith the otlier pentamerous
genera of that section to decide wdiether it is admissible, or
whether it should not rather constitute a new genus. The plan
pursued by Mr. Kirby (Linn. Trans. Vol. XII., pp. 340, 389)
would facilitate the determination ; but the number, division,
and pulvilli of the tarsal joints, with the form of the mandi-
bles, eyes and nails, should also be taken into the account.
Latrcille must be mistaken when he says that in Thanasimus
there are only four joints visible in the tarsi. In T. formicarius,
which is the type, there are certainly five distinct joints, as also
in ichneumoneus, nigrifrons, and your 239. [239 Hentz mss.
Ciita\.=Thanasimus jyutans.'l Thanasimus then appears to be
an osculant genus, connecting the pentamerous Cleridce with the
heteromerous genera of that family, through the genus Clerus,
with which it agrees in its clavate antennae. Probably your 240
[240 Hentz mss. Catal.=lVZZMS terminalis Say mss.] is the link
in the chain of affinities uniting Thanasimus with the pen-
tamerous Serricornes. It is worthy of remark that in Neerohia
the tarsi are apparently trimerous, the first joint being hid by
the base of the second, and the fourtli entire, and concealed in

•

57

the lobes of the tliird. The antennas, which are very much
clubbed, are most remote from those of Enopliwm on the one
hand, and from your 874 [874 Hentz's mss. Catal. ^:= Priocera
ti7idulata Say] on the other, all gradations between these three
appearing to exist.

Latreille (Genera Crust, et Ins. Ill,) remarked the singular
armature of the mandible in the male of Uleiota Jlavijjes. I
have several specimens resembling in form, size and structure
your 754 [754Hentz's mss. Catal.= Uleiota duhia ? ¥i\h\\~\^ but
agreeing entirely with Fabricius's description of the colors of
the duhia ; I therefore think yours must be merely a variety of
that species. The confusion made by Dumeril in respect to
this genus exists only in his plates ; for in the text (Consid.
gen., p. 192) he refers both to plate 17, fig. 7, and to pi. 7, fig.
3, for an example of his anomalous genus Cucnjus, which is syn-
onymous with Uleiota of Latreille. His Omaloide^ contain
Lyctus, Colydmm, Trogosita^ Ips,^ Myeetophagus and Hetero-
cerus. I must have made some mistake in writing the name
Cucujus flavipes. The only insects of that genus that I know
are O. davipes Oliv., of a beautiful lake color, and C. rvfus
Oliv., the color of which is brownish rufous and smaller than
the former.

The name of your 89 [89 Hentz's mss. Catal. = Philontlius
jiavolimhatus Harr. mss.] (^jStaphyUnus aiitJirax) was given me
by Prof. Say, as an insect described by Gravenhorst. You
will receive the European JElaphrus riparius with the insects
from me, and can then decide whether it is really the same as
your and Prof. Say's American species. Having some years
since found a species of Buprestis upon the Carya porcina
which is inhabited by the larva, I affixed to it the name of
ohscura? Fabr., but observed to you in a former letter, that I was
not certain whether the name was correctly applied. Indeed it
appears to be impossible to determine many of our numerous

1 Dura^ril's Ips is a Cryptophagus of the modern systems, a pentamerous genus.

58

Buprestides and Elaters without the aid of Herbst's figures and
descriptions, which include numbers of them. Tlie name of
Omalisus coccinatus Say, was given me by that gentleman, but
is has not yet been published by him. In the specimen of your
807 sent me and marked 3, 4, 4, I discovered, by the use of a
lens surrounded by a concave reflector, that it was tetramerous.
Still my specimen may exhibit that conformation, while yours
of the other sex may have the hand trimerous. I consider it
to belong to the genus Mycetopliagus (vid. 31. hicolor and
31. flavijjes Fabr.), of which I have no other examples than the
species you have sent me. Yon mistook the drift of my remark
on your 814. It was intended to remind you that in Elodes
the labial palpi were forked. Having only a single specimen,
I was loth to sacriiice it by dissection, and have no other insect
allied to it. Your Rhipisera (for such I consider it) must be
a charming insect, and I hope you will find the male, with its
antenna? of thirty-five joints. It diflPers from the Ptilinus
inystacinus^ as figured by Drury, and is very distinct from
marginata Kirby. Latreille says (Nonv. Diet. dTIist. Nat.,
Vol. XXVIII, article Ptyocerus) that ^^ 31elasi8 2n(^ea of Pal. de
Beauvois is congeneric with 31. mystaciinis^ the type of La-
treille's genus Rhlpicera and Thunberg's Ptyocerus.''' I have
therefore extracted the description of tlie 31. j9/c?ea from
Beauvois's splendid Avork, and annex a sketch of his insect,
which cannot be confounded with yours.

Your having incidentally mentioned Platycerus securidens.,
reminds me that if I marked your insect of that name, it Avas
probably an error. I never saw the true P. securidens Say,
till about a year since, when I received one from j\Ir. Leonard,
which agreed in size, etc., with Say's description. The mandi-
bles are very dift'erent from those of the other and larger
species, which I had hitherto supposed to be P. securidens.
This larger species appears to be the lAicanus (^Platycerus^
piceus of Weber. Weber describes another North American

I

59

species, which is probably the smallest known, being but about
half the size of the P. carahoides. He calls it L. quercus.

You will receive Peltis ferruginea from Europe, a genus
recently separated from Thymalus. This species much resem-
bles the one you caught in Northampton, and I wish you to
compare them closely, and if you find them to be distinct, point
out in what they differ, and send me the name you give your
species, of which I have a short description in my Mss. I have
a true Thymalus allied to limbatus Fabr., from which it differs
in being rather larger, in having larger punctures on the
thorax, and smaller ones on the elytra, and the series on the
latter more remote than in P. limbatus. I obtained it from
tree fungi. When you see the Peltis ferruginea you will be
able to tell me whether Nitidula grossa can belong to the same
genus.

Since writing the description of Melasis picea^ I have dis-
covered that some confusion exists in regard to the genus
Rhipicera. Dalman founded his genus Polytomus a year or two
before Latreille proposed that of Rhipicera, and both took for
the type Ptilinus mystacinus Fabr., Hispa mystacina of Drury.
Latreille (Nouv. Diet. d'Hist. Nat.) somehow or other appears
to have connected his genus with Ptyocerus of Thunberg,
established upon Melasis mystacina Fabr., a very different insect
from the Ptilinus and Hispa of Fabricius and Drury. I do
not recollect what Thunberg says about the mandibles of his
genus Ptyocerus, but the antennae are 11-jointed, the three
basal ones simple, and the remaining ones flabellate within
(vid. J^ov. Act. Holm., 1806). In the year 1821, Dalman
revised his genus Polytomus, and added two new species from
Brazil, one of which is identical with Rhipicera marginata of
Kirby. (Compare Ptyocerus marginatus Dalm., Nov. Act.
Holm., 1821, with Kirby's insect in Linn. Trans.) Your insect
does not answer to eitlier of those described in the genera
Ptyocerus. Rhipidius, Polytomus, or Rhipicera. Melasis picea
of Beauvois cannot belong to Polytomus (which name, in point -

60

of time, takes precedence of Rhipicerd) , but possibly may be a
Ptyocenis, Its bidentate mandibles exclude it from the families
Buprestidce, Elateridce and Cebrionidce, though its external
appearance would associate it with the Platers.

Not being able to refer Schonherr's DendropJiagus to any of
the pentamerous families, I have examined closely the Cucu-
jidce^ and the following is the result, which proves them to be
strictly pentamerous, though in a natural arrangement they are
allied to Trogosita^ a tetramerous genus.

Parandra. First, second and third tarsal joints gradually
decreasing in length ; fourth (basillary node, Latr.) nearly glob-
ular, but separated from the fifth or claw joint by a transverse
line, which is fringed with hairs beneath, as are the apices of
the preceding joints ; claw joints longest.

Cucujus, Uleiota and DendrojjJiagiis. First tarsal joint mi-
nute, shorter than either of the preceding ones, but sufficiently
distinct ; second, third and fourth, gradually decreasing in
length ; fifth as long as the second, or longer. I have another
Uleiota, a third larger than duhia, of a iniiform blackish color,
the sides of the thorax not denticulated, as in that species, but
with two minute tubercles, one just before the middle, and the
other near the base ; feet, antennas and palpi rufous. It cannot
be a Dendrophagus, because the last joint of the antennae is not
much longer than the others. Schonherr says that in the male of
Cucujus depressus, and in C. planus, the tarsi are hetcromerous.
His note on the Cleridoi (Introd. Ent. Ill, p. 683), which I
had forgotten before, should not pass unnoticed. All the Cler-
id(B that I have seen are truly pentamerous, though somo, upon
a superficial examination, may appear to be tetramerous, or (as
Kirby says of Thanasimus formicaYms) hetcromerous. The
hind tarsi of T. formiearius have the first joint cut ofl" ob-
liquely from above downward. The four anterior tarsi do not
have the first joint so obHcpie. In Oleriis the first joint is N'^'ry
short, oblique, and nearly concealed by the base of the second.
In Enoplium the tarsi are apparently tetramerous in a different

61

■way ; the first three joints are distinct, the fourth minute,
nearly globular or nodose, and concealed in a lobed depression
of the upper surface of the third joint ; the fifth, or claw joint,
is very apparent.

If my specimen, which I name Opilus f coccineus, be truly an
Ojnlus, the tarsi are heteromerous, after the conformation of
Clerus, but the first joint is still less discernible.

I am by no means prepared to reject the admirable eclectic
system of Geoffrey and Latreille, and the above observations
go to confirm it. The Cucujidce may follow Passalus in the
pentamerous group, having some external resemblance to the
Lucayiidce, and all of tliem agreeing in habit with these and the
Tenebrionidce. The larva of Cucujus clavipes so closely resem-
bles that of Dendroides as hardly to be distinguished from it.

HENTZ TO HARRIS.

Chapel Hill, March, 1829.

I have at last discovered 3forio Georgice Say. This will put
an end to our doubt respecting 740, which, notwithstanding the
tarsi, is related io^Harpalus. The Morio I have found, though
certainly Mr. Say's insect, may be different from 31. monilicor-
nis, which he quotes, since the latter is said to be an inhabitant
of Cayenne, and the description does not fully agree with my in-
sect. The body of Morio is somewhat elongated, its habitus
being analogous to that of Qlivina. The eyes are prominent, and
suddenly swollen, the head being strangled behind so as to form a
neck narrower than the head. The labrum is deeply bifid, and
the labium in its concavity has a small, obtuse tooth, which
appears nearly bifid. In 740, the labrum (when dissected)
appears scarcely emarginate, and the labium has a long acute
tooth. This is sufficient to distinguish it from Morio. The
characters given above agree so well with the description given

62

in the Dictionnairc classique d'histoire naturelle, article 3Io-
rioji, that I think it probable that it was taken from my insect.
The antennjB are considerably flattened in the middle, so as to
appear larger in one direction ; and the tarsi of the third pair
of legs are much more robust, and thicker than the rest in both
sexes, — characters which, with the preceding one, have escaped
the notice of Mr. Say, and yet are important ; for tlie last, if
common to all the species of this genus, ought to be considered
generic, as it is not a common one.

March Sth.

No. 814 [814 Hentz's mss. Catal. = Ulodes ? fragilis] I
agree with you in thinking nearer Dascillus than diodes, as the
mandibles are not much concealed under the labrum, but the
last joint of the palpi is not what could be called '•'•tronque ou
tres ohtiisy

I have now no less than six distinct species congeneric with
No. 807. [807 Hentz's mss. Catal. r=: Mycetoijliagu% jounctatus
Say.] When you see them all I think you will be convinced
that they are distinct from Mijcetojylicigus Fabr. By the by,
what genus of Latreille do you mean ? Is it Eustrojjlms ? If
that be the case, I think I have three species to which the name
applies better. One of them you marked JaustrojjJius hieolor ?
To those the characters given in the Dictionnairc classique
d'histoire naturelle '■'-tete tras penchee'^ applies very well. I
have two more species to which all the characters of Eusirophu8
apply except tliis, " et dont aucun des articles^^^ (speaking of
the antennae) a par^/r du 3'"" n^cst lenticidaire "; tliey having
slightly perfoliate and moniliform antenna?. These Aa'c species
have the body more or less attenuated behind. But besides
these I have two species, one of wliicli, No. 448 [448 Ilentz's
MSS. C>'c\tiv\.=^ Diaper is hieolor ? Fabr.] you have. I liad marked
that one M. hieolor Fabr., and the other M. fiavipcs. They are
both nearer Diaperis than any of those mentioned above.

63

Now liere is a great difficulty. The generic characters of Fab-
ricius are insufficient, and he himself did not attend to them
very frequently ; therefore my 448 may have been referred by
him to the genus Mycetoijliagus. Is it not possible that Illiger,
or whoever referred M. hicolor to Eustrophus, took my 751, or
some other undescribcd species to which Fabricius's description
might apply, as well as many more that I have ? After all,
my names may be well applied. He says the insect is glabrous,
which does not apply as well to my 751 as to my 448. As you*
always follow Latreille's system, you probably had in view his
genus JS'IiicetopliaguB (Regne Anim. 833). But I do not see
how 807 could be placed in the family which contains Trogosites.
All these insects seem to me to belong naturally to the heter-
omerous division.

Since writing the above I have been in the woods, and dis-
covered one more species of the same genus. I have nov/
seven distinct ones. The 9 are apparently tetramerous, the $
have four joints in the tarsi of the second and third pair of legs,
but the hand has but three visible joints. The
first is much wider and larger than all the rest
together, and furnished with pnlvilli, formed by
stout bristles. At first sight it has the appear-
Fig. 10. ance of the tarsi in Staphylinus. I have studied
carefully all these insects, which offer precisely the same char-
acters in the $ and 9 . Only one is so very small that my best
o-lasses cannot render it indubitable that its conformation is the
same ; though I am pretty certain that it is. I do not know
Latreille's genus, and therefore may be mistaken in my opinion ;
would you persist in thinking that it belongs to Mycetophagus
Latr. ?

As you suppose, the spring has appeared, though very late.
For this climate the winter has been unusually severe. I have,
however, already collected several new and interesting insects.
I have had a little axe made for me, and I go, like a wopd-
cutter, splitting and cutting all the old trees I can find.

64

I have found three specimens of an insect which puzzles me
a good deaL According to Latreillc, in the Regne Animal, it
would undoubtedly be a Serropalpus^ as the penultimate joint
of the tarsi is bifid in the first and second pair of legs, the
maxillary palpi serrated, and the last joint nearly "e?i forme de
haehe allongeey But Leach, in the eighth volume of the
Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, says the body is " almost cylindrical
and very lono;." That does not agree with mv insect, which
resembles so much a Cistela I have, that at first I compared
them to ascertain whether they were not of the same species.
The insect is blackish or piceous above, and hairy ; antennae,
palpi, feet and entire under surface, ferruginous. The elytra
have about nine punctured striaB. The head and thorax are
punctured, and the thorax has a slightly impressed indentation
on each side at the base.

Leach's remark does not seem sufficient to make me call this
insect anything but Serropalpus, but I w ill receive your remarks
upon it with great pleasure.

I have an insect now marked Stenostoma from ^Massachusetts,
first marked Telepliorus by an unaccountable mistake, for it is
unquestionably heteromerous. It may be an (Edemera, but the
elongation of the mouth made me prefer placing it in /Stenostoma.
The last joint of the maxillary palpi is neither quite cylindrical
nor securiform. The insect is pale yellow, the thorax deeper
yellow, dark beneath, and the tip of the elytra is blackish.
Can you inform me about this insect? It undoubtedly resem-
bles Telepliorus very much in all respects, except the subcylin-
drical thorax. The length is not quite |^ inch.

You may recollect having seen a little Clerus? which I
collected at N. Hampton, with scarlet elytra, now marked 238.
[238 Ilentz's mss. Catal. = Opilus ? coccineus Ilai-r. imss.]
The labial paljii seem to be securiform, but are mucli smaller
than usual in that family. At first it may appear tetramerous,
but the first joint can be easily discovered Avitli a stronn^ magni-
fier. The joints of the hand are wider, as in Staphylinus^ and

65

a general resemblance with Olerus apiarius may be observed.
Is it a Olerus ?

HARRIS TO HENTZ.

Milton, March 25, 1829.

Among the numerous small insects in my cabinet, set aside
at first as undetermined for reexamination, I have been so fortu-
nate as to discover a true Elodes, the Cyplion ovalis of Say.
The palpi are easily seen without dissecting the mouth. The
penultimate tarsal joint is bilobed, and the nails exceedingly
minute, and apparently simple. The antenna are situated
below the inner orbits of the eyes, and the clypeus appears to
be emarginated on each side for the reception of the first joint
of the antenna, which is rather large ; the remaining joints are
obconic, except the last, which is oval. You will have no doubt
that your 814 is not an Elodes. Among my small insects are
two species allied to your 807, one of which nearly agrees with
Say's Mycetophagus flexuosus. This insect has tlie hand trime-
rous, and I have in vain looked for a penultimate joint. Not-
withstanding, it resembles in figure, antennte, etc., M. quadri-
pustulatus, as described and represented by various authors.
You may recollect that I mentioned a simihxr anomaly in the
male tarsi of Malachius. I then thouo-ht that it was owiiio; to
my want of acumen that I could discover only four joints in the
hand of my specimen, but repeated observations have confirmed
this fact, both in quadrimaculatus and vittatus. I have no
male of the tricolor, and these three are the only insects of the
genus in my possession, unless your 217 be one. [217 Hentz's
Mss. Catal. = Malachius scincetus Say.] In addition to the
above remarks, written before I received your letter, I would
observe that I shall suspend my judgment till I have European
specimens of Mycetojyhagus, as the genus now stands, for no

OCCAS. PAPERS B. S. N. H. — I. 5

66

reliance is to be placed upon Fabricius, and I advise you to ex-
amine Dumdril's figures of M. quadripustulatus. Having pre-
viously referred your 448 (^Uustrophus, as it certainly is,) to
M. hicolor Fabr., I was abominably stupid and careless in point-
ing out that species for your 807. Eustroplius hicolor ? Fabr.
and E. tomentosus Say, are both found in Massachusetts. Are
the nails of your supposed Serropalpus pectinated, as repre-
sented in your figure ? If so, it is not a true Serropalpus.
In quadrimaculatus Say, the head is nutant, concealed from
above by the prominent thorax, and the palpi are not as in
your figure. The penultimate tarsal joint of the hind legs is
very short ; the same in the hand, and the intermediate tarsus
is obcordate, hardly bilobed, or not much more than bifid, and
the nails are simple. Tlie genus Mycetopliila is known to me
only from LeConte's figure, in the Annals of the Lyceum of
Natural History of New York ; but perhaps your supposed Serro-
palpus may belong to it, or to Allecula Fabr. Your 201 here-
tofore has puzzled me exceedingly. I found my specimen in
Boston street, and recollected Rcemer's figure and description
at once ; but was astonished, on referring to his work, to per-
ceive that he called it Lymexylon navale, an European insect
with short antennas, Avliile his and my insect had long antennas,
and was an American species. At length I concluded Roemer
did not know the genus Lymexylon correctly, and therefore
labelled my insect (Edemera lloemeri^ which name it has borne
in my cabinet these three years. I think with you it may be a
Stenostoma. Your little scarlet Clerus ? 238 is probably the
insect which I call Opilus ? cocclneus, and alluded to in my last
letter. My specimen was captured upon a board fence.

In answer to your queries respecting some of the Elaters^ I
remark, that finding no description in Fabricius which agreed
better with your 128 [128= Elater fascicular is Fabr., Hentz's
MSS. Catal.] than that of fascicularis, I thought it miglit be
a variety of that species ; but am not satisfied that this opinion
is correct. To an insect belonging to my subgenus Nothora,

67

Prof. Say returned me the name of dispar Herbst, and to him
I owe all the names from Herbst and Illiger, whose works I
have not seen. Prof. Say was probably mistaken in this in-
stance, as you will see from the following description of this
and an allied species of my Notliora.

^'- Nothora (6, my cabinet). Pale reddish brown, densely
covered with depressed pale ochreous hairs. Antennse with
simple elongated obconic joints in both sexes ; head and thorax
with distinct dilated punctures, the disk of the latter with an
impressed line, obsolete before ; elytra punctato-striate, punc-
tures distinct ; interstitial lines minutely punctured. Length
about 2^^ inch. This species is certainly specifically distinct
from the next, and to neither of them can we apply the names
E. lividus De Geer and E. elongatus Beauvois, both of which
Schonherr makes synonymous with the dispar of Herbst. It
is more probable that this Notliora is the Elater cinereus of
Weber."

'•'■ Notliora (146 of my cabinet). Dark castaneous, antennae
and feet paler, body with short depressed yellowish hairs.
Antennse as in the preceding; head and thorax with dilated
punctures, the latter with an abbreviated dorsal line at base,
obsolete on the middle ; elytra puncto-striate, interstitial lines
minutely punctured. Length nearly -| inch. Can this be the
fulvipes or casta^iipes Fabr. ? Those species are described as
having striated elytra, but Fabricius does not inform us whether
they are '■'■ punctato-striata."

I am not sure that I know your 143 ; the following descrip-
tion from my mss. seems most likely to be the same :

" Plater liieroglyphieus. Thorax black, elytra pale yellowish
brown, striated, with two oblique irrdgular black fascise. Length
over 2% inch."

68

HENTZ TO HARRIS.

Chapel Hill, April 22, 1829.

You will observe that the anomaly in 3Ialachius is not of the
same nature as in my seven insects. The ^ in some species
has only four joints in the hand, and otherwise is pentamerous,
whilst my insects, and probably yours, have a double anomaly ;
they should naturally be placed in the heteromerous division,
though they are tetramerous, and the $ has only three joints
in the hand. I do not think thev ouo-ht to be referred to
Mycetopliagiis. I mean, when I have matured the subject
more, to propose a new genus, having my 808 for its type.

The nails of my 940 are serrated as in the annexed figure :
But it does not seem to be a Serrojyaljjus, if S. quadrimacida-
tus of Say is one. I have had the insect some two years,
but have not named it yet, and at first sight I recog-
Fig. 11. nized it from your very excellent sketch. That it is Mr.
Say's insect there is no doubt, although the size does not
correspond. The palpi, the form of the thorax, the direction
of the head, etc., forbid the referring my insect to the same
genus with it. Leconte's figure of 3Iycetophila does not agree
with my insect, but his plate is very badly executed.

My J43 [= Elater navicellus^ Hentz's mss. Catal.] does not

seem to be your Elater hiei'oglyphicus. Tliis is the exact

markino; of the elvtra. They are striated, but the

punctures are nearly equal all over. I should say that

rtlj^ the antenn;c are slightly serrated. The rest of your

description agrees. ^

Fig. 12. j,^ your supposition in regard to the luminous larva,

I agree fully, and will look for the 9 in tlic season, but I am

very unwilling to go into the woods now. They are infested

with myriads of ticks which produce an intolerable itching, even

69

when they have not yet fixed themselves on the skin. I ara
now constantly occupied, while 1 write, in scratching my abdo-
men, which has no less than seven protuberances produced by
a quarter of an hour's visit of one of those gentlemen as much
as a week ago. I have sometimes found thirty or forty in my
shirt after a ramble in the woods, and you may judge of my
misery then. I could encounter scorpions with more fortitude.
We have, moreover, mad dogs and mokeson snakes in abund-
ance to make our solitary forests more agreeable and secure.

The Molorchus which you described is probably new, and is
not known to me, though very likely it is closely related to M.
himaculatus Say, which is very common here at this season on
the blossom of the dogwood, along with another species which
is wholly black except the thorax ; that is ferruginous. Both
species vary so much in size (from ^ in. to -^^ in.) that I could
not say whether the greatest or the least was most common.
M. himaculatus is sometimes more than -^^ of an inch long.
It is strange I have not sent either to you.

One of the sexes of the Molorchus mentioned above, with a
ferruginous thorax, has antennse considerably longer than the
body, the other has them considerably shorter. Both species
are also found on the blossom of the wild plum tree.

Our " rose-buo- " is not a rose-bus;, for it is never found on
that flower as far as I know, whilst it is pretty common on the
chinquepin, and other trees, feeding on the leaves, not on the
blossom. I think I h-ave found it on grape vines. Its never
being found on the rose, which is common here, both in a wild
and cultivated state, is the main reason that could induce me to
consider it as distinct from the northern species ; but the name
polyphaga^ given by Melsheimer or Knoch, indicates what we
know, that it may feed on almost anything green. I grant with
you, that the aspect differs considerably, but it may arise in a
great measure from the difference in size, and as to the color-
ing, it differs very much in different specimens of our insects.
As usual in such cases, I have but one northern rose-bug, and

70

cannot compare it well with ours. I really think ours is a
variety produced by the climate, but I may think otherwise
to-morrow. The question has puzzled me as much as you.
You will observe this fact, however, that several of our insects
are much larger than yours. I have a lihagiiim Uneatum
which is ^ inch in length. Several species of Biiprestis are
in the same case.

As to ChremastocJieili, I can assure you that of all the trees
on this hill, there is none which I have searched with more care
than the chinquapin, and yet I have never found on it, or
about it, one of the species of that genus. I have often stood
hours around a sino;le bush when the blossoms were out, as
myriads of insects crowd there. I haA^e found several Chre-
mastocJieili flying in the day time and alighting on the hottest
side of a barren hill of red clay. But the ants, as at Round
Hill, have had the goodness to supply me with living ones,
which they carried off without any resistance. The difficulty
in findine the habitation of these reminds me that Bosc seems to
have made a mistake, if he is the person who supposed that
BoletojjJiar/us cornutus fed on the Boleti of this country. I
have collected a great number of the $ and 9 , and know so
well the place Avliich they inhabit, that if you should place me
in the dark, before a pine stump which contains any of them, I
could at once lay my hands on them. It is only in pine stumps
or logs which are considerably decayed, and in which the bark
is quite loose, that they may be found. At that part where
the rubbish accumulates, which falls between the bark and the
crumbling wood, where there is a crust, as it were, of decayed
vegetable substance, there are they always found, and in no
other place whatever. They have good wings under their
shells, but, though I may be mistaken, I believe their elytra
are not intended to separate, for they open with some difficulty.

Have you Biccelus purpiiratus Say ? It seems to me certain
now that the insect you sent me at Northampton is not Dicculus
elonfjatus. I will copy for you the notes on this subject from
my journal.

71

" No. 64. This is most probably D. elongatus, although it is
longer. The specimen now marked 907 was sent me by Dr.
Harris under that name, but it chffers from this materially, and,
except for its length, which agrees with Say's description, it
can hardly be referred to that species. The thorax in 907 is
shorter and wider d,t base. The whole insect is shorter ; and
the name elongatus seems at first sight to be misapplied. Be-
sides that, the elytra offer differences. In 907, between the
suture and the humeral elevated line, there are five interstitial
lines, three of which are not uncommonly convex, but the two
intermediate ones are remarkably convex, and, visible to the
naked eye, continvie so till they reach the humeral elevated line
near the apex. Moreover, the three striae between the hu-
meral line and the margin are very distinctly punctured, and
the others near the apex are obscurely so, whereas in No. 64
the punctures are obsolete, and even wanting on the marginal
strise, as well as at the apex."

[" No. 64. This has two impressed dots, each with one hair,
on the margin of the thorax. It is probable that this is the
same as D. si7nplex of Dejean, and that he described the variety
labelled (64 ? ?) in my collection, or else that is D, simplex^
and I do not possess D. elongatus.'''' Hentz's mss. Catal.]

HARRIS TO HENTZ,

Milton, June 5, 1829.

Your Macrodactylus I have compared with numerous speci-
mens of our rose-bug ; the colors and size of which (namely,
our insect) are very uniform in different individuals. Setting
these circumstances aside, your insect appears prima facie to
differ sufficiently to constitute a distinct species ; being pro-
portionately more elongated and slender than ours, and having
the four posterior tarsi distinctly annulated with white bristles.

72

Our rose-bug prefers the petals of the rose, but is also found
abundantly on the blossoms of Chrysanthemum leucanthemum^
on the leaves of the wild and cultivated grape vine, and on the
tender leaves of many fruit and forest trees ; it may, therefore,
be truly called polyphagous. To me it appears that you will
be perfectly safe in making distinct species of these insects, and
unless you do so, Dejean will probably anticipate you.

I have found a few specimens of Chremastocheilus Hentzii.
and one of 0. Sayi, in this vicinity, in the middle of a hot day,
in a dry road exposed to the sun. Their flight is short, irreg-
ular, and something like that of a dipterous insect. There are
but fcAv chestnut trees here, and I have searched them in vain
for these insects.

Mr. Oakes found a laree number of Eledona eornuta in tree
Boleti, at the base of the White Mountains.

HENTZ TO HARRIS.

Chapei. Hill, July 8, 1829.

Your T65 seems to be the same as my 78 though much
smaller. Here is the extract of my journal on that subject.
" 78. This is probably Bytiscus verticalis ; but Say's description
is not correct. After a geminate impressed punctured spot near
the Qiasus, he probably intended to have written on each side.
He has overlooked the acute line above the vertex and the im-
pressed spot on the anterior termination of the dorsal line of the
thorax (wanting in yours). The three series of punctures are
not very distinct, excepting the one nearest to the suture. I do
not know where D. marginatus is described which he mentions
at the end of the description."

We have the hete rouge Iutc too, from which I suffer enor-
mously now ; but I alluded to a time tick, which has a silvery
spot on the back, and is seen only in the early part of the

73

season. There is another species a Httle smaller, without the
silver spot, which is suggested by the country people here, to
be the young of the preceding one a year old. Then we have
the seed-tick, which will appear about the middle of this month.
They swarm in the woods, and are seen always gathered in a
lump of four or five hundred holding together tight at the end of
a blade of grass. As soon as you touch them with the foot or leg
they instantly scatter on your body. Then ! then ! you have
fine work in scratching. I could not think of a worse punish-
ment to my greatest enemy than to have one of these little
flocks to scratch off every morning. The country people here
have a firm belief that these are the progeny of the big titks
which fall off in the autumn from the sides of the cattle ; and.
that the blood ivhich theij contain is during the winter converted
into these sociable little mites ! !

Some time in March or April, I discovered in a standing
trunk of a decaying tree, about thirty larvae of an insect which
were feeding on the black mould resulting from the decomposi-
tion of the wood. They so completely resembled the larva of
Scarabceus Tityrus that I took them for such, and brought
them home in my handkerchief to feed them in a pot with the
substance in which they were found. They were so large that
I did not doubt they would transform this season, and I in-
tended to save some in spirits in all the states so as to try to
make out the anatomy and history «f the insect. I did so, and
kept about twenty-five in the black mould. About five weeks
ago, they began to make their nests for transformation. These
are about the size of turkeys' eggs and are nothing but the
mere mould glued with a viscous substance, and having a cen-
tral cavity of the size of a small hen's egg, in which the insect
changed to a pupa state. About a week ago, I opened them
and found that they were all transformed; but they were not the
S. Tityrus as I thought, but Phileurus Didymus, which, by its
habits, had puzzled me so much formerly. By the by, you would
oblige me by giving me the characters of Phileurus from La-

74

treille's " Genera." Having so many specimens of this large
insect, would it not be well to make out, if I can, its anatomy
and history ? The habit Avhicli I alluded to above, is to come
down into houses by the chimney. At least, that is the only
way in which I can account for its presence. Mr. Andrews,
two years ago, was astonished to hear a noise in a stove, which,
since winter, had stood unopened in his room. He found one
of these insects in the ashes, and was tempted to think that,
like our ticks, it had an unnatural origin. We found several
in our rooms at midniojht when no door nor window was
opened. In a word, I think that the insect always deposits its
eggs in standing hollow trees, for which it mistakes chimneys.
I see the reason why the tree should be standing. The cavity
produced above the mould is an excellent receptacle for water
and to keep up a moisture which is indispensable to soften the
food of the larva. In the perfect insect, I see no external
difference between the 3 and 9 .

HARRIS TO HENTZ.

Milton, July 28, 1829

Your speaking of the habitat of PJiileurus leads me to make
some remarks on those of other lamellicorn genera. The larvae
of Luccmus dama Fabr. and Gymnodus (^Trichius) scaher
Beauv., are found in the hollows of decayed trees. The co-
coons of both are of similar form and composition with those of
Phileurus and Gymnoproctus (mi) (^Trichiiis) canalicidatus
Fabr. I once found great numbers of them in a decayed stump,
in their perfect state, but saw no larvaB. You and Prof. Say
found Scar. Tityrus in decayed trees. Some writers say that
the larvae of Cetonia, in Europe, inhabit ant-hills. The large
hills in our woods appear to be composed of vegetable or
ligneous matter, very analogous to the debris or tan of decayed

.75

trees. On the contrary, Scar, relictus Say, inhabits heaps of
dung accumulated in our cow-yards, etc., whence I have ob-
tained and bred the larvas. I suspect, also, that my small
species allied to it, as also others in my cabinet, viz., S. triden-
tatus Say, S. gibhosus De Geer, and a still smaller species, will
be discovered in stercoraceous situations. My specimens were
found in roads frequently traversed by dung-carts. This differ-
ence of habit will lead to a subdivision of Scarahceus, if close
examination should show any difference in structure, which
we might naturally expect.

Respecting No. 96, CaUistus ? pallipes Fabr., I would make
some remarks in answer to your queries. I believe it to be the
Carahus paUijjes of Olivier and Fabricius, and in this, Prof.
Say, to whom I sent the insect with this name, coincided.
Fabricius described a German insect, also by the name pallipes,
but afterwards changed the name (see his Index and Schon-
herr, I, p. 190, No. 116) to albipes. Without thinking of the
old name for the German insect, and without considering the
brief characters given for CaUistus, when I saw the pallipes
Fabr., enumerated among the Callisti in the " Regno Animal,"
I concluded, of course, that it was intended for our American
insect. On reexamining the " Regno Animal," I find that
Panzer 73, 7 is quoted as synonymous with the pallipes which
proves that Latreille meant the German insect. You have sent
me four Carolinian insects congeneric with my 96 [== Fcronia
pallipes Fabr., Harr. mss. Catal.]. First (587, my cabinet)
[= Feronia pallipes Say, var., Harr. mss. Catal.], though consid-
erably larger, is probably an overgrown specimen of our very
abundant pallipes^ second (586, my cab.) [= Feronia lineola
Fabr., Harr. mss, Catal.], I suppose to be lineola', it has two
conspicuous black spots on the thorax; third (906, my cab.),
your 49, which I call limhata Say ; and fourth (my 906 bis),
rather smaller than limhata, but most likely a variety only.

An excellent natural character by which you may distinguish
Colymhetes from Bytiscus (if you have not the males) is that

76

there is a projection of the anterior part of the orbit over the
eye in Colymhctcs and not in Dytiscus. This character has not
been noticed by entomologists. You will see it very distinctly
in the beautiful and rare C. sculptilis.

Have you a Scymnus ? I have raised a single specimen of
three species. The genus was separated from Coccinella by
Herbst. The " thorax is scarcely' narrower than the coleoptra,
the lateral and external margins meeting together ; body ovate,
pubescent," three last joints of the antennae (nearly connate)
united closely in an ovate club. The species are small, and the
larvae, I believe, have not been described. Like those of the
Coccinella they feed iipon Aphides. They have on each seg-
ment six JloccuU, in a transverse series, white as snow, and of a
cottony appearance. They wander among the aphides, seize them
with their mandibles, then elevate them, and suck their juices
out, leaving only the skins. They become pupai on the leaf of
a plant,, as do the Coecinellce. Scymmis., as you know, means
lion's whelp. My first discovered species I named S. ferox., a
character which it seems is not peculiar to one species of these
" Avolves," or lions, " in sheep's clothing."

The larva of Hispa is an anomaly in its habits. It feeds
upon the parenchyma of leaves between the cuticles, and its
situation is detected by a yellow or reddish spot. You will not
confound it with the subcutaneous Tinece whose habits are
similar. The larva of Hispa is a hexapod, that of the Tinece
apod. The larva of ClyiJira dominicana lives in a case ; I ob-
tained some of the pupae-cases under a stone; they are very
curious. Perhaps you may find those of your large Southern
species. The larva of Imatidium aryus Herbst, is much like
that of Oassida, but the spines arc branched. How this genus
and Hispa can have any affinity I cannot conceive, so adverse
are the larvae and their habits.

7T

HENTZ TO HARRIS.

Chapel Hill, Aug. 13, 1829.

I am willing to confess to you my want of acvimen in findino-
so little difference between your 582 (my 13), marked by you
BracJiinus fumans, and the European £. cre])itans, that I can
only look upon them as varieties. Perhaps I am quite wrong,
but I fear it is too much the fashion with our brethren natural-
ists of Europe, and even Mr. Say, to make new species with
slight varieties. It is true that B. crepitans is smaller, but mv
13 varies from | to more than ^ an inch. We ought to inves-
tigate thoroughly, but we must beware against the danger of
creating confusion by making too nice distinctions. Insects of
the same sj)ecies vary considerably in color, in size and in
shape, even in the same country. I have taken in the act of
copulation insects which accidentally (not sexually) varied
enough in shape to create a distinct species, if they had been
taken separately.

I thank you for mentioning your discovery for distinguishing
between Colymhetes and Bytisciis. It is of the highest value,
where we must, in the state of the science, have the two sexes
to ascertain genera. I wish you would try to find some char-
acter of that kind for the Tlioracici. I think I have a Scym-
7ms. I always thought it related to Coccinella, but have not
yet studied it, nor is it labelled. It is common on corn stalks,
where it runs like Coecinella ; there is a brown spot at the end
of the elytra.

I have now Megacephala virginica and caroliria. The lat-
ter was sent to me by a friend from Newbern, never being
found here. The other QM. virginica) is also a beautiful insect.
The mandibles of the 9 ■> in all specimens I have seen (six or
eight), are shorter and more curved than in the $ , and on the
right side they have three teeth of great strength, the middle
one longest ; on the left side the middle tooth is shortest. This

78

insect is always found under stones, and never flies off when
discovered, like Oicindela. The external resemblance to that
genus is remarkable, and yet they differ wholly in habits.
I have also received a Pamnachus from Newbern, marked
1001 in my catalogue. It is very doubtful whether it be
Mr. Say's P. subsulcatus. This is fully as large as P. depressus^
which is described as beino; verv much larger. The lines on
the elytra cannot be said to be obsolete; they are nearly sul-
cated.

Have you the $ and 9 of Trlcliius canalicidatus taken in
the act of copulation ? It is not rare here, and does not differ
much from the specimens you have sent me, except that it
varies much in size. But what puzzles me about that species
is, that young Andrews and I have each found a specimen
apparently of that species, having a tail or ovipositor like that
of the 9 of T. hemii^terus of Europe, to which, by the by, it is
closely related. Is it possible that these are the only females
among so many males that I have caught ? or is it a distinct
species ? But I cannot see any other difference between the
one I have and all the others. Did I ever send you my 373 ?
It is the only insect in my collection to which I can affix the
name of Blajjs. Have you any insect of that genus ? I can-
not find that mine is described anywhere.

I have, this season, collected a great number of Melolontha
polyphaga Melsh. (I think this name is the best.)

I am just beginning to study Hymenoptera in earnest. Do
tell me how you find out the sexes, when there are no external
differences, as in wasps and bees. Jurine mentions one being
able, in that case, to find them in sexual connection ; but it is
an actual fact that I do not recollect seeing a hyraenopterous
insect in that situation once in my life.

79

HENTZ TO HARRIS.

Chapel Hill, August 24, 1829.

I begin, as usual, with questions. Do you consider your
'•''Cistela sulphurea European, but naturalized liere," as distinct
from Say's O. sericea ? or do you tliink he described an insect
already known ? I want also to know whether all your speci-
mens have an impressed spot on each side of the thorax as
the one you sent me. My specimens have none ; and if all
yours are so, we may establish two species. I have sent you
mine, and you returned also that name for it. My number for
them is 398. Your 777 [= '■'-Scirtes tibialis^ Harr. mss.,"
Harr. mss. Catal.] has neither antennse nor palpi, but I am
almost convinced that it cannot be an Orchesia. I have two
species undoubtedly belonging to that genus, one of which may
be the European species. The body of Orchesia is " long and
narrow," the elytra are " etroites, terminees en pointe.''^ The
posterior tarsi are " more than twice as long as the tibiae, the
first joint as long as the rest together." It is undoubtedly
related to the IforcMlones, and leaps like the insects of that
family. It lives in Boleti, where I have found the larva, pupa,
and perfect insect. In the tM''elfth volume of the Dictionnaire
classique d'histoire naturelle, there is a fiill account of this
genus. I will send you one of my smaller species ; both seem
to be quite rare. They transform in midwinter.

I cannot look upon my 648 as Say's Donjpliora decemlhicata^
though it is evidently related. The suture is not black, the
interior line is never confluent with the suture, etc. ; moreover,
though he calls it decemlineata, according to his description it
should have twelve lines, counting in the suture. Mine never
has but eicrht, thoua;h the centre of the widest band has some-
times a little yellow, which approaches to a division into ten.
What do you think ? Is that a correct description if mine is
his insect ?

80

As you study larvae, you aa^II perhaps explain to me tlie
strange attack of some pujnvorous insect upon a worm wln'ch is
now under my eye. About ten days ago, some stalks of the
tomato were brought to me with two larvae of a Sphinx, new
to me, feeding on the leaves ; one of them covered with little
black spots indicating the Avounds made by some Ichneumon.
But what I cannot comprehend is that from each spot there
issues a thread, from which hangs a little cocoon of beautiful
silk, like that of many insects of that great family ; there are
perhaps forty on this larva, which has ceased to eat, but
continues alive, though shrinking every day in a state of im-
mobility. The other, after feeding two or three days, died,
apparently owing to the cold weather which we have had. Is
it not possible that this larva has been attacked by two different
enemies of the same family ? INIy 119 (Hym.) makes little
yellow cocoons, which are aggregated in one bundle, but this
makes them white and singly, and what use there is in their
dangling about like bells on the back of the larva, I do not
know.

I send you a rough sketch of an insect which I found in
March under the bark of a dead hickory, and also of a pine.

It is tetramerous, and has no joint
XX /^ _^ bifid, but the first two joints of the

^\ XX ff"^ ^ manus arc somewhat dilated. The

V|#|^ J palpi are filiform. I'his may be the

//fcD'-«!^ ^ • I have another insect which may

jrifiKli^ A C ^6 the 9 ^ :iiid the antennae of Avhich

/ ^If f ^^^ ^^^"^ • '=''°'*'°°^ Tlie insect is bright

rufoiis, polished, with the disk of the

Fig. 13. ' 1 '

thorax :uid two bands on the elytra
black. It is related to Lanr/uria, but, according to Latreille,
does not belong to that family. What do you think it is ?

Among your Tenehrionites there are thrc>e which I do not
possess ; your Upis rugosus and anthracinus, and your Tenebrio
punctulatus. Ujns Ici'vigatuft is the one about which I inquired

81

in my preceding letter. I have one species considerably larger,
and closely related to it, which is distinguished from it chiefly
by the form of its thorax, which is more convex and is narrower
at base. It is from Newbern. I have in all, five species
which you have not, if one of them (No. 1004) is not T. badius
Say, with the description of which it does not well agree.
Besides these I have a Toxicum? \^Boros unieolor Say]. I
should have no doubt about its belonging to that genus, w^ere it
not that the antennae have a club of only three joints. The
other characters, except its elongated form, are those of Tcne-
hrio, or rather those of Upis, as the thorax is narrower than
the elytra.

This fall I captured Lamia hifidator Fabr. It is a beautiful
insect. I am inclined to think that his L. nodosa is the same
insect, although it is the foui-th joint of the antennae which is
incrassate. I collected five or six (to me) new species of
CUvina, the largest of which, and the most beautiful, seems to
be new, certainly not described by Say. Among the Adephagi
there is an accession in my cabinet of perhaps fifty species, a
few among the intermediate families, scarcely one of the Lam-
ellicornes, but many heteromerous insects, and a good number
of Rhyncliopliora and Longicornes.

HARRIS TO HENTZ.

Milton, September 5, 1829.

The Carolinian species (of Chremastoeheilus) allied to Hentzii^
upon careful examination and comparison with that insect, ap-
peared to present characters sufficiently distinct. There is a
small white spot on one elytron, which is situated as in Hentzii.
The other is effaced. I have mislaid my notes on this species ;
but what struck me as the most distinctive character was this :

OCCAS. PAPERS B. S. N. H. — I. 6

82

the anterior tubercles of the tliorax do not seem to be a denti-
form continuation of the angles, as in C ITcnfzn, but appear
rather like tubercles implanted within emarginations. So also
the posterior tubercles are placed rather below the plane of
the disk of the thorax in the Carolinian insect j and are separ-
ated from it by a conspicuous furrow, which is not so apparent
in O. ffentzii, in which the tubercles are more nearly in the
same plane as the disk. I would call the Carolinian insect
C. K-nochii., in honor of the founder of the genus, and because
it approaches considerably to the C. castanece of that author.

From what you say respecting Lebia j^iciticoUis Say, and the
variety, I can have no doubt respecting the insects to which
you refer, and believe them to be those described by Prof. Say.
I am not equally certain that he was correct in considering the
variety as referable to his jjIaticoUis ; it appears to me, on a
careful examination, to be entitled to consideration as a distinct
species. Both belong to the genus Cymind'is, as defined by
Dejean, and the platicollis which I last sent you is certainly C.
complanata Dejean. Since seeing his description I have la-
belled the variety in my cabinet with this name, C. comma. It
differs, as you say, in being uniformly larger, the thorax pro-
portionally smaller, the margin more dilated, and in having
a wider ochreous elytral margin, Avitli a humeral lunule of the
same color. I have never found it associated with ^^?a^«Vo?-
li%. It is true that Dejean has been accused of multiplying
species too much, but this is rather a convenience to the stu-
dent. However, his work will prove to you that we have
several species of Brachinus distinct from the crepitans and
fumann. Nothing universally decisive is to be inferred respect-
ing identity of species from seeing them sub copula. Different
species of Coccinella are known to mix in this way ; and I once
captured a male Elater ap2)ress7f7'ons united to a female U. hre-
vicornis, and have the sexes of each of these species, I once
captured numerous specimens of a small Trichius (supposed to
be the canaliculatus of Fabr.) in a decayed apple-tree stump.

83

The two sexes differed in color, and I saw tliem united repeat-
edly. Not one female had a tail, and this circumstance puzzled
me. I read Knoch's description of the canaliculatus, the
female of which he says is fiirnished " aculeo ani elongator
The presumption with me is that there are two species ; the
tailed one of the South being the true canalieulatus of Fabri-
cius and Knoch, and the other the canalieulatus of Olivier, or
squamiger of Beauvois.

You have not sent me any species of Blaps, but I have
£. tricostata Say, from Arkansas, and supposed that all the
American insects of the family were confined to the dry plains
of the West. You ask me what is the name of our common
large Tenehrio ? Not knowing exactly to what species you
refer, I subjoin the names of all my species, premising that I
make, with Herbst, a subgenus of those species which have the
thorax narrower at base than the coleoptra, and having the
antennse conspicuously thicker towards the tip.

Subgenus Upis Herbst.

No. 427, Tenehrio ( Upis) rugosus, mi. Black, rugose, 02:)aque ;
each elytron with nine series of deep linear impressions ;
thorax broadest before the middle, excurved before the poste-
rior angles which are produced ; two last ventral segments
subkevigated. Length .80 in. ; breadth .35 in.

This insect appears to be rare. It was brought to me by my
cousin, who captured it in New Hampshire. It resembles
somewhat excavahis Herbst, from India.

No. 313, Imvis Oliv., pennsglvanicus Knoch and De Geer ;
ehrysops ? Herbst. Black, Isevigated ; each elytron with nine
series of small punctures, which are nearly obsolete at tip ;
thorax broadest behind the middle, posterior angles acute,
slightly excurved. Length from .75 in. to .84 in. ; breadth
from .27 in. to .32 in.

No. 312, reticulatus Say.

No. 798, rufipes Say.

84

No. 428, anthracinus Knocli. Black, polished ; thorax sub-
quadrate, broadest at base, posterior angles rectangular, elytra
with impressed, punctured stria?, and convex, interstitial lines.
Anterior tibi;i3 of the male with a spine within the middle.
Length from .50 in. to .62 in. ; breadth from .18 in. to .24 in.

U. rufi2'>cs is hardly distinct from this species, and differs
only in having the thighs rufous or pale piceous.

No. 143, fulvipes Herbst. Trogosita femorata Fabr.

' Subgenus Tenehrio proper.

No. 128, molitor var. americanus Peck. Black, opaque, con-
fluently punctured ; posterior angles of the thorax subacute,
produced ; elytra striate, stria3 punctured, interstitial lines
acute. Body beneath, tarsi and antennse piceous, the latter
fulvous at tip. Anterior tibiae of the male arcuated. Length
from .52 in. to .71 in. ; breadth fi'om .17 in. to .25 in.

For this species Prof. Say erroneously gave me the name
of harhatulus Knoch, which is a Upis, allied to Icevis^ and has
a bearded labium. Our onolitor is found exclusively about
houses, barns, and granaries ; the larva feeds upon corn, flour,
etc., and not upon wood.

No. 316, p)unctulatus mi. Blackish brown, oblong, punc-
tured, subrugose, elytra punctato-striate, interstitial lines
convex, subacute ; all the tibiae arcuated ; tips of the antennas
ferruginous. Length .52 in. to .66 in. ; breadth from .10 in.
to .24 in.

It is a much larger species than badius, with but little
polish, the punctures more distinct, no larger ones on the sides
of the thoracic base, and the interstitial lines acute. Li
badius the interstitial lines are convex and rounded, and the
tibiic are not arcuated. T. punctidatus is distinguished from
our molitor at once by its aspect, and by having all the tibia?
arcuated, the body somewhat polished, and the posterior tho-
racic angles straight and not produced. The larvae of this

86

and all the other species which I have seen, except moUto?', live
in rotten trees.

No. 292, badius Say.

No. 429, reflexus Say.

No. 903, interstitialis Say.

No. 715, Tenebriof [= "C/Zoma/ocZims Germ., teste Hentz,"
Harr. mss. Catal.] blackish-brown, polished, head with a trans-
verse, broad impression, antennas hairy; thorax distinctly
punctured ; elytra punctato-striate, interstitial lines convex,
sublgevigated ; anterior and intermediate tibias denticnlated on
the external edges. Male with a broad, transverse depression
on the thorax near its tip. Length from .40 in. to .45 in. ;
breadth from .16 in. to .19 in. This insect resembles haclius,
but the foveolate head and thorax and denticulated tibia3 suffi-
ciently distinguish it. Probably it does not really Ijelong to
the genus Tenehrio.

In answer to your queries for a diagnostic between the sexes
of the Apidce. and Vespidce^ I can tell you but little more than
you will find in Kirby and Spence, III, pp. 301—347. In the
male the antenna? are generally longer and have more joints
than in the female. The eyes of -the male are often very large,
and nearly meet on the top of the head, which, however, is
smaller than that of the female ; Apis and Xylocopa are exam-
ples. The male Polistes fuscata may always be known from
the female and neuter by its white face. In some genera, as
Trachusa Jurine, Megachile, Coelioxys^ the anus of the male is
bifid, and of the female acuminate. In other genera this part
is obtuse in the male and acuminate in the female.

HARRIS TO HENTZ.

Milton, Oct. 24, 1829.
My Cistela sulphurea? Fabr., I believe to be identical with
C sericea Say, Journ. Acad., but not the same as C. sericea
Say, Long's Exped. These two species of Professor Say I

86

have always considered as distinct. It is true, as you have
observed, that in the insect sent you for "C sericea Say, Long's
Exped.," there are two depressions on the thorax, more obvious
in some specimens than in others, transverse, arcuated, and
ahnost dividing the thorax in an undulating line into two parts.
Besides this character, the insect is larger and darker than the
other sericea or sulphurea. As it was first described, it must
retain the name given it by Say, even if the other should prove
to be distinct from the sulphurea of Fabricius.

Your remarks on my 777 led me to make a critical examina-
tion of it. Much to my surprise I found that the maxillary
palpi were pointed, the labials fuscated, and the tarsi pentam-
erous ; add to these characters the incrassated posterior femora
and spined til)icT3, and we must conclude the insect to be a
Scirtes. It is probably allied to depressus Fabr.

Compare the insect you have figured with my sketch of
Ropaloceros fasciatus^ in a letter written Dec, 1828. You will
then be convinced that yours is at least congeneric. My insect
differs from your figure in being about one-fourth smaller, in
having the anterior angles of the thorax and of the elytra more
rounded, in having the first two joints of the tarsi subequal,
the third smallest, and the claw joint longest of all. I place
niy insect among the Xylophages of Latreille, and near to
Paussus.

If no mistake has been made in the European insects sent
Hie, our Tcnehrio molitor most closely resembles T. ohscurus
Faljr., and my T, p)unctulatus, T. molitor Fabr. • But tlic habits
of these allied insects are completely reversed, our molitor
never living in wood, and my punctulatus never being found in
meal. I think you must have my punctulatus, as it is the
most common species.

The insects injurious to the vine in this State have received
some attention from me ; they are Macrodactylus suhspinosus
Fabr., its most destructive enemy, next to Avhich in noxious-
ness is an homopterous insect, which I call Tcttigonia vitis, pale

87

yellow, with a rosaceous fascia on the base of the hemelvtra,
another on the middle, and a fuscous one at tip, just before
which is a rosaceous angjulated tranverse line. Leno-tli one
tenth of an inch or one line. Thousands of these live on a
single leaf, and by their punctures exhaust the sap, and cause
the leaf to turn yellow or brown. The other insects attacking
the vine in Massachusetts, are Anomala varia7is Fabr., Pelid-
nota punctata Fabr., and several sphinges and moths.

This day (Oct. 25) I have found a small Thanasimus new to
me.

Thanasimus f analis, mi. Four anterior tarsi 5-jointed,
posterior tarsi (apparently) 4-jointed, the first joint being con-
cealed above by the base of the second joint. Antennae
clubbed, club 3-jointed, terminal joint ovate, obliquely subacu-
minate. Tarsal joints (except the claw joints and first of the
hind tarsus) sub-obcordate, hollowed above, and membrana-
ceous in the middle of the tip ; claw joints and first and second
of tlie hind tarsus obconic ; nails with a short robust tooth be-
neath the middle. Labrum transverse, emarginated, labium
bilobed, the lobes rounded ; maxillary palpi 3-jointed, joints
cylindrical, terminal one longast ; labial palpi 3-jointed, first
joint short, minute, second long, obconic, terminal joint dilated,
securiform. Mandibles dentated at apex. Eyes notched.
Thorax obcordate or contracted behind. Description ; black,
'hairy, punctured ; mouth reddish beneath ; each elytron with
two arcuated white fasciae, convex forwards, one on the middle
and one near the tip ; neuter pale sanguineous. Length .20 in.

Oct. 26. Yesterday I gave the above characters, and to-day
I discovered Thanasimus formicarius Fabr., which exhibits all
of them except that the basal joint of the hind tarsi is much
more apparent.

88

HENTZ TO HARRIS.

University of N. C, Nov. 18, 1829.

You must excuse me for having forgotten your sketch of
Ropaloceros fasciatus. At the time I received your letter I
did not know the insect, and I have a bad memory for de-
scriptions only ; though your Boletohius montMius, sketched in
the same letter, I recognized at first sight, when I received the
insect from you. My 776 is not only congeneric, but may
belong to the same species with your insect. I have only two
(^ and one 9 , or what I suppose to be such. I will send you
one ^ , and if it be of the same species with yours, I shall be
glad to know it.

I have not your Thanasimus ; but I shall be glad to receive
from you all the information you can give me on that family.
I am as much puzzled as ever to fix on some certain characters
to divide it. I have now a little insect, collected last summer,
which in all respects answers to the characters of Thanasimus,
except in the palpi, which are not securiform, but all filiform.
It may belong to Pelecophorus Dejean, but I am not acquainted
with that genus. Its length is only .15, its breadth about .05.
Its color is piceous ; the mouth is ferruginous, the antcnnjE are
pale, except the last three joints. The elytra have large and
deep punctures arranged in regular striae ; interstitial spaces
very narrow, and often interrupted. There is a lunule on the
disk near the base, a common band on the middle, which ad-
vances to a point on the suture towards the base, and a little
dot near the apex, of a pale yellow. The thighs are pale. The
insect being small, and a unique, I have not dissected it. The
palpi are thus : '^•o**. Last joint blackish. And though the
tarsi appear to be disposed as in Thanasimus, I can see only
four joints ; but I have not placed it under a microscope for
fear of injuring it.

I found this fall in a Boletus, two specimens of a ThpnaluSf

89

wliicli when compared with T. Umbatus Fabr., of Europe, sent
me by you, offer no differences which I can perceive.

I beheve our Oicindela denticulata is the same Avith C. rugi-
frons Dejean,!, 53. It is true the labrum in all the 9 obse^|ved
is blackisli, but that is very often the case with the $ of Q.
unipunctata, splendlda^ hirticollis (rejjanda Dejean) and my
1125 (probably C. rufiventris Dejean, which I suppose to be
a variety of C. hcemorrJioidalis^. ISTow he may have a speci-
men where the labrum has not changed its color.

Your 582 which you labelled JBrachinus cordicoUis, I num-
bered 112() [== ^'■Brachinus cyanipennis?? Say," Hentz's mss.
Catal.]. I cannot agree with you as to the specific name. The
third and fourth joints of antennae have no black spot as in B.
crepitans. The fourth at tip, and all the terminal joints are a
little darker than the three basal ones. The elytra are not of
a color '■'•plus bleue et plus claire^'' but, on the contrary, are
darker. The postpectus and abdomen, instead of being
^''presque noirdtre,^' are almost testaceous. If there is no
mistake in labelling, I think you will find it does not agree with
Dejean's description. In that case, you ought to describe it as
new. Is it from Massachusetts or New Hampshire ?

HARRIS TO HENTZ.

Milton, Jan. 3, 1830.

Your 220 has a close resemblance in the form of the head,
antennee and thorax to TelepJiorus. It is remarked by Latreille
(Gen. Crust, et Insect.) that the mandibles of Malthinus have
a strong tooth within the points — " mandibula intus dente uno
valido''^ ; this would justify me in placing this insect in the
genus Malilihius ; but I submit to your better judgment. May
not Cantliaris abbreviata and brevipennis belong to the same
genus as this insect ?

90

Your 725 [= '■'• Stenocorus quadrigeminatus Say," Hentz's
Mss. Catal.] may very likely be the quadrimaculatus of Linn^
and others, which species was found in Jamaica by Sloan. It is,
hoA^ever, not a little remarkable, if your insect is identical with
the Linnaean one, that the same species should be found both in
the warm regions and forests of South America, and in the
boreal forests of Maine, from whence a specimen belonging to
a friend of mine was lately brought.

HENTZ TO HARKIS.

University of N. C, Jan. 23, 1830.

My conclusion about my 740 [= '■'• Cratacantlms pennsyl-
vaniciis Dejean," Hentz's mss. Catal.] is that it cannot be
ranked as a Morio, of course ; that it is not an Ozcena because
the antennae are not sensibly larger at their extremity, and the
body is not flattened ; but that it must be related to both these
genera. Do you not think it must form a new genus, and that
it is the connecting link between the Scaritides and Harpalus^
or between the Bipartiti and the Thoraciei ?

I had, as you supposed, overlooked the beard depeiiding from
the under lip of the Upis^ because I could not see (and I con-
fess I cannot now see) any difference between those having a
beard and those having none. On receiving your letter, I
emptied the vial containing my duplicates, and was glad to find
as many as nine. I examined them all with great care, and
found six S ^nd three ? , but that which I had strongly
suspected before was realized. All the S were bearded, and
the three 9 were destitute of that character. It would seem
by your letter that bearded ones are not found in Massachu-
setts ; that point ought to be ascertained ; it is certain that,
according to my observation here, Upis Icevis and harhatidus
must be the two sexes of the same species, if my specimens

91

can be referred to those species (of which I am not certain, not
having yet Ohvier or Knoch to consult), but your insect maybe
a different one.

"220. This singular insect is undoubtedly allied to Mala-
cMus, and belongs to Latreille's family Melyrides. From the
first and second segment of the abdomen there issue caruncles
like those of 209. I believe the wings are never folded under
the elytra. I will make this the type of a new genus."
This is extracted from my journal ; but since you informed
me of the fact that Latreille has observed a tooth in the
mandibles of MaltJiinus^ I am inclined to think with you that
220 may be referred to that genus. Having only the Regno
Animal to acquaint myself with it, I was authorized to sup-
pose my insect could not be referred to it, since he placed
Malthinus in his Lampyrides^ which are distinguished from the
Melyrides by their simple mandibles. But even with the short
account of Malthinus in that Avork, I find room to doubt. He
says : " Do7it les palpes sont terminees par une article ovoide."
The maxillary palpi in 220 have their last joint decidedly secu-
riform, though not strongly so ; and the labial ones have their
last joint subsecuriform. The outline of JfaltJmncs in Kirby
and Spence's first volume, if correct, would prove that my
insect differs much from that genus. The antennaa, in that
plate, are nearly as long as the body, the thorax differs wholly,
and the elytra are made to appear longer than the uncovered
portion of the abdomen, whereas in my 220 they are constantly
shorter, in some only half the length. I shall be glad to know
what you think ultimately on the subject, as I mean to abide
by your opinion.

725 is named S. quadrigeminatus Say, in my catalogue, and
the following remark is in my journal: "As Mr. Say did not
compare insects with this, but most probably only plates or
descriptions of S. quadrionaeidatus, maculosus, etc., it is very
probable that this insect is S. quadrimaculatus Fabr."

The Cioindela marked 11 by me, and which you call C ah-

92

dominalls, as 1 once did, is now labelled 1125, and I believe
when you examine it with the description you will refer it to
0. rufiventris Dejean. No. 11 is devoted to my C. hcemor-
rhoidalis, which you generously gave me, and even named
for me. When I first found 1125 here, I svipposed it to be a
variety of 11, and I have specimens which resemble it so well
that no difference can be observed, except that the bands are
slightly interrupted. It varies infinitely in markings, more so
than any species of that genus whatever. But in all its varia-
tions we can observe the closest affinity with the other. That
variableness is perhaps the best character which may distin-
guish it from 11. C. abdoiyiinalis is unknown to me. Elater
myo2)s is common here, varies much in size, and lives in pine
stumps.

604. Orsodacna vittata ? Say. Immediately after, you
name your 679, 0. hejjatica Say. If that be a very much
smaller insect resembling it, I think you will convince your-
self that there is but one species coming from me. I have
known myriads to come out of a rotten post in January, and to
copulate indiscriminately large and small. As far as I know I
have but one species of Orsodacna.

HENTZ TO HARRIS.

University of N. C, Feb. 8, 1830.

You have not yet told me whether the $ of your 3Iyecto-
fhagi have three or four joints in their inanus. Your 864 is
new to me, and will be the twelfth species of the same genus if
it has the above character in the $ . It is unaccountable to me
that Mr. Say did not notice it in his 31. pimctatus^ which I
have, and which, being the largest, displays that character al-
most to the naked eye. Your 864 may be his M. flcxuosus,
but I have three quite distinct species to which his description

93

applies equally well. As in Cicindela^ the species of this
genus seem, in their markings, to have a certain type from
which they do not often depart much. If you have not any

$ , will you ask Mr. Leonard to examine his insects for that
purpose ?

Your 333 [== " Haltica tceniata Dejean, teste Leconte,"
Harr. mss. Catal.] is not described, to my knowledge. I
brought it from the North, but it is not found here. Fabricius's
descriiDtion of Cralleruca jjetaurista does not well apply to it.
The lines on the elytra are not ferruginous, but whitish, and
the epithet " crassissimus " does not at all apply to the thighs
of that insect. I am very sure I have that species in my col-
lection. It is a unique, gathered in North Carolina, which is
nearer its home, as Bosc brought his probably from South
Carolina. This insect is somcAvhiit longer than your 333 (my
676), and nearly twice as broad ; the markings are ferruginous,
the elytra are punctured, so that the punctures are visible to
the naked eye ; the black spot on the thorax is large and
transverse ; and finally the thighs are crassissimi indeed ; they
are actually monstrous.

Your 464 [= ^'' Acupaljjui conjunctus? Say," Harr. mss.
Catal.], 74 [= '■'• StenolopJius cinctus Say," Harr. mss. Catal.],
and 763 [= '■^ Feronia (Omaseus) stygica Say," Harr. mss.
Catal.], you have marked Trechus. I have other species which
certainly belong to the same genus. But I am not sure about
its name. I know no more about Trechus than what is said
of it in the Edinburgh Encyclopedia. My difficulty is that
Latreille places it near Harpalus, among those Thoracici which
have the "-'two anterior tarsi in the $ dilated," whereas I cannot
see any distinct enlargement in any of the specimens I have.
Is it so slight that it can only be regarded as a character
employed to suit a natural classification? I grant that the
greatest affinity of forms may be observed between them and
some of my specimens of Harpalus, but still I am uncertain on
that subject.

94

Your 582 you labelled Brachinus cordicollis^ but, besides
other differences, there are no black spots on the antennfe. I
have begun to describe all my insects, and described this, but
gave it no specific name because it is your insect. Will you
tell me your present name ? In size it agrees with Say's B.
ct/anipennis, but the thorax is not narrower behind than in B.
fumans. Since I studied this genus I have found five species in
my collection, viz., 13, B. fumans^ 1211, B. suhcostatus mihi,
1210, B. gracilis mihi, 14, B. annulatus (formerly affinis)
mihi, 1126, your 582. Your medius and minuhis, and four
described by Dejean, are unknown to me. There are there-
fore eleven species now known.

The insect which you sent me under the name of Dromius
hiplagiatus Dejean, is, I think, a true Cymindis. It is probable
that Dejean (if this be the insect he described) did not exam-
ine the labial palpi, which are securiform.

HARRIS TO HENTZ.

Milton, April 3, 1830.

My 582, labelled by me Brachinus cordicollis Dejean, is one
of five or six specimens found at different times in the same
locality. Of two specimens noAV remaining in my cabinet, the
antonnre of one arc immaculate, and of the other, with the
usual fuscous spots on the third and fourth joints, and with a
much darker belly. These variations did not appear to justify
me in separating them, when, in other respects, they agreed so
nearly. I concluded that one was more matured, or had been
longei* transformed when captured than the other.

I have never examined the sexual organs of Upis Icevis ; but
among twenty-five or thirty specimens, which at different times
I have had, I never found one with the boarded mentum
(labium) of U. barbatidiis ; and cannot supi)ose that among so
many there should not have been both males and females.

95

I have but one specimen of my 864, Mycetopliagus jlexuosus
Say. In this there are only three joints to the anterior tarsus ;
the first and third are of equal length, the second half as
long ; the first not much dilated. My other specimen is glued
upon card, and the number of tarsal joints are not distinguish-
able perfectly, but as near as I can ascertain, there appear to be
four in all the tarsi.

In consequence of Major Leconte's advice, I have about re-
solved to republish my descriptions of insects, and add one or
two hundred new ones to them, in Silliman's Journal, the only
scientific Journal (to our shame be it spoken !) now existing in
the United States.

HENTZ TO HARRIS.

University of N. C, April 15, 1830.

On my 604 [= " Orsodacna vittata Say ?" Hentz mss. Catal.]
I can now give you farther information. I found hundreds of
them this season early in March, on the blossoms of the wild
plum. The $ is sometimes of the same size and markings
as the 9 ; but most commonly it is much smaller, and some-
times little more than half the size of the other sex. The ?
varies also in size, though not so much. I am nearly convinced
that Say's Orsodacna hepatica is the same insect with his vittata.
It is difficult to hit on the right spot and time to find that in-
sect, but when you do, there is no difficulty in collecting
myriads. I cannot account for meeting with them formerly in
mid-winter in numbers and copulating, when there was no
vegetation ; but this season I became convinced that they are
not only found on leaves, but derive nourishment from blos-
soms. Both sexes vary in color and markings almost infinitely,
though I think particularly the $ . The thorax varies from
ferruginous to black ; the elytra from pale testaceous to black.

96

I have one ^ , wholly black, Avhich measures only .19 in.,
and which was found in sexual connection with a $ meas-
uring .33 in. ! ! ! and which answers in most respects to Say's
description of 0. vittata. I seldom find two in connection
which resemble each other in size or color ; and it ought to be
observed, that on account of the brevity of their existence, cop-
ulation seems to be their first object, so that one may observe
hundreds in that act. They run fast, but are easily captured.
I have an indistinct recollection that I formerly caught one in
the summer, but since the wild plum's blossoms are out, I have
not seen a single individual, although I have surveyed the
flowers of many other trees.

I believe you wrote me in a former letter that you had the
$ of my 402 (^IlaUomenus ? ohliquatus Fabr. ?) and that the
fifth,^ sixth and seventh joints had a brush beneath. I have at
last found a male which corresponds entirely wdth your descrip-
tion. The antennas must at once distinguish that species from
my 721 [= ^'-Helo^js pimeUiis Fabr. teste Germ." Hentz's mss.
CataL], from which it differs chiefly in having the sixth joint
much smaller than the fifth and seventh. Notwithstanding the
difference in the scutel, etc., I had some doubts, which are now
entirely removed, about their forming two distinct species.

I will give you an account of an insect which has puzzled me
more than any in all my entomological studies, — that coleopter-
ous insect which diff'uses a strong odor of spearmint, and is al-
ways found where that plant grows, in very wet ground, under
stones. I never found it in a dry place. I believe it must
belong to some osculant genus between the Carahidce and
Staphylinidce. It may certainly be said to have six palpi, as
many^ of the Carahidce. The external lobe of the maxilla,
which in the insects of that family assumes the form of an
additional palpus, is distinctly articulated in this with the

1 The fourth has no brush beneath.

2 I say many; because in many the lateral lobe is not much like a palpns.

97

Fig. 14.

stalk, and is capable of motion. It lias two joints, the first
one very small, the second long and curved in-
wards. The lingua is cleft or bifid, and the labium
is entire. Labial palpi with four joints. The an-
tennae are abbreviated somewhat as in Tachinus,
beino; about half the length of the abdomen. The
antennre are filiform, not very sensibly larger at the
end. The thorax, which is narrower at base than I made it
in the annexed drawing, reminds one of many Carahidce^
PanagoPAis for instance. The troplii in some respects are those
of some Staphjlinida', particularly the
palpi. But the antennaa and feet are not.
those of that family. The thighs and coxae
are alike in the three pairs, the tibiae of
the first are notched, and the tarsi are
always simple in both sexes. The insect
is of a chestnut brown color, the head,
thorax and apex of the elytra being darker,
or piceous, and deeply punctured. The
more I think about it, the less I know in
which family to place that insect, but I
hope you will help me.

Some days ago, when visiting the same places, I found under
a stone an insect, Avliich at first sight I supposed to be a Blaps^
from its resemblance to an European insect of that genus
which you have sent me. And though it is very small, and
that is not the locality, I believe, of the genus, I had little
doubt that I had at last met with an Atlantic species. But
when I came to examine it in the evening, I was astonished to
find at first no antennae; and, with considerable difliculty, I
discovered that they were very small and concealed un-
der the eye as in the figure, the club lamellated, of eight
joints, and covered by the first. The labial and maxil-
lary palpi have their large joint oval and larger. The
insect is pentamerous, and it has wings. Can it be a Dryops ?

7

Fig. 15.

FijT. 16.

OCCAS. PAPERS B. 9. N. H. — I.

98

In that genus the antennae are said to be only serrated. I
went the next day to the same place, near a brook, where I
had found so many treasures, to try to find more of these, and
verv soon I found another ; thoufrh bcino- smaller and some-
what different in habitus, I thought it mifjlit belono; to an-
other species ; but, on examination, I found that its anten-
nae were filiform and slender, but not as long as the head
and thorax ; the other characters correspond very well with the
preceding. I do not know the genus PotamopMlus of Ger-
mar, and cannot refer this insect to it ; but notwithstanding the
vast difference in the antennge, these two species have cer-
tainly a great affinity to each other. Both have the anterior
portion of the sternum produced so as. to cover the mouth.
Have you any European specimens of either genus, and do
you know whether Bryops has any resemblance to Blaps ?

I have discovered this spring more than forty Carahidce^
new to me, and I have found among; other interestino; ones a
new Elajylirus much larger than the riparius ? of Say, a new
Biqjrestis, related to your fulvoguttata, with five gold dots on
each elytron, a new Stilbolema with a hairy thorax and two
Lepturce^ one of which is extremely small. Several species
of Amara and Ilarpalus have occurred which are so closely
related to them that they should evidently not be separated
as Latreille has done, but the two genera should be brought
near each other. H. rusticus^ which you have, is ^n instance
of the great affinity between these two genera ; but that, with
several other species which I have, should constitute a new
genus connecting the two.

Among the many Stapliylhiidce collected this season are
two, or probably three, species which have affinities with
Pa'derus^ though probably not belonging to that genus. The
eyes are very large and the head is much wider than the
thorax ; the antennae and trophi correspond tolerably well with
the desci'iption of that genus, except in one particular, which,
however, could not be observed in a dried specimen. In dis-

09

secting a fresh specimen, I had occasion to press the body,
which is very hard, upon the table, and all at once the
lingua jutted out, making a proboscis or tongue much longer
than the antennae. The object is so minute that I cannot be
positive, but I believe I can discover at the end of the tongue
two little palpi of two joints. The maxillary ones are very
long and distinct, thus: •==>==>-'=>-

I have since pressed several in the same man- ^

ner, and obtained the same result. These insects ^— ^

are found in damp places, under stones, etc. Do '^' '"

you know anything of them ? .

I had an opportunity this season to dissect my
417 Y'-Elode^ discoideus Say," Hentz mss. Catal.], /•
which I think I have sent you, and I became cer-
tain that it was an Elodes. The labial palpi are ^'s- ^^•
"forked," that is to say, the third joint is inserted in the
middle of the second, as in Fig. 17, the maxillary ones are
thus: -^Kcjcjc^j and the mandibles as in Fig. 18 ; tlie penul-
timate joint of the tarsi is bilobed.

The antennae and feet of this insect fall off so easily that
it is difficult to have a complete specimen.

HABEIS TO HENTZ.

Cambridge, April 24, 1837.

I add, for the want of something better, a little table of the
genera of North American species of JEIateridce. The charac-
ters of these genera I have not seen in any publication, and you
must trust them only so far as I can give them, after a careful
study of the species themselves, and a comparison of many of
them with the foreign types.

100

1.

' Prsestcrnum wide and rounded

behind

Praesternum miicronate behind,
2.

Antenna; approximated at base,

3.
Antennse not approximated at

base, 9.

Nails simple, 4.

( Nai
■j Nai

5.-^

Nails pectinated

Tarsi lobed, 5.

Tarsi simple, 8.
f Thorax grooved for the recep-.
I tion ot" the antenna?, 6.

Thorax not grooved for the an-
tennse, 7.
r Thorax grooved beneath the

Thorax grooved at th*. sides of
, the prasstemum

Drapetes Megerle.

rujinotatus Say in litt. (america-'
nus Dej. Cat.)

Hentz'Coll. No. 162. [Elater gemi-
natus Say, Hentz' MSS. Catal.]
Closely related to Bitprestis, but
the thorax has the posterior
sjjines more produced. The first,
second, third and fourth joints of
the tarsi are very short above,
but with long lobes beneath.
Perothops ? Esch. (Xylophilus?
Mann and Esch.)

muscidus Say. .

Hentz' Coll. No. 171. [Elater
unicolor ? Say. Hentz' mss.
Catal.]

unicolor Say. (Hentz, No. 171,
var.)
DlRHAGUS Esch.

E. cb/peatus Say.

Heniz, No. 1213. \_Elater chjpe-
atus Say. Hentz' mss. Catal.]

Eucnemis amoenicornis Say.

Hentz, No. 1G6. [Elnter addit'wus
Hentz' MSS. Catal.]

Eucnemis fronto:<us Say.

Hentz, No. 1212. {E later marti-
anus Hentz' MSS. Catal.]

MiCKORHAGUS Esch.

Melasis nigricornis Say.

Hentz, No. 1370. [Elater ohnup-

tus Hentz' mss. Catal.]
E. (riangularis Say.
Hentz, No. 1405. [^Elater loratus

Hentz' mss. Catal.]
E. humeral is Say.
Hentz, No. 8G.3. [Elalcr hifor-

mis Hentz' mss. Catal]

101

7.

Body slightly flattened, obtuse
before, attenuated behind

Body cylindrical

8.^

Clypeus trilobed,elongated; body
slender, subdejjressed .

Clypeus not trilobed, abbrevi-
ated; body thick, convex . .

'iNa

ails pectinated

Nails simple, 10.

10.^

Thorax grooved at the sides of
the praesternum

Thorax without dilated pectoral
grooves, 11.

EucNEMis? (proper, mi.)

Hentz, No. 1317. '[_Elater incal'i-

dus Hentz' mss. Catal.]
Eucnemis calceatus Say.
E. cylindricollis Say.
Nematodes Latr.
Eucnemis obliquus Say.
Melasis scmivittatus Harr. Catal.

(Hentz, No. 1152.)
New genus ; founded on an unde-

scribed species from Deerfield,

Mass. The clypeus is trilobed,

the thorax without grooves, and

the posterior coxae are large and

triangularly produced behind,

covering the base of the thighs,

as they are also in Eucnemis

proper.
Xylcecus? Serville. (Silenus?

Latr.)
E. erosus Say.
Hentz, No. 8G2. \_E later erosus

Say?, Hentz'-MSS. Catal.]
Cratonyciius Dej. Cat. (Notho-

RA Harr. Cat.)
Elater cinereus Weber.
Hentz, No. 169. \_Elater cemulus

Germ, in litt. Hentz' mss. Cat.]
communis Schonh.
Hentz, No. 134. \_Elater dispar

Herbst. Hentz' mss. Catal.]
And some others.
'Agrypnus Esch. (Adelocera?

Latr. Tapheicerus Harr.)
E. marmoratus Fabr. (Hentz, No.

930.)
E. lepturus Herbst. (Hentz, No.

163.) \_T. fehruarius Hentz'

mss. Catal.]
Hentz, No. 133. [T*. excissatus

Hentz' MSS. Catal.]
E. pennatus F. (Hentz, No. 135.)

102

11.

'Antennje flabellated, tarsi sim-
ple Hemirhipus Latr.

Antenna3 more or less serrated E. fascicular is F. (Hentz, No. 128.)
or pectinated, 12.

12.^

' Head not plunged to the eyes
in the thorax, but with a dis-
tinct neck

Head plunged to the eyes in
the thorax, neck none, 13.

13

[ Tarsi
1 Tarsi

Tarsi lobed, 14.
si simjjle, 16.

f Fourth tarsal joint very minute,
much shorter than the third,
15.

■ ' Fourth tarsal joint equal to the
third in length, and lobed
beneath

Antennre {)ectinated in the
males, second joint very short,
almost globose; second and
third tarsal joints lobed bo-
low, the lobes nearly equal . .
15. -( Antennae serrated in both sexes,
second joint obconic; lobe
of the second tarsal joint
very sliort; third tarsal joint
with a very distinct longer
lobe

-Eleventh joint of tlic antennae
abruptly contracted at tip, 1 7.

Campylus Fischer.

Hentz. No. 1407. \_Elater capita-
tus Hentz' Mss. Catal.]

acanthus Say.

Also an insect not numbered, from
"Ohio, May 15, leaping imper-
fectly," which is E. seplentrionalis
Harr. Cat.

16 J

l^levonth joint of the antennae
not abruptly contracted at
tip, 18,

MONOCREPEDIUS Esch.

E. lohatus Say. (Heutz, No. 167.)
E.vespertinus Fabr. (Hentz, No.

151.)
E. fJileclus Say. (Hentz, No. 141.)
E. bellus Say. (Hentz, No. 154.)
DiCREPIDIUS ? Esch.

Hentz, No. 1404 S. [Elater pi-

neus Hentz' mss. Catal.]
Hentz, No. 1099 ?. [Elater recu-

bans Hentz' mss. Catal.]
An D. palmatus Dej. Cat.?
Atiious Esch.
E. bilohatus Say.
Hentz, No. 14 7. \^Ektter poidago-

gm Hentz' MSS. Catal.]
Pgrrhus Hbst.
Hentz, No. 159. \^E later prosectus

Hentz' MSS. Catal.]
haridius Say.
Hentz, No, 865. \_EUiter Tliomasi

Hentz' MSS. Catal.]

17.

18.^

103

Anterior tarsi of the $ with.

four dilated joints, furnished

with brushes beneath; scutel

horizontal; thorax flattened,

oblong quadrate, with two •

ocellated spots Alaus Eseh.

Anterior tarsi of the S not per- E . ocnlatus lAnn. (Hentz,No. 126.)

ceptibly dilated; scutel nearly E . myops Fahr. (Hentz, No. 127.)

vertical, thorax thick, convex,

narrowed before Steatoderus Esch.

Third joint of the antennae at E. abruptus Say.

least twice as long as the sec- E. attenuatus Say. (Hentz, No.

ond, 19. 158.)

Third joint of the antennae less Hentz, No. 1088, not determined.

than twice the length of the \_Elater luctifer Hentz' MSS.

second, 21. Catal.]
r First tarsal joint longer than

the second and third togeth-
er; body short and thick . . Ampedus Megerle.
First tarsal joint not longer than E. discoideus F. (Hentz, No. 1 3 7.)

the next two; thorax and lugubris'&Qwxx. (Harris, No. 804.)

I. body longer, 20. apicatus Say. (Hentz, No. 954.)

Antenna; of the male pectin- erythropus Say. (Hentz, No. 1076.)

ated Ctenicera Latr.

I have seen oulv one native spe-
20. i . '

cies (jE. ancJiorago Randall),

Antennas in both of the sexes which was bi'ought from Maine.

serrated Ludius Latr.

E. spiraculatus Harr. Cat. (Hentz,

No. 140.)

Merogli/j}hicus Say. (Hentz, No.

143.)

vernalis Hentz. (Hentz, No. 129.)

inflatus Say. (Hentz, No. 139.)

morio F. (Hentz, No. 136.)

Icevigatus Hbst. (Hentz, No. 130.)

appr-essifrons Say. (Hentz, No

753.)

Scutel large, 22. circumscriptus ? Germai;.

Hentz, No. 1406. \_Elater spicU'

Scutel moderate, 23. latus Hentz' MSS. Catal.]

19- i

104

22.^

r Scutel cordiform, the region
about it much depressed . .

Scutel ovate, convex; body
short, ithick, oval ....

Antennae distinctly serrated, bo-
dy moderately elongated . .

23. ^>

24:. J

25. -{

26.^

Antennas hardly serrated, near-
■^ ly filiform, 24.
fPrEBsternum produced and cov-
ering the mouth entirely;
body short, thiclc ; tibiaj spiny;
mesosternum grooved . . .

Prajsternum not closing the
mouth entirely, 25.

Fourth to tenth joint of antennaa
increasing in length; body
elongated, slender, almost
linear

Fourth to tenth joint of the an-
tenna3 subequal, 26.
f Fourth joint of tarsi not much
shorter than the third; body
short, thick, robust, and very
convex

Fourth joint of the tarsi verj'
minute, its base received
within an emargination of the
third; body slender, almost
linear

Cardiophokus Esch.

E. onivexus ? ? ? Say. (Hentz, No.
957.)
OOPIIOKUS Esch.

E. dorsalis Say. (Hentz, No. 138.)
LiMOxics Esch.

E. cylhidriformis Say. (Hentz, No.

145.)
E. plehcjits Say. (Hentz, No.

1154.)
E. limhalis Hbst. (Hentz, No. 152.)
E. quo'cinus Say. (Hentz, No.
IGl.)
Cryptohypnus Esch.
E. abhrevkdus Say. (Hentz, No.
956.)

DoLOPius Megerle.

E.silaceus Say. (Hentz, No. 164.)
inquinafus Saj'.

Hentz, No. 142. \_Ekiter lancea-
1-ius Hentz' Jiss. Catal.]

Agriotes Esch.
E. obesus Say. (Hentz, Nos. 144
and 148.)

Adrastus Mefferle.
E. b!f/eminahis ? Say.
Hentz, No. 150. \_Elaler exclama-

tor Hentz' mss. Catal.]
E. jjectoraVts ? Say.
Hentz, No. 153. \_Elater scutalus
Hentz' M8S. Catal.]

105

HARRIS TO HENTZ.

Cambridge, Nov. 6, 1839.

A species of Cicindela has lately been sent to me from Ohio,
which at first I supposed to be your splendida. It turns out,
however, to be distinct, and is the limbaUs of Khig, (Jahr-
blicher, Bd. i, p. 29). It is still more closely allied to purpu-
rea than is your splendida. The following description will ena-
ble you to recognize limhalis, if it should occur in your vicinity.

0. limbalis King. Above, ci'imson, the thorax and elytra
margined with green, a humeral and post-humeral white dot,
widely interrupted terminal white lunule, and an intermediate
abbreviated sinuous white band on each elytron. Labrum
white, and three-toothed on the edo;e. Head and thorax crim-
son, the latter with a broad anterior and posterior margin, and
the narrow lateral edge green. Elytra crimson, with the nar-
row sutural edge and broad entire outer margin green ; a
white dot on the humeral angle, and another just behind it
near the outer margin, both sometimes obsolete ; a transverse
white dash on the tip, witli a small dot just before it, near the
outer margin, and an intermediate flexuous white band, which
does not attain the outer margin nor the suture.

Variety. The humeral and post-humeral dots more or less
obsolete, and the intermediate band reduced to a submarginal,
abbreviated, transverse, white dash.

Observation. This species differs from purpurea in the form
of the intermediate elytral band, in having the outer green
margin entire, and not sinviated within, and in wanting the cop-
pery crimson outer edge of the elytra, etc. From sple7idida
it differs in having the head and the disk of the thorax crimson,
the humerus more rectangular, and the coleoptra rather longer,
and not so sensibly dilated in the middle, etc. The inter-
mediate band in limbalis is nearly of the same form as in
patruela ; but I have not seen it so in any specimen of splen-
dida, in which, on the contrary, the intermediate band is an

106

abbreviated submarginal transverse line, as in the variety of
I'mihalis. I should not be surprised if' individuals of your splen-
dida should occur with the intermediate band, as in limbalis.

Dr. Zimmerman coincides with me in thinking that pu?'-
Ijurea, splendida and limbalis are three true species, and not
varieties of one or two species.

Your Anchomenus collega proves, on comparison with speci-
mens from Pennsylvania, where it is quite common, to be the
true extensicollis of Say and of Dejean. The Massachusetts
species, which heretofore I have supposed might perhaps be the
extensicollis^ is not found in Pennsylvania, and must bear the
name of proximus, which I proposed for it in the New England
Farmer of November 14, 1828. I am told that it is the "J..
Lecontei nov. sp." of the third edition of Dejean's Catalogue.

A careful comparison of our Northern insects with species
from Pennsylvania, will enable me to identify with certainty
many of Say's species, respecting which heretofore I have had
doubts, and will probably show that in Massachusetts and New
Hampshire there are many species closely allied to, but distinct
from, their co-species of the Middle and Southern States. This
comparison will also enable us to clear up several errors into
which Dejean has fallen, from not being sufficiently acquainted
with English to read Say's description. For example, Harpalus
agricolus Say, turns out to be the Anisodactyliis hictuosus of
Dejean ; ffarj^alus carhonarius of Say is the Anisodactylus
agricolus of Dejean ; and Anisodactylus nigritiis of Dejean is a
Northern species which Say does not seem to have known.

HARRIS'S CABINET NUMBERS.

G Elatei' communis Sehonb. ? 292' Tenebrio badius Say.

74 Stouolophus cinctus Say. 312 Upls reticulatns Say.

9G Feronia pallipos Fabr. 313 Upis la3vis Oliv.

128 Tenebrio molitor var. ameri- 316 TcMiebrio pinu'tiilatus Hair.

canns Peck. 333 Haltica ta^iiata Dej.

113 Upis Iblvipes Hcrbst. 427 Upis nigosus Ilarr.

1 16 Elater cinereus Weber. 428 Upis anthracinus Knoch.

107

429 Tenebi'io reflexiis Say.

464 Acupalpiis conjunctus Say.

582 Brachiuus cordicollis Dej. =
1120 Hentz.

586 Feronia lineola Fabr.

587 Feronia pallipes var. Say.
679 Orsodacna hepatica.

715 Uloma fodiens Genu.

763 FeronIa(Omaseus)stygica Say.

765 Dytiscus carolinus Dej.

78 Hentz.
77 7 Scirtes tibialis Harr.
798 Upis rufipes Say.
864 Mycetophagus flexuosus.
903 Tenebrio intei'stitialis Say.
906 Feronia limbata Say =

Hentz.
906'"'" Feronia limbata var. Say.

49

HENTZ' S CjUJINET NUMBERS.

3

Cicindela decenmotata.

604

Orsodacna vittata Say.

13

Brachinus fumans Dej.

548

Dory2:>hora decemlineata ?

14

Bracbinus annulatus.

676

Haltica tajniata Dej.

49.

Agoniun palliatura Dej. =

721

Helops pimelius Fabr.

906 Harr.

725

Stenocorus quadrigeniinatns

64

Dica^lus elongatus?

Say.

78

Dytiscus verticalis Say? =

740

Cratacanthus pennsylvanicus

765 Harr.

Dej.

89

Pbilonthus flavolimbatus Harr.

745

Triplax thoracica Say.

90

Pa^derus littorarius Grav.

751

Eustrophus [bicolor].

128

Elater fascicularis Fabr.

754

IJleiota dubius? Fabr.

133

Tapbelcerus excissatus.

762

Allied to Cucujus flavipes.

133?

Elater pennatus Herbst.

776

[Phymaphora pulchella

143

Elater navicellus.

Newm.] .

163

Taplieicerus februarius.

799

Clivina pallida? Say.

201

CEdemera Roemeri.

807

Mycetophagus punctatus.

209

Chauliognathus marginatus.

808

Near Malachius.

217

Malaeliius scincetus Say.

814

Elodes? fragilis.

220

Malthodes?

860

Tillus? Priocera?

238

Opilus? coccineus Harr.

874

Priocera undulata Sav.

239

Thanasiinus putans.

907

Dicajlus.

240

Tillus terminalis Say.

949

AUecula.

250

Necrophorus a?qualipes.

1001

Pasimachus marginatus Dej.

373

Blaps.

1004

Tenebrio badius Say?

398

Cistela sericea Say.

1125

Cicindela rufiventris Dej.

402

Hallomenus? obliquatus

1126

Brachinus cyanipenuis Say?

Fabr.?

= 582 Harr.

410

ffidemera thoracica? Fabr.

1210

Brachinus gracilis.

447

Elodes discoideus Say.

1211

Brachinus subcostatus.

448

Diaperis bicolor Fabr. ?

CORRESPONDENCE

BETWEEN

THADDEUS WILLIAM HAMIS

P AND

FREDERIC ERNST MELSHEIMER.

COEEESPONDENCE.

HARRIS TO MELSHEIMER.

Cambridge, Nov. 22, 1839.

I anticipate very great advantages from a comparison of the
insects of Pennsylvania, and of the States further sonth, with
those of New England. The little experience which I have
already had in this task, proves to me that several of the species
described by the old writers, and a still larger .number de-
scribed by Mr. Say and Dejean; which heretofore we have sup-
posed to be identical with species found in New England, are
really distinct. The New England species, though closely
allied, and not to be distinguished but by actual and careful
comparison, will, in many cases, turn out to be new or unde-
scribed species.

MELSHEIMER TO HARRIS.

Dover, York Co., Feb. 28, 1840.

We have raised several times specimens of the Noctua Epi-
menis Drury. You state that its color is brown ; recent speci-
mens are of the deepest black ; its larva is a half looper. We
have never seen it on the wing.

112

My specimen of Mastigocera vespina differs, according to your
description, from yours, in being cyaneous where yours is black.
It is, however, the same. I received my specimen from Dr.
Hornbeck of the West Indies. But unless I should be much
mistaken, we have also a species of this genus in our country,
and we have captured it twice, but it was each time destroyed
during its preparation for the cabinet. I was much puzzled to
place it appropriately, on account of the peculiar form of the
antennee, which are, however, not quite so robust as in vespina,
and the thickest portion is more toward the middle than in that
species. It is deep black and densely pilose.

My specimen of ^geria ompJiale differs somewhat fi-om
yours, and more so from Say's figure.

We raise every summer specimens of Glaueopis jjJiolus ; we
, find its larvae on the lichens growing on the trunks of hickory
trees.

In all my specimens of Sphinx hi/lceus, the hind Avings are
more black than white, and, in many, the Avhite line above the
eye and sides of the thorax is wanting. It appears to me that
your Pliilampelus Hornheckiana must be closely allied to, if
not the same as, Sphinx faseiafa of Sultzer ; vide Abgekiirzte
Geschichte der Insecten, I, p. 157, pi. xx, fig. 1.

I cannot inform you whether the female of Oiketicus is
wino'cd or not, but I am fallv convinced that we never raised a
female, or a specimen, different in the antenna; from that in
your possession. The following is an accurate and correct
description of the lar^a, transcribed from my entomological
diary :

" Head small, entirely Avitlidrawn when the larva reposes ;
body oblong, quadrate, above longitudinally subconcave, veiy
densely clothed with yellow ferruginous, sometimes reddish
brown hairs ; vesture very short and even ; upper portion of
each side dilated, and with six appendages, those on the anal,
mitldle, and third segments, longer than the others ; all the
appendages clothed as the body, fringed at the edges, and re-

113

curved at the tip ; lower portions of the sides each with a
longitudinal series of globular tubercles, densely beset with
very short setfe ; body beneath reddish ; feet sixteen, very
short, frequently withdrawn. Appendages not essential. Food,
the leaves of white and red oak, chokecherry (^Pnmtis virgin-
ianus), etc. Time of appearance, beginning of September.
Mannei*s, slow of motion, eats in daytime, and sparingly ; does
not bear confinement well, — at least, few will encase themselves
when confined. Encases itself about the middle of September,
sometimes later ; case membranaceous, brownish, suboval, some-
what less than five lines in length and three lines in breadth,
affixed to a small twig. Transforms into a pupa the following
April, and the moth is developed about eight weeks after.
Length of the larva ten lines generally, when full grown.
Breadth seven lines, across the appendages generally fourteen
lines."

MELSHEIMER TO HAERIS.

Dover, Dec. 23, 1840.

I was entirely at a loss where to place the species of JPero-
phora which you were pleased to dedicate to our name. With
respect to the habits and manners of its larV^a it approaches the
genus Psyche ; but as regards the characters of the perfect
insect, the difference between it and that genus is too essential
to associate or unite them. As I found the larvae of this moth
always in their adult or mature state, I cannot say whether
they always live in one pod, or form larger ones, as they in-
crease in size ; but it is very probable that in some of their
moultings they fabricate new ones. It is really very amusing
to observe the interesting manners of tiiese larvae. They
have never occurred to us before the close of autumn ; when
confined they bore their confinement well, and never refused
their food, the leaves of red and black oak coppice or sprouts of

OCCAS. PAPERS B. S. N. H.— I. 8

114

six or eight years' growth, as long as the frost had not injured
it, which, however, generally liappened soon after they were
found. As soon as their food was withheld, or offered in
an injured condition, they left the leafless twigs, retired to the
sides of the compartments in which they were confined, secured
their pods slightly by a few threads, and made no preparation
to enter into the pupa state (which would be inferred from the
circumstance that the anterior and posterior aperture of their
domiciles remained unclosed), but remained in the larva state
during the winter. About the latter end of March, after crawl-
ing about their confinement for a day, apparently in search of
a more natural place to enter into the pupa state than what
their small compartments afforded, they rested where they had
passed the winter, attached themselves now more firmly to their
resting place, closed both extremities of their pods, and about
midsummer assumed their final or imago state. Some of the
larvae were repeatedly dislodged from their cases, and then
placed on a leaf of their food, with their empty cases beside
them ; but in this exposed state they remained quiet, not at-
tempting to eat or reenter their empty pods ; during the night
following the day of their expvilsion, they fabricated new pods
out of the leaves on which they had been placed. You have
doubtless observed the curious little door, or circular lid, hinged
at the anterior aperture of the case. The posterior one through
which the obliquely truncated tail of the larva protruded before
it assumed the pupa, has, as may be expected, no such lid, but
is permanently closed.

I have several times raised the beautiful motli wliicli you
have so accurately figured in your letter under 716 [^Nbtodonta
sexguttata Ilarr. See beyond, Harris to Doubleday, March
24, 1849]. The moth and its larva are also rare with us.
The following is a detailed description of tlic larva and its
transformations, wliich I copy from my entomological diary :
" Head small, free, polished, blackish, sparingly beset with
white setae; cheeks each with two obsolete, roundish, red spots;

115

occiput with two elongated tubercles ; first three segments
blackish-brown, slightly tinged with reddish, and with small
tubercles above, from which arise long fuscous hairs ; three fol-
lowing segments black, polished, and each above furnished with
a broad hump, surmounted with elongated, setigerous, black
tubercles ^ seventh, eighth and ninth segments polished, white,
veined with black above, and with minute tubercles, each of
which furnishes a short white hair ; tenth segment black, pol-
ished or shining, veined with white, and tuberculated ; penulti-
mate blackish, furnished above with a large, flat-topped hump,
studded with piliferous black tubercles ; tail black, veined with
white, and tuberculated ; an obsolete, white, dorsal line ; pec-
toral feet reddish-brown, varied with black ; abdominal or
spurious feet very long, anteriorly blackish, laterally white,
with black lines ; body beneath blackish, varied with reddish.
Length twelve lines ; breadth one and one-half or two lines.
Food, the le&,ves of winter-berry (^Prinos verticellatus) . Time,
last of August. Transformation of larva into pupa, September,
above ground in dry wood. The larva gnaws a cavity in the
interior of a round dry stick, and closes the entrance with a
firm web. The perfect insects^ were disclosed in June, after
remaining in the pupa state almost two years. Pupa naked,
subcylindrical ; terminal segments blunt, without a spine. The
manners of the larva are somewhat remarkable. In repose
the anterior portion of the body is elevated, resting only on
the four hindermost pair of pro -legs ; and when the larva Is
at any time disturbed, \t moves the elevated part sideways very
rapidly." Your figure represents a female specimen. Tlion,
in his Archives, has figured an insect almost identical with
716, which he placed in the genus Notodonta.

116

MELSHEIMER TO HARRIS.

Dover, Yobk Co., Pa., Ft-b. 14, 1842.

The larvae, labelled Agarista octomaculata., which you re-
ceived from me, are identical with specimens which produced
ho other than that moth. It resembles indeed the' larva of
Eudryas grata in its coloring and markings so much, that be-
fore I was acquainted with its manners, I have frequently taken
the one for the other, and was not aware of confoundincf them
imtil the moths were disclosed. If the larva in question was
that of Uudri/as^ my collection would certainly contain speci-
mens of the same ; but which is not the case, as it contains no
other than E. grata, and a doubtful one, your 69. The speci-
mens you received from me are not strictly naked, but sparsely
covered with short, minute, white hairs. In its manners it
differs in many respects from that of U. grata, particularly in
its mode of concealing and sheltering itself; for this purpose it
rolls a leaf in a conical, or rather globular form, in which it is
found rolled in a ring during the day ; but in the night, or in
cloudy weather, it feeds upon its temporary abode, or retires
from it, and feeds upon an adjoining leaf. When it is confined
it forms no shelter, and feeds at all hours. Like the larva of JEJ.
grata, it feeds exclusively on the cultivated grape-vine, and, like
it, changes in the earth, but in what manner, I have as yet neg-
lected to ascertain.

MELSHEIMER TO HARRIS.

DovEU, Nov. 24, 1842.

Among tlie I^onibyces which I reared, Avas a sj)eciinen of the
beautiful, and hitherto to us, rare Dryoeamjia rnhicHnda. I con-
jecture that there must be two broods of the larva in the season
of its occurrence, as I captured two specimens of the larvae

117

towards the end of July, and again many hundreds about the
end of September. One of the two specimens which I cap-
tured in July was injured and perished ; the other produced the
imago sometime in August. The larvae of the September
brood have passed into the pupa state. The larvae I found only
on the maple sprouts (^Acer ruhrimi) of three or four A^ears'
growth. In consequence of its having escaped my observation
until last summer, I infer that its periods of occurrence in num-
bers must be remote, and the intervening years produce but
few specimens. The more I become acquainted with the econ-
omy of insects, the stronger becomes my belief that all insects
have their periods of increased numbers, which, in some in-
stances may be unfixed and irregular, but in others, their
periods of numbers are as fixed and regular as that of the
Cicada septemdecem. In the summer of 1832 I met with the
larva of Saturnia lo for the first time, and then in countless
numbers, on the top of oak saplings on a hill ; since that time I
failed not to visit that place, and similar localities, every sum-
mer, but was always disappointed in meeting with a single
specimen, either of the larva or perfect insect.

CORRESPONDENCE

BETWEEN

THADDEUS WILLIAM HARRIS

AND

FREDERIC ERNST MELSHEIMER.

COEEESPONDENCE.

DOUBLEDAY TO HARRIS.

[No date; received May 22, 1839.]

The descriptions in the Suites a Buftbn by Boisduval, are in
seneral sood, but I do not hke his character of Marcellus and
Ajax, which are my two species. Cramer's figure evidently is
Marcellus. Children has only bad specimens, one of each, and
these both named by G. R. Gray, Ajax. Boisduval calls Dru-
ry's Protesilaus, Sino7i. Now Drury's figure is a species he has
not described, and is very correct, not incorrect, as Boisduval
asserts. Boisduval evidently never saw Drury's species, which
I have fi'om Jamaica. Boisduval is right in considering your
Callidryas as distinct from the more Southern one. Of Antho-
caris genutia., Newman has two males and a female from Ed-
wards County, Ilhnois, collected there some years since by W.
Clark. I notice that Boisduval says it is found near Boston,
and remarks truly that notwithstanding its falcated wings, it is
the nearest species known to Cardammes.

You will remember I told you that I had a Terias, veiy dis-
tinct from any known to me, which I captured near Alton, 111.
This is not a Terias^ but a JVathalis lole Boisd. Children has
it from the W. Indies. Boisduval says Mexique. I have but

122

few, so send you only two o£ it. My Thecla^ 28, seems to be
the acis of Druiy.

When at Charleston, I observed on the branches of Cupy^es-
sus tliyoides a number of cocoons composed of silk, intermixed
with fragments of the shoots of the Cupressus. There were
hundreds on some trees. Within Avas a white larva, as of some
internal feeder. Tlie first thoracic segment horny, the two
anterior pairs of legs small, the third larger ; prologs very small.
None of those I saved turned, but Dr. Bachman gave me the
perfect insect, and what should I find out since my return that
it is but the Sphinx ephcinercefonnis of Haworth, Thijridop-
teryx epliemermformis of Stephens (Ent. Soc. Trans., Vol. 1).
[See beyond, Harris to Miss Morris, Sept. 25, 1850.]

Children has another Alypia from Nova Scotia. I will try
and describe this and my Egeria and Trocliil'mm in Charles-
worth for May. Is your Troch. tipidiforme reaMy ours ?

And now to go on to the Bombyces. Is Boisduval's (in
Guerin) Sericaria sanceceps the same as Drury's ministra, Vol.
II, pi. xiv, fig. 3? Of the Arctia Lecontei of Boisd. (Guerin,
Icon. R. A.) I have all manner of varieties; your 7nilitaris is
another one. The white spots becoming confluent in a differ-
ent manner, will account for all these variations. I have
made out a difference in the species so close to our Caja.^ Avhich
will serve to distinguish it.

You inquire about the habits of Ctenucha semidiaphana. I
took it in September in Illinois on flowers, especially on the
different species of Solidago^ Aji^g ^7 ^'^y- Again I took it in
Florida by night, for they used to fly to my lamp. I do not
remember to have taken one by day there. JEgcria ompliale I
took once at niglit, once flying by day in a sunny spot in the
midst of a thick hummock.

123

DOUBLEDAY TO HARRIS.

Epping, June 4, 1839.

A few days since I found at a bookseller's, eiglity-four draw-
ings by Abbot, containing one hvindred and fifty figures of
Georgian Coleoptera, and about three hundred and fifty of
Lepidoptera. They are bound in a small folio volume, and did
not belong to Swainson. As many of the tilings figured are
new to me, I thought they might not be known to you either,
and so gave seven guineas for them, and brought them away,
determining to send them as a trifling present to you in my
next parcel. I hope they may contain something new to you.-'

I have also some few moths and one Hipparchia sent by
Abbot many years ago to England, and expect soon to get some
more, as the late Mr. Milne's collection will soon be for sale,
and he purchased many things of Abbot.

I have nearly finished the species of Bombyces I have to
describe. One thing troubles me. I am obliged to make many
new genera. Of these I fear you will have some species, and
thus I shall still be intruding on your territories. I have been
thinking of sending to you all ~my Noctuce that you do not pos-
sess, or have not seen, and all the remarks I can find to make
upon them. In fact, I have nearly resolved thereon. I had
rather your papers were as complete as possible, and it would
be far more advantageous to science that you should do them.
You, too, can go on better, from greater knowledge of larviB, etc.

Now as to the Bombyces. You will remember a small one
like a Cossus (104). This is not a Cossus ; in Cossus the an-
tennae are thick, and simply pectinate ; in this they are bipecti-
nate. This must form a new genus. A single joint in
Cossus would be thus, <J — a broad lamella ; in this it is
thus, <r

Then comes my 60 and 56 and 57. These are evidently

1 [The volume is now in the Society's possession.]

124

allied to Staurojnis. Till last Sunday I never had a chance of
examining the ^ of this genus, having only the 9 • However,
a fine $ of >S'. fagl has come out in my brother's breeding
cage. It certainly is slightly different, especially in having a
very tufted abdomen, as has the 9 . Of my 60, 56 and 57, I
have only mabs. But I have two or three nearly allied species
of a grayish hue, which I took at Trenton Falls in '37. Of
these I have females. They differ much fi'om the $ of Stmi-
ropus. You know what an odd larva Stauropus has. If I
knew the larva of these I should know what to do. As it is, I
must either make a new genus in weak characters, or put them
provisionally in Stauropus, — make them Stauropus ad interim^
as the French make ministries.

Then comes a genus for which I mean to propose (if I de-
scribe it) the name of CJicetceessa^ from a singular tuft of hair
arising on each side at the base of the antennte, and meetino;
over the vertex so as to form two sides of a triangle, of Avhich
the vertex is the base. The palpi are triarticulate, rather long,
second joint the longest, stout, rather compressed. The an-
tennae are beautifully bipcctinate for about two-thirds of their
length. I have only one species with rufo-ferruginous anterior
wings, having a broad, transverse, Avhitish or cinereous band
across the middle. There are some little black markings near
the nervures.

I have had a great lot of insects from Wilmington, Del., l)ut
nothing new to me save ChremastocJteilus Saiji, and one or two
Sphinges, all erf which you have. I find that P. Glaucus occurs
there ; there were two amongst a lot of P. Troilus.

DOUBLEDAY TO HARRIS.

Epping, June 2G, 1839.

As to Callhnorpha Lecontei and miUtaris, I can only say that
at Trenton I took a series of them running one into the other,

125

so that one could not draw the Ihie to divide them. Variable

insects do not vary in some localities. Harpalus ceneus does

not vary with us ; at Welton, on our coast, it varies in all

manner of ways. Five species were formerly made of these

varieties. In a box of insects I got a few days since from

near Wilmington, Del., is a species I do not remember to

have seen. The upper wings are pale cream color, with brown-

black markings. The under wings plain yellow ochre color.

[See a figure in a letter from Doubleday to Harris, Nov. 16,

1840.] In this box were several specimens of P. Glaucus. I

had just before got some specimens of P. Cflaucus from the

town of Wilmington ; these were from Centre or Centreville,

about six miles oif. The man who ol^tained them sent me a

great number of cocoons of Saturyiia Cecropia, Pohjphemus^

and a few of Prometliea. I observe these (that is, the first

two, for many are now out,) always sit, when quite at rest,

with their wings back like a butterfly. When disturbed a

little, they sit with the wings flat, and partially expanded.

DOUBLEDAY TO HARRIS.

Epping, Aug. 28, 1839.

There is a drawing without any larva or any note attached
(in Raddon's fac-simile of drawings by Abbot), of what I sup-
pose to be Smerinthus modestus $ , but much larger than you
describe it, being five and three fourths inches in expanse. The
wings are more pointed than in any of the others, and resemble
a little the true SpTiiiiges.

I would describe it as follows : Superior wings pale ashy at the
base, a broad, irregular, transverse, fuscous band at the middle,
in which is a triangular whitish spot, then a rather narrow trans-
verse, pale ashy fascia, followed by a still narrower fuscous band.
The remaining part of the wing brownish-;^shy, the nervures, a

126

spot at the apex and transverse band commencing at the third
nervure from the apex, and terminating at the anal angle, pale
ashy. The ash-colored portion at the base of the -vving has a
faint fuscous band near its middle. Posterior wino;s ash-colored,
a bright rosy spot near the base, a large pale rosy space towards
the outer margin, and near the anal angle a blue marginal spot
edged above with black-blue. Thorax and abdomen gray.

Sphinx cingidata; I have one bad specimen taken at Wil-
mington, Del. Sijhinx Carolina ; many from Wilmington and
New York. Here you have omitted a species figured by
Donovan as Spliinx caroliyia^ and described by Haworth as S.
quinquemaculatus. It differs materially in the markings of the
abdomen and thorax, and also in the underwings ; I have ex-
amined some scores of specimens, and am sure that they are
distinct species. The larva (Abbot's drawings) is pale green,
the four anterior seo-ments with many white dots, the head with
two black lines, a black spot on the back of the first thoracic
segment, a longitudinal white line edo-ed below with black, ex-
tending; from the beijinnino; of the second thoracic seo-ment to
the tail. There are eight white lateral stripes edged with black
above, the seventh of which reaches the black caudal horn.
There is another white line just at the base of the anal prolegs.
True legs black, prolegs black at the base and apex, green in
the middle.

Close to this Is a large and beautiful species which I have not
got, but know as a Jamaica species, Chionanthia, I think. It is
in Abbot's drawings. It is not in Smith's Abbot. S. drupifera-
rum I do not know. ^S*. Kahniai ; two specimens, Trenton Falls.
S. gordius ; bad specimen, New York. S. cinerea ; two speci-
mens, Trenton Falls.

And here are two species which puzzle me, S. sordida and
Hylceus. S. sordida I do not know. Hyla^us perhaps I have ;
it is dark fuscous on the anterior Avings, irrorated with ferrugi-
nous, especially towards the middle of the interior margin.
There is a small white spot at the base, then not far from the

127

base two white, zigzag, transverse strigaj enclosing a black one ;
a white central spot, a zigzag black streak beyond the middle,
followed at a short distance by two zigzag, transverse, white
streaks enclosing a black one. There is a black mark at the
tip, and three Avhitish clouds on the margin. Posterior wino-s
smoky black, a large white spot near the base, and two indis-
tinct whitish strigge reaching from the anal ano-le to the middle
of the wing. Cilia of all the wings spotted with black and white.
Abdomen clothed with mixed ferruginous and black scales, in-
cisures irregularly white. Exp. alarum two and one half to
three inches.

S. plebej'a ; four specimens, Wilmington, Del.
S. conifer arum ; only known to me by Abbot's drawings.
S. Ello ; specimen from W. Indies. Stephens has described
a closely allied species, as S. poecila. It probably is American ;
the country was not known, — being found in an old cabinet,
marked pinastri. Now as our collectors in former days were
very apt to place foreign species in the room of allied British
species, probably this is an American species placed under a
wrong name to fill up a gap.

In Abbot's drawings there are figures of two Sphinges of this
group which I do not know. One is brownish and gray on the an-
terior wings, with three darker, transverse, zigzag streaks before
the middle, and a dark spot with a pale central one on the middle.
Between this and the apex are fine transverse streaks, composed
of darker spots often united together, between the second and
third of which is a whitish cloud, a»d at the apex is a black
streak pointed inwards. The posterior wings are of the same
color, with these transverse clouds of a darker color. Cilia
spotted with dark brown. Thorax brown-gray, with three lateral
darker lines, and a black spot behind margined anteriorly with
white. Abdomen the same as thorax, with a central dark line
and five darker spots. Larva on the Catalpa. Above black,
two white spots on the back of the first three abdominal

128

segments, remainder with one irreoular, white, dorsal spot.

Anal horn recurved, slender, black ; below and on the

^!J^ sides the larva is whitish, shaded to a very pale green on

the legs, with some irregular black marks. Pupa pale

'^' ■ brown. The larva is very singular.

The other is a larger species, expanding four and one half
inches. Its superior wings are pale gray, with a slight
yellowish tinge. Immediately at the base, on the anterior
margin, is a small fuscous spot, and a little farther another, or
rather a very short striga. Then come three transverse, waved
stvigae, crossed by a long black dash. Three other similar
strigas are placed a little beyond the middle. In the disk is a
white round spot, below which is a second black streak. Two
similar black dashes cross the three posterior transverse strigse,
and at the apex is a third, descending towards the middle of the
wino-s. From this, a row of five short black dashes extends to
the inner margin, and close to the outer margin are five
X-shaped dusky marks. The posterior wings are pale fuscous,
with the nervures and three transverse fascia? darker. All the
ciliae whitish, spotted with brown. Thorax gray, Avith the sides
and anterior marmn marked with two dark lines, between
which anteriorly is a short transverse one ; behind are two
curved black lines margined with yellow. Abdomen gray,
with a central, and two lateral series of fuscous spots. Larva
whitish green, spiracles circled with red. Seven white lateral
streaks, caudal horn yellow. Pupa dark brown. I am sure I
found this larva in the Weet.

PliUampelus vitis I have not got. P. satelUtia, one or two
specimens from New York.

Chcerocampa paminnatrix', I have two specimens taken in
Florida and Wilmington, Del. Azalcce and versicolor I have not.
Tersa belonixs to a West Indian ovnus ; in Abbot's drawings is a.
figure of a /Sphinx, I think of this genus, but there is no larva
to determine it. Its ex]). alar, is 4;| ; length 2|. U])iKn- wings
olive-green, with a subtriangular darker patch near the middle.

129

Two abbreviated transverse lines very near together, at the
inner extremity of which is an irregular ferruginous spot.
The nervures beyond the middle are faintly ferruginous, the
second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth, with a black spot a short
distance from the anterior maro;in. Posterior wins; with the
anterior margin and disk bluish, a white spot bordered inter-
nally and beloAV with black, close to which is a red spot. The
posterior, and part of the inner margin, is straw-colored, widest
towards the anal angle, where are two narrow dark lines.
Between this yelloAvish margin and the blue of the anterior
margin is a black spot, crossed by four yellowish nervures.
Head, thorax and abdomen, dull olive green, quite uniform
throughout. Antennse yellowish. Tail as in the annexed -^^
drawing. There is another drawing, I believe, repre- ^v^
senting its lower surface. This is pale ferruginous, or '^" '
buff, with a dark cloud and white central spot on the anterior
wings, the margin clouded with a darker hue. D. Uneata;
several specimens from Wilmington, Del. D. Chamcenerii I
do not know.

Of Pterogon gaurce^ there is one specimen collected by Abbot,
now in our Club Cabinet. It differs from his drawing of the
male in having the wings less pointed, and being rather duller
colored, probably faded.

Thyreus nessus ; one specimen, Trenton Falls.

The only Sesia I have is Pelasgus, from Wilmington and
Trenton Falls. Abbot represents the larva on a Viburnum?
I think, V. prunifolium. It is pale green, spotted finely with
white. A stripe down the back, a transverse line, eight spira-
cles, the feet red and a nearly white lateral stripe. Pupa
nearly black.

Trocliilium. Of this genus I have one species, a very worn
specimen. It is, I think, T. tibiale, but has the last segment
yellow. Your tipuliforme I think is not ours. I have three
species you do not mention. In Abbot's drawings are two
species I do not know, probably both Trochilia. Of one, c? , the

OCOAS. PAPERS B. 8. N. H. — I. 9

130

anterior wings transparent, margin and nervnres black, a trans-
verse orange bar beyond the middle. Posterior wings with the
margin black, and a short yellow line near the middle of the
anterior margin. Thorax with sides black, anterior and pos-
terior margin orange yellow. Body black, with eight yellow
rings, antennae ferruginous, legs yellow; no tuft at the tail.
Below is a 9 , whether of the same species I do not know.
Anterior wings dark brown, with an abbreviated, transverse,
orange line beyond the middle, and a transparent spot on the
posterior angle ; the base slightly clouded Avith yellow. Poste-
rior wings with only the outer margin, and a spot on the ante-
rior margin, brown. Thorax brown, with the sides and posterior
margin tawny yellow. Abdomen black-brown, with two rings
near the base, the base yellowish orange, and two small lateral
tufts of the same color near the apex. Antennas black at base,
apex orange ; legs, except the yellow tarsi, orange.

Pliolus ■epimenis cannot be near to Glaucopis. It is close to
Breplios. The larva, according to Abbot, feeds on Bignonia
i'adicans. It is pale, with black lines, and though having the full
complement of legs, seems to be a semilooper in its walk, like
Breplios. I shall soon send an article to Charlesworth, with
the new species of this group.

I find I have a specimen of S. sordida from Wilmington,
Del., and amongst the insects in our Club Cabinet collected by
Abbot, is a specimen near coniferarum^ fcut apparently distinct.

Then amongst the Bomhyces of Abbot's drawings are many
things I do not know, and I have got much information I
wanted from these drawings. There is a good figure of both
male and female of my 104, but no larva. The female (for as
tlijsy are put on the same paper, and are a <? and $ , I suppose
they belong to one another), is very different in marking from
the males. Anterior wings lead-colored, with various strigae and
spots, the base and an irregular transverse band beyond the mid-
dle, white; outer margin broadly brown from the apex nearly to
the anal angle, with the tips of two of the nervures whitish, and

131

with a dark cloud or two near the middle. Posterior wino;s
pliimbeo-fuscous. Thorax nearly white, with the anterior
margin narrowly black. Head black, antennae pale and pecti-
nated. Abdomen stout, slightly tufted, plumbeous, paler at the
base. The antennse might lead us to suppose it a 3" , but the
abdomen disproves this. I cannot doubt that it is the 9 of my
104. [Further notes upon the same insect, extracted from
Doubleday's mss. are given below.^]

1 Genus. ?

Antennoe as long as the thorax, bipectinate their whole length.

Palpi two, distinct, triarticulate, second joint longer than the first, both rather stout,
scaly, setose at the base ; terminal joints small, acute, scaly.

Maxillce none.

Eyes large.

Wings entire, superior ones rounded at the apex, rather long.

Posterior tibiffl clothed with long hair.

Sp. 1. Alts clnereis, sfrigis numerosis abhrevlatis nigris, aniicls strigA transversa juxta
basin alterdque lunitd ad apicem distinctioribus nigris. Habitat St. John's Bluff, E. F.

Wings cinereous, all with numerous, abbreviated, black strigse. Anterior with a
broader, transverse striga near the base, a black luniile at the apex, commencing on the
costal margin near the apex, and terminating on the posterior margin at about an equal
distance from the apex, and two more distinct, abbreviated, black strigse near the anal
angle. Thorax cinereous, varied with black. Abdomen cinereous.

Differs from Cossus in the bipectinate antennJB. In form, texture of the wings, and
coloring, it is closely allied to that genus. Probably it is an internal feeder. The neu-
ration also of the anterior wings is different,

[Dr. Harris adds to this the following note: — $ , Antennos doubly pectinated to the
tip. Wings gray, semi-diaphanous, fuscous at base ; first pair rounded at tip, with a
narrow, transverse, black band near the base, and a semi-circular one at the tip; both
pairs with dusky, reticulated lines.]

The Hepialldm seem to have but few characters in common. The larvse, it is true,
are allied in habit and form, especiallj' those of Zeuzera and Cossus.

In Zeuzera, Cossus, No. 104 and Heplalus (all the genera that come under this group),
the absence of the tongue is all that in the perfect state binds them together,

Zeuzera has semi-diaphanous wings, both nearly similar in neuration. The $ have
rather short antennse, with long pectinations about one half their length. In the ?
they are simple bvit woolly at the base. They have no tongue, and apparently no palpi.
The larva is a-n internal feeder.

Cossus has the wings more thickly clothed with scales, especially below; the neura-
tion is veiy different and rather complicated. The antennae are pectinate, or rather
have on the inner side of each joint a broad, flat, or lamelliform process. The palpi,
two in number, are distinct, triarticulate, rather stout. Tongue wanting.

My 104 is a Cossus, with bipectinate antennae, and some difference in the neuration of

132

There is a true Cossus with mottled upper wings, and yellow
under wings, black at the base and inner margin, — Mobinice, ^'?
Here is also a large moth (ex. alar. 4 in.) apparently allied to
Cossus, which I do not at all know ; its wings are more pointed.
The anterior are white, mottled or clouded with fuscous, which
forms almost a transverse bar near the middle, and a darker
cloud or two near the outer margin. Cilia dirty white, with
fuscous dots. Posterior wings pale fuscous. Cilia as in an-
terior wrings. Body pale fuscous, the incisure of the abdomen
darker. Antennae setaceous, 9 ?

You will see above, outlines of two or three larvae. [They
are figured by Doubleday in Newman's Entomologist, and de-
scribed on p. 55, etc.] You will observe that the first, 60 [^He-
terocampa Astarte Doubl.], is very unlike Staurojous, and must
necessarily lead to the formation of a new genus. Stephens
thinks so. I would suggest the name Balia (/S'a/'.rJ?,) macido-
sus, velox \_Heterocampa Doubleday, Entomologist, p. 55'\. In
Stauropus the anal tuft of the male is larger, and the antennae
of S more pectinated ; also the abdomen of the 9 is tufted, in
this not. The two next larvge are of my 56. The upper ap-
pears to be the full grown larva, from which it would appear
that the young have the anal prolegs fit for use. These both
belong to the same genus. You will add to the description of
56 and 60 the following of the larvaa : —

60. Larva green, dotted all over with dusky spots. Back

the wing, especially near the anal angle. The palpi nearly similar to Cossus, but less
hairy.

Uepialus difTcrs in the neuvation of the wing?, and also in their texture. The short
monilrform antennae of all our species, save one, easily distinguish it. Palpi and
maxillffi none. II. sylvinus has short, pectinated antenna;, and probably ought to
be a distinct genus. In habit it differs materially from Cossus and Zeuzera. Both
the latter have internal feeding larvre, and sit generally on the trees on which the larv£E
have ted. Hqnalus has a subterranean larva eating the roots of vegetables. The perfect
insects fly low over the grass, often making a segment of a circle in their flight. The
motion of Ilcpialus hectus, $ , is exactly that of tbc ball of a pendulum. They fly
early, sometimes as soon as sunset. They sleep on the blades of grass, or on the shoots
of brushwood.

133

yellow green, this color bounded on eacli side by a red curved
line ; two short red lines on the back of the seventh and ninth
segments. A longitudinal yellow line extends from the last
thoracic segment to the tail, margined except in the three last,
with a close continuous series of red dots. Anal prologs useless
as organs of motion, forming in appearance a short bifurcate
tail. Pupa smooth, black, "feeds on the Quercus lyrata?^^

56. Larva, when not full grown (?), green, with scattered
white spots, head pale flesh color ; back of the three thoracic
segments the same ; a small patch near the base of the third
pair of legs, an irregular mark on the third, fourth and fifth
abdominal segments, a patch over the fourth pair of prolegs and
a small square spot on the twelfth segment, as well as all the pro-
legs, pale flesh color. Legs ringed pink and white, two small
horns tipped with black close behind the head. Anal prolegs
perfect. Adult larva of a buff color, with numerous sub-
ocellate whitish spots, and a large lilac patch on the back of the
three middle segments extending laterally forward nearly to the
head and tail. A similarly colored patch near the base of the
third pair of legs. Anal prolegs not perfect. Pupa smooth,
dark brown. [Further notes upon these insects, taken from
Doubleday's mss., are given in a note.^j

1. Genus Stauropiis f [Tleierocampa Doubleday, Entomologist, p. 55.]

Palpi short, porrect, biarticulate, first joints cylindrical, curved. Second joint nearly
double the length of the first, slightly curved at the base, slightly stoutest in the mid-
dle, tapering towards the apex, both densely pilose and setose.

Antennae of the $ strongly bipectinate for about two thirds of their length, the
pectinations fringed with delicate setce; apex simple. Antennae of ? simple.

Maxillaa but slightly developed.

Head densely clothed, a fascicle of hair-like scales at the base of each antenna very
distinct in the ?; (less so in the $ ).

Thorax densely clothed, slightly crested behind.

Abdomen tapering, rather long, slightly tufted in the $ .

Wings entire.

When I wrote out the character of this genus above, I imagined it quite distinct
from Stauropiis. I then had only a 9 Stauropus, but having since got a <J , I find that
the male differs from 60, 57 and 56, only in having the pectinations of the antennse
more lengthened, and the abdomen rather more tufted. Of these three species I
have only f . Had la ? , it would much aid me, as the $ of Stauropus has the tail
much tufted. The knowledge of the larva, too, is essential. The larva of Stauropus is

134

There is also a beautiful and large specimen allied to P. cou'
cinna. From the larva of that curious thing, torrefacta Sm.-

so peculiar as to decide the question at once. Kirby's plate is tolerably good, but too stout.
The larva is much slenderer, of a chestnut color, appearing exactly as though it was
Fi'ench-polislied, or rather dipped in oil. The pupa is not enclosed in a close cocoon as
represented in Donovan's wretched plate, but in three or four leaves loosely spun together.

Sp. 1. Menas (60) ( /1i»;iuc, Luna). [Ileterocampa Astarte Doubl.] St. John's Bluff,
E. F., rare. Mar. and Apr. Alls anticis liridi-cinereo ferrugineoque variis, macula
juxta apicem lunatd alba ferrugineo marginata.

Sp. 2. Athereo (50). (Name of an Indian chief who Avelcomed the French Hugue-
nots to the banks of the St. John's, E. F., then the San Mateo; vide Cardenas.) St.
John's Bluff, E. F., rare. March and April. Alls anticis olivaceo-virescentibus, atomis
paucis obscurioribus albidis nigrisque variis. Strigis duabus transversis comminentibus,
quoi'um una e lunulis altera e punctis subtrigonis nigris.

Sp. 3. Manteo (57). (Name of Indian Chief.) [Not LockmcBUS Manteo Doubl., En-
tom., p. 58. The name of Manteo was afterwards applied by Doubleday to No. 813,
below; this may be called Heterocarnpa Doubledayi.] St. John's Bluff, E. F. April;
one specimen only.

Alis anticis /usco-cinereis,ferrugineo tinctis, striga juxta apicem punctorumfuscorum. .

[Dr. HaiTis adds to this the following note: — Grisled with brownish black (or dusky
reddish); fore wings with a short obsolete fascia before the tip, and a row of blackish
spots near the margin; hind wings paler, but dusky, with a darker, transverse baud; an
obsolete band at base of fore wings.]

Closely allied to the above three species is my 319. Of this I have only males taken
at Trenton Falls in July, 1839, and by Mr. Moore in July, 1838. It is not very uncom-
mon there, though I have but few good specimens. I believe I gave you specimens
when at Cambridge.

Next to these come my 813, 815. [813=Z,oc/im£cus Manteo Doubl. S15=^ Cecritat
Ulineata Pack.] They have the maxillie more developed, and differ also in the struc-
ture of the antennas. But if I am right as to these, the $ (and of 815 I have only $ ),
differ very much from Stawopiis in the abdomen, being short and simple instead of
long and tufted. Probably these ought to constitute a new genus.

[Dr. llaiTis remarks of 813: — Abbott's figure, No. 330, may possibly be the same as
this species. Antennas of ? simple; of <^ long, bipectinated not quite to tip, pectina-
tions narrow. The markings vary, and it is difBcult to represent them even by figures.
The 9 has kidney spot white with two black dots in it; in the i it is smaller, with
one largo black spot. A dusky hour-glass shaped band follows the kidney spot, and is
terminated externally by double zigzag blackish lines, the outer one of which is inter-
rupted with black dots ; the description of Lochmaius Manteo applies best to this.]

814 is so imperfect I know not that anything can be said with certainty about it. It
differs very much in many respects from 813 and 815.

[Dr. Harris remarks of 814:— Wings brownish white; body dusky, fore wing with a
dusky band near the base, continued on the inner edge ; two distant dusky spots near
the tip and irregular dusky streaks and crescents between. Hind wings dusky, with an
irregular, nearly obsolete, whitish band ; blackish on the hind edge. 9 larger; middle of
fore wings almost white and without streaks or spots between the band and the spots
near the angles.]

135

Abb., it seems to me to belong to the same group as Bemas^
— at any rate to the Artisice. Scrihonia certauily belongs to
them, and in its own group symbolizes Zeuzera. Dryocampa
must belong not to the Bomhycidce^ but to the Notodontidce.

You will see on the other side a larva, larva case, pupa and
imago, of an insect allied to, but distinct from, Tliyridojyteryx
Steph. The imago is chocolate brown, disk and nervures
darker, a trilobate white spot on the upper wing. Feeds on a
shrub, I think the 3£espUus cestivalis Walt. ; vide Elliott I, 549.
It is figured by Abbot.

I must say one or two things more. The larva of Lopho-
campa proves to me that it is allied to Acontia^ Erebus^ etc.,
and comes late in the Noctuce. It is a half looper with twelve
feet. Abbot has figured, or rather drawn, a species I do not
know, small and differently colored. Larva purplish, with
orange and yellow spots, feeding on Hibiscus Moscheutos.

There is one more insect I will mention, and then I have
done. It is a Colias, very near to, but smaller than our Edusa.
Upper wings deep orange, with a broad black border, in which
is one small, round, pale yellow spot near the lower angle. The
central black dot as usual. Tinder wing grayish, clouded ex-
ternally, with an incomplete blackish margin, and a bright central
orange spot. Below, upper wings yellowish, disk orange, one
central and four marginal black dots ; lower wings greenish,
with a central white spot surrounded by a pale ring.

HAREIS TO DOUBLEDAY.

Cambridge, Sept. 15, 1839.

The male Oiketicus has the form, etc., of a Zeuzera ; the
larva, in form, is not remote from those of the Zeuzeriadce ; and
it has the habits of the true spinners, or Bombyciadce. From
the latter we pass by means of Megasoma Boisd., to the Atta-

136

cidce. Attacus lima and Polypliemus^ notwithstanding the
difference in their hind wings, cannot be separated generically,
for their larvge [PL iv, figs. 14, 17] and cocoons are almost ex-
actly alike. These two will form one section of the genus,
while Oecropia and PrometJiea constitute another. Bombyx lo
is much nearer to Saturnia than is Proserpina^ inasmuch as
the joints of the antennae are each doubly bipectinated. In
Aglia tau each joint seems to have only one branch on each
side ; but there are, in fact, two branches which are so close
together as to appear like one. In our Proserpina I cannot
find that the apparently single branches are in reality bifid ;
nevertheless Proserpina comes nearer to Aglia than to Satur-
nia. Perhaps lo and Proserpina should be types of new
genera. Endromis versicolor^ in the perfect state, is evidently
very near to our Proserpina ; but is, with great propriety, made
the type of a distinct genus, on account of the form and habit
of the larva. It approximates very remotely to Borahyx mori^
to use an Irishism. The Ccratocampiadoi cannot come among the
Notodontiadoi Xjx\t\\ovi^\ like some of the latter, e. g.^Pygcera^
they are not true spinners), because the hind wings of the
former are reversed in repose, in which they exactly agree with
B. lo ; while the hind wings in the Nbtodontiadce ai'e never re-
versed. The cocoon of B. To is very slight, consisting only of
a little gummy matter, with which a few leaves are fastened
together and lined. B. Proserjnna is said by Abbot to trans-
form in the ground without making a cocoon ; both of them are
gregarious, at least while young. The Ceratocampiadoi are gre-
garious also, and transform in the earth without making cocoons.
In this respect, too, they agree with Pygcera and the larva of
Bryocampa senator ia. Beginning the Notodontiadoi with Py-
gcera^ I leave it with Limacodcs, which certainly ought to come
in this family, rather than among the Arctioi. The cocoons
are egg-shaped, and very hard, as those of Ceriira. Without
doubt, that very curious and beautiful moth, the B. torrefacta
of Smith-Abbot, should come among the Liparidoi. It is the

137

Basychira ? Firmiana of my catalogue, but not a true Dasy-
chira ; and, as its changes in form and color in tlie larva state,
are very great and remarkable, I have called it AUasia, which
expresses its changeableness. At an early stage it has much
the appearance of the larva of B. ojyercularis, which, with
the pyzidlfcra, belongs to my new genus Lagoa (from ?.ayA<><;,
lepormus), having a short and soft-haired body, like a rabbit
or hare. The genera Lopliocampa and Euchcetes were formed
by me long ago, and I believe that I pointed out their pecu-
liarities and explained their etymologies when you were here.
They certainly belong to the Liparidce^ on the border of the
Ai'ctiadce, to which they closely approximate. Upon the latter
I have nothing to say, except tliat I wish that the larva of
Boisduval's Callimorpha? Lecontd were known, which would
settle the genus, and its place. Nudaria^ as it appears to me,
is very properly placed among the LitJiosiadce by Boisduval ;
and after leaving the family I think we ought to enter the
Noctuce by Apatela, and the genera similar to it, which Boisdu-
val includes among his Bomhycoides.

I believe that I showed you a set of drawings of the ner-
vures of Lepidoptera which I made twenty years ago. They
contain most of the genera of our butterflies, about twenty
Botnbyces belonging to the nine families of my sketch in this
letter, and some Geometrce. These drawings have materially
assisted me in locating the families and genera, and given me
additional confidence in the arrangement which I have pro-
posed. I have also gathered some valuable hints in regard to
the details from Dennis and Schiffermiiller's Wiener Verzeich-
niss, and from Boisduval's Icones des Lepidopteres nouveaux
d'Europe. Boisduval really appears to me to be the most
philosophical and best instructed of our modern Lepidopterists,
and I only regret that he has not given his views more exten-
sively, and applied them to Extra-European moths.

I have compared my Psyclwmorplia epimenis with the speci-
mens of Brephos parthenias and notJia, which you sent to me ;

138

and am convinced that you and Westwood are correct in ap-
proximating it to these insects. Whether it be strictly con-
generical with them can only be ascertamed to a certainty by
comparing the larvae, when that of Epimenis shall be discovered.
The larva of Eudryas grata (^Cyphocampa grata im, from xu^oc,
incurvus) were abundant on my grape-vines during the sum-
mer of 1836, and I obtained several fine moths from larvae
which transformed in pots. They live solitary, and enter the
earth to change, without making a cocoon. The position of
the larva in repose, with its head depressed, and the third and
fourth segments arched upwards, giving it a hunch-backed
appearance, suggested the name of Cyphocampa; which, how-
ever, must now yield to that of Eudryas^ proposed by Boisduval.
The attitude, disposition of the colors, and even the habitat,
being similar to those of the larva of Alypia octomacidata (see
Smith-Abbot for the latter) probably led Boisduval to place
Eudryas among the Sphinges adseitce, in his Histoire Naturelle
des Lepidopteres. The simple setaceous antennas, and the
double stigmas on the wings of Eudryas, forbid our associating
it with these Sphinges. The larva of E. grata exhibits no
irregularity in its gait, but creeps with a uniform even motion,
its legs being sixteen in number, and the prolegs all of an equal
length ; so that in this respect it does not approach any of the
half-looping Noctum, although it may possibly find a place near
them if it does not belong to the Notodontiadce, where, at pres-
ent, I am disposed to leave it, as in my catalogue. The wings
of the moth in repose are like those of Orgyia. The palpi are
horizontal, not at all compressed, and the joints are nearly cylin-
drical, which also remove this insect from the Noctuw.

Westwood's name recalls to my mind some facts stated in his
useful " Introduction," which, as I can confirm them, I will now
mention, lest they should again escape my recollection. On
page 68, Mr. Westwood says that " Lequien's figure of the
larva of Anthia sexguttata does not belong to the Carahidoi^
and that it approaches much nearer to the larvas of the Elate'

139

ridcey I Avas struck by the absurdity of calling this the larva
of Anthia the moment I saw Lequien's figure in Gu(irin''s
Magazine, for it is as near as possible to the larva of Elater
oculahis, which I have had in keeping, and from which I have
raised the perfect insect. Moreover, I made, some years ao-o,
a very exact outline drawing of this larva of E. oculatiis, [PL
IV, figs. 1-3], which, on comparison with Lequien's figure, con-
firms my first impressions. On page 156, Mr. Westwood says
that " Mr. Brulle has very recently noticed the existence of a
single minute tubercle 'upon the forehead of some of the Der-
mestidce, which has all the appearance of an ocellus. Mr.
Curris had, however, discovered its existence in the genera
Megatoma and Attagenus in 1829." Now, in the year 1831, I
did not know anything of Mr. Curtis's discoveries, but, for some
time previous, had noticed the same thing ; and in the copy of a
letter (I always keep copies of my letters) to Dr. McMurtrie,
dated July 19, 1831, 1 find the fact thus recorded : " The exist-
ence of stemmata " (ocelU are thus named by Linnaeus)
" among Coleoptera has, I believe, been considered as confined
to the genus Omalium and its affinities. On closely examining
some species of Anthrenus, ~ I detected a large conspicuous
stemma in the middle of the front, and found that it existed in
all the American and European insects of that genus in my
cabinet, and also was found in Attagenus peUio, though it is not
so distinct as in some Anthreni; but not in Dennestes and
Byrrlms. Why some of these insects should have these little
eyes, and others should be destitute of them, I cannot divine,
particularly as their habits are so closely alike."

The more I think of the Bomhyces^ etc., so much the more
am I dissatisfied with a linear arrangment of them. May they
not be resolved into two series ? 1. Boynhyces verce^ — to con-
tain the Attacidce, Bombyciadoe, Lipariadce, Arctiadce and
Litliosiadce, 2. Pseudo-Bomhyces^ — to contain the Ceratocam-
piadce, Zeuzeriadce, Psycliiadce^ Notodontiadce, and perhaps the
Apateliad(E. The characters of the Bomhyces. verce, as derived

140

from tlie lai'vtB, would be : — spinners, transforming in silken
cocoons ; body generally hairy, sometimes smooth, mostly
tuberculated, the hairs arising from the tubercles, and dis-
posed in stellated clusters or tufts. Antennae of the winged
insect, for the most part, fully pectinated on both sides, at
least in the males. Pseudo-Bomhyces : — imperfect spinners,
transforming generally in cocoons formed of a gummy matter,
which becomes more or less membranous or jjaper-like, some-
times changing without making a cocoon ; body mostly naked,
or sparingly hairy, sometimes tuberculated, the tubercles not
setiferous, and the hairs (when tiiere are any) arising immedi-
ately from the skin, and not from tubercles. Antennse of the
perfect insect seldom fully pectinated to the tip in the males,
often simple in the females. Other characters may be added,
but it is difficult to generalize in this way, for the exceptions
will always multiply in the formation of large groups. You
will not suppose that I think these two series should follow each
other, but rather that they are parallel, and both begin and end
at the same point, running together or coalescing at their ex-
tremities.

None of the Sphinges described in your letter are known to
me. One of the larvoo sketched in youi- letter is named " Ps.
epiminis " by you. From its form I should have supposed it to
be rather my Cyphocampa. Is there not some mistake about
the name ?

DOUBLEDAY TO HARRIS.

[Without date; received March 9, 1840.]

I am going to start two difficulties ; the first, the transit from
Psyche to Bomhyx ; the second, as to the j)lace of Limacodes.
I must freely confess that I caimot find any better location for
them, yet I cannot quite reconcile myself to their present sta-
tion. In regard to the Psyclildce^ I must also tell you that the

141

insect, of which I found the larva-case, is identical with Stephens'
T. ephemerceformis. Mr. Gosse, who has been staying some
years in Canada, and is going to bring out a book to be called
the " Canadian Naturalist," spent the summer of '38 in Ala-
bama. He found there plenty of the cocoons, or rather larva-
cases, of this insect. All of his specimens were spoiled, but he
has a most beautiful drawing of the insect, both $ and 9 , the
latter about four tenths of an inch long and one tenth broad.
He is going to publish his account of it very soon. My
specimen is bad, and therefore cannot fairly be compared with
his drawings, but I have some suspicions that it is distinct.
He states that his is always found on Pyrus, Crataegus^ Aromia^
or some such genus of shrubs, whilst I always found the cases
of mine on Cupressus tkyoides, a species of Ambrosia^ and one
or two aromatic plants. In a small box sent from our new
colony of South Australia to the Club Cabinet, is another
■species of this genus (?) or group (?), but I have not yet ex-
amined it. It has a very hairy body and quite clear wings, the
nervures of which struck me as very singular. I will perhaps
examine it before I send off this letter. Perhaps Stephens'
genus ought to be sunk. I shall look at Horsfield's Javanese
collection when next in town ; he has some species of this
group. I must confess I see some resemblance between the
males of Tliyridopteryx and of Bomhyx mori, yet the larvae are
very different.

I do not know much about Limacodes. Our English species
seem to me very distinct from yours; in fact your L. cippus
hardly seems to belong to the same genus. On reference
to Donovan I see that his figure represents the larva of our
Limacodes testudo as exactly like that of a Thecla (nearest to
T. nip)1ion Boisd.), but with the margin depressed. The pupa-
case is like that of L. pyxidifera. The perfect insect flies
swiftly over the underwood about noon, or an hour or two later.
I want to get Heterogenea aseUus to compare with some speci-
mens from North America which I have called Limacodes. I

142

Fig. 21.

have ten species of Limacodes^ or closely allied genera, but

think some nearer to Heterogenea.

Where do you place Platypteryx ? The larA^ae of our differ-
ent genera of the Platypterycidce Steph.
vary a good deal. One is like Cerura^
but slenderer ; another is short and thick,
like a lAmacodes. or like Abbot's drawino;
of the larva of my 261, They surely
come amongst the Bomhyces. In Abbot's
drawing is a species of which I have
sketched the larva and half the female.
The perfect insect is rose-colored, ex-
cepting the band from the apex of the
anterior wings and the posterior portion
of the hinder. There is a dark striga
across the base of the two wings, and two
sub-ocellated spots in the disk of the
Also a few red dots in the yellow of the lower

Fig. 22.

anterior ones.

wmgs.

I look with anxiety for your paper on the Bomhyces. I have
employed Raddon to engrave a plate of the larvae of a few
Bomhyces, and the imago, etc., of Abbot's Oiketicus. The
larva I sketched [in p, previous letter] was from Abbot's draw-
ing of Phalvena ejyimenis. In form it is just like our Parthe-
nias, but rather stouter, and very different in color. Parfhe-
nias has the first pair of abdominal prolegs shortest and almost
useless, and has a looping gait, but does not absolutely loop.
Abbot's drawing of Cypliocamj^a, if his be a Cypliocampa, has
but four abdominal legs. Erchiis, too, has a half-looping larva,
and, like Brephos, the first pair of abdominal legs short and
apparently useless. Some of the Catocalce have something of
this structure. A sketch in your next of the larva of Eudryas
grata would much please me, even if the eight legs are all
quite perfect. I fancy it must go quite near to Acontia and
EiqjJiasia Steph., though it may be that this insect belongs to

143

the Nbtodontidce, and only in its coloring, etc., offers one of
those striking instances, which often occur in very distinct
groups, of identity, or nearly that, in markings and other unim-
portant characters. These are what MacLeay and Swainson
call analogies. Abhot's insects must then be quite distinct,
not only as to genera but as to families.

You speak of Ceratocampa as being gregarious. When in
Florida, my excellent landlady, Mrs. Smith, told me that on
Major Travers' plantation, now laid waste by the Indians, a
large caterpillar with several horns on its head, used to strip
the orange trees of their leaves, and that a great many of them
lived together ; was it the 0. regalis ? Of Bomhyx Proserpina
I have no specimen. I saw one in a pine wood near Columbia,
S. C, and have lots of larvae out of turpentine from Wilming-
ton, N. C. ; so I suppose it is common there. I forget whether
I mentioned to you that I am convinced that Abbot's torrefacta
and Cramer's firmiana are two quite distinct species.

I have been looking over Boisduval's Iconographie very care-
fully. His plates are poorly colored and not exact. Do you ever
find what he calls Edusa ? I have never seen an American one.
I forget whether I told you that I found amongst Foster's spec-
imens of P. Ajax, a species distinct from this and Marcelhis
Boisd. It has the red spot bilobed, but is nearest to Marcellus
Boisd. Boisduval's reference to Drury under Sinon is wrong.
I have Drury's Protesilaus from Jamaica ; it is a species not in
his General History of the Lepidoptera (Suites a Buffon), and he
evidently has not seen it ; Drury's plate is as correct as possible.
Do you know any instance of Rhodocera merida being captured
in the United States ? As to Thecla, are not his Jiyperici and
Falacer, Drury's Acis and Pan ? Again, his smilacis is Cramer's
Damon. Next, in Polyommatus, his EpixantJie is only a variety
of P. PJblceas^ as he calls yours ; but yours is distinct from
ours. You gave me his Epixanihe ; I have seen varieties of
our Pldceas just like it ; our Phloias is more tailed. Mr.
Gosse has some lovely Polyommati in his drawings. One from

144

Newfoundland, nearly one half an inch in expanse, purple mar-
gined and glossed with purple on the coppery disk, like cliryseis,
but more beautiful. He also has two blues, one very near to
our Argus (from Newfoundland, as the others).

Do you know any authority for Aganistlios Orion being found
in the States ? Gosse has a drawing of an Hij^parclila like
Alope^ but having only one ocellus in the fulvous spot, and
differing in one or two other trivial points. This is from Ala-
bama, and probably Pegala Fabr.

You ask about Abbot's drawings. There are one hundred
and forty-nine of Lepidoptera, of which most have larvge, some
have no larvae, and on these sheets there are usually two or three
species. At least one half I do not know. I have the Noctuce
and Gf-eometrce by me. There are twenty-eight of the former
with larvae, none I think published, and of the latter sixteen,
none published. Raddon asks fifty pounds for these and about
forty plates of Coleoptera. I doubt whether nearly one half
are published. They are far more beautifully finished than
any other of Abbot's I have seen. The size is fom'teen by
ten inches.

HARRIS TO DOUBLEDAY.

May, 1840.

That Limacodes must come somewhere near to Cerura^ does
not seem to me to admit of a single doubt, and Cerura seems
rightly placed in the Notodo7itiadce ; but what are the genera
connecting Limacodes with the Liparidce ? I do not know at
present. The woolly bodies, and the antennae of some of the
latter, seem to me to justify placing Limacodes near to them ;
and I have one moth, apparently a Limacodes, or very near to
it, which has the fore legs woolly, and porrected like Orggia,
etc., but I cannot doubt that they are approximate forms.

Platgptcryx is too slender-bodied to go with the Bomhyces;

145

I think it ought to be placed near the Creometridce. Boisduval's
Ajnerican (?) Colias Edusa is not found here.

DOUBLEDAY TO HARRIS.

Epping, May 27, 1840.

I have cursorily examined Abbot's draAvings in the British
Museum. They are in seventeen large, thick, quarto vol-
umes. Of these, three are Lepidoptera without larvaa, two
with larvjE, etc. They contain, too, a vast number of Ab-
bot's manuscripts. These five volumes I have examined. I
may mention a few things. Melitcea Ismeria larva. " Feeds on
crosswort. Frequents the oak woods of Burke County, but is
not common. Caterpillar suspended itself May 16th, changed
to chrysalid May 17th. Butterfly appeared May 26th." Do you
know this species ? The name I think is Boisduval's. The draw-
ing has no name to it. Polyommatus Tarquinius. " Larva on
arrow-wood and alder. Frequents swamps, but rare ; most com-
mon in Big Ogeechee Swamp. Larva suspended itself on the
12th of April; became a chrysalis on the 14th. Butterfly ap-
peared Apr. 25th." There is a species oi Pygcera closely alhed
to, but yet distinct from, what I have called ministra ; this is also
figured with a different larva. Probably mine (taken at Tren-
ton Falls) is the more Northern species. Of the genus Lima-
codes there are some most interesting species quite new to me.
A few I have of Abbot's own collecting. The Oiketicus I am
now engraving from Raddon's drawings, and have its history
at length. I shall print this as soon as the plate is ready. I
observe a drawing of 0. PJiilodice, but he mentions ■ that it is
very rare. I did not know it occurred so far south in the low
grounds. There is a large and beautiful Polyommatus allied
apparently to our European species, P. Acts W. V., Pap.
Cymon of Lewin. P. Protodice and A. Grenutia are drawn also
without larvae. The former marked very rare ; the latter "oak

OCCAS. PAPERS B. S. N. H. — I. 10

146

woods near Savannah, rare." I lioj^e before long to examine
these books very fully, and will report more at length. At
any rate, they are a treasure. They were originally Francil-
lon's, and were purchased by the British Museum. They have
also in the Museum many Lepidoptera of Abbot's collecting,
some recently purchased at Milne's sale.

Newman has just had a box of insects from the Cape of
Good Hope, in which is a Cetonia, closely allied to your 0. brun-
nea Dej. Now is not this African species the true Indus, and
your American one a distinct species ? I think there can be
no doubt that yours is not the Indus of Linn, and Fabr., al-
though I am well aware of the little dependence to be placed
on the habitats given by either. India means, I judge, any-
where out of Europe.

I told you that Argynnis Cyhele and Aphrodite were two
species. I know the two, but cannot make out Kirby's de-
scription.

I have another thing to tell you; I have been mistaken
about your Sesice. I have not Sesia diffinis of Boisduval. I
had not looked at his figure, and concluded that a specimen I
took at Trenton Falls was it, but find it quite distinct. Abbot
has drawn all. The one I have is smaller than Pelasgus, but
more like that than diffinis. I think it is noi\\.\Yhjsruficaudis:
On going over the British Museum Noctuidce, I have been
struck with the large numbers that have crept into our English
catalogues. Amongst these are GraphipJwra subrosea Steph.,
Hadena arnica Steph. (not of Ochs.), one or two Plusice, JEu-
phasia eatmna Steph., Scolopus Inops Steph., Acontia nigrirena
Steph., OjiJiiusa girmdirena Steph., etc. Most of these I have.
A few, as the hcantiful Uuphasia catoina (Acontia cata^na Cwxt.^,
I have not. There are two specimens of tliis in the British
Museum, from Abbot. It^is something like Eudryas unio, —
white, anterior wings with two olivaceous marginal spots and a
discoidal one, with a broad lilac border, in which, near the. mar-
gin, are several sub-ocellated white spots ; posterior wings whit-

147

ish, with a slightly brown margin. In all old collections are many
specimens collected by Abbot ; at Francillon's, Donovan's and
other sales, some of these have been dispersed, and have crept
into collections nominally British only. At Milne's sale, a large
number of Abbot's insects were bought by the British Museum.
Tlie large Sphinx I mentioned in Abbot's drawing, of which
one was sold at his sale, is Labruscce. You have thus, Brontes,
Labruscce, quinquemaculatus and ChionantM, with at least two
other large Sphingidoi to add to your list. Kirby's Smerinthus
Cerisyi is only a variety of S. geminatus, I imagine.

HARRIS TO DOUBLEDAY.

Cambridge, Aug. 31, 1840.

Eudryas grata changes to pupa in the earth without forming
a cocoon ; the pupa is quite different from that of any other
moth known to me ; it approaches, however, somewhat to that
of Dryocampa, being very dark colored and rough, or granu-
lated, and almost serro-dentate around the edge of the ventral
segments.

This summer I have made the interesting discovery of the
larva of Papilio Philenor in Massachusetts, having found
them just hatched on the Aristolochia sipho in the Botanical
Garden, on the 5th of this month (August). Philenor has
never, to my knowledge, been observed before in the New
England States, though it is common in New Jersey, near
New York City. Aristolochia sipho grows wild in the woods
about New Haven, which is the nearest locality to Cambridge
of this genus of plants. It is possible that Philenor may be
found there, and from thence an impregnated female may have
migrated, or may have been carried by the winds to this place.
In the Middle and Southern States Philenor inhabits Aristo-
lochia serjjentaria. The young larvae of Philenor, before the

148

first moulting, closely resemble in form and in their tubercles,
the figures of the larva of Ornitlwptera Helicaon in Boisduval's
Histoire Naturelle des L^pidopteres, taken from Dr. Horsfield's
catalogue. After the first, moulting, the first pair of , tubercles
increase in length, and become proportionally much longer than
the others, and the body itself becomes more elongated. Ab-
bot's figure of the full grown larva may be considered as quite
correct, except that the last pair of dorsal tubercles should have
been curved backwards and outwards, and the yellowish, or
rather orange-colored spot on the first segment, should have
been placed between the first pair of horn-like tubercles imme-
diately in contact with the liead, and not behind them. The
pupa is not well done in Abbot's work, and both larva and pupa
in Boisduval and LeConte's Ldpidopteres de I'Am^rique are
miserably represented. The pupa approaches more nearly in
form to that of Ornitlioptera Helicaon than it does to that of
any other butterfly known to me. It appears to me that Pliil-
enor may be considered as one of the connecting species be-
tween Ornitlioptera and Papiilio ; while Podalirius^ Asterias^
etc., come at the end of the latter genus, connecting it with
Boritis^ CoUas, etc. The larvge of Philenor live in company,
cover the surface on wliich they are about to move with zio-zao;
lines of silk, and seem unable t6 crawl or hold on without this
precaution ; for when placed on a fresh leaf the least motion
causes them to fall off. This is not the case with the larvse
of Asterias, which is solitary ; but those of Turnus and Troi-
lus, also solitary, cover the leaves on which they live with a
complete coating of silk, and bend up the sides of the leaf to
form a sort of trough, in which they remain when at rest.
Hence the three groups of which these species are the repre-
sentatives, differ from each other as much in habits as in the
form of the larvas.

149

DOUBLEDAY TO HARRIS.

Epping, Sept. 11, 1840.

Westwood has been dissecting Eudryas, and sees an affinity
with Deiopeia and BJypercompa. Stephens thinks it near to
Acontia. "What's to be done when doctors disagree." The
larva of your militarise or any alHed species, is not in Abbot's
drawing. Stephens thinks it a true Hypercompa. The habits
of this and the Southern species, as well as Lecontei^ are just
the same as those of our dominula. The last is a much gayer
insect. Stephens says your militaris is quite distinct from
Lecontei, and points out a small white spot near the outer mar-
gin, as not being present in Lecontei. I must acknowledge that
I begin to waver in my opinion. He thinks the spots cannot
coalesce so as to give the markings of militaris.

HARRIS TO DOUBLEDAY.

Cambridge, Sept. 27, 1840.

As I was accidentally turning over the fourth volume of
Audubon's Birds of America, a little while ago, I saw on plate
359 a figure of your Hera chrysocarena^ together with another
moth marked exactly like it, but of a rich ochre or Indian yel-
low color, and which I suspect is the other sex. Audubon was
here at the time, and I asked him about these insects. He told
me that he received them from Nuttall ; and that those on
plate 359, which we reexamined together, were taken by
Nuttall near or among the Rocky Mountains. Audubon fur-
ther said that as soon as he had drawn and colored them he
gave the original specimens to Mr. Bachman. From the latter
gentleman it seems that you received yours, and thus you get
its true locality. Upon very carefully comparing it with Satur-
nia Maia (^Proserpina Fabr.), and also with Aglia tau, I feel
almost entirely convinced that it is congeneric with the

150

former ; that is, unless we subdivide the genus Saturnia veiy
much, and even in this case it could not be very remote from
Maia.

Do you remember the moth which you sent me for ex-
amination, numbered 266 \_Perophqra Melsheimei'i], and re-
specting which these remarks occur in your manuscript? "266
I took in July at the Warm Springs. It seems allied to Dryo-
camija^ but distinct; it will come under no English genus."
Your specimen is a 9 . We have a much larger one, $ , in our
Society's collection ; and Dr. Melsheimer has recently sent me
a pair, with a cocoon.

The moth is light reddish ash-colored, or very pale fawn,
finely sprinkled over with minute black dots ; a narrow dusky
band with an angulated inflection on the anterior margin of the
fore wing passes across both wings to the middle of the inner
edge of the hind wings ; there is also a minute blackish spot on
the fore wings. The antennae in the male are curved and bipcc-
tinated to the tip, but the pectinations are narrowed towards
the tips. The palpi are very small and cylindrical ; and the
tongue is obsolete and invisible. In the form of the body and
wings it closely resembles Bomhyx mori^ but tlie neuration is
somewhat different.

A few days ago one of my pupils brought to me a living
caterpillar contained in a cocoon, as he called it, which proved
to be exactly like the remarkable cocoon sent by Melsheimer
with the moths, and this recalled to my recollection a remark
made by Dr. Melsheimer in one of his letters, that he had got
what he supposed to be an Oiketicus. Although not an Olkct-
icus, it is a true SacJdrayer, as the Germans would call it, for
it bears about with it the bacj-like cocoon whenever it moves
from place to place. In the margin is a sketch of the cocoon,
with the caterpillar stretching itself out, as is its custom when
looking around. [See Newman's Entomologist, p. 100.]

The cocoon (for such it really becomes eventually) is formed
of two oblong oval pieces of a leaf, very firmly united at their

151

edges, and forming an oblong ovate cavity, thinly lined with
brownish silk ; there is also a circular opening at each end just
large enough for the caterpillar to crawl out. The caterpillar
has a black, very roughly punctured head, furnished on each
side, just behind the five ocelli, with two flexible, slender, spat-
ulate antennas (?) which, however, seem to be without joints
and incapable of motion. Are they not intended as com-
passes to measure the interior of its habitation ? It has also
four palpi, two very minute, and not ordinarily visible ; the
other two much longer, attached to the maxillse, and apparently
three-jointed. These palpi are moved with the utmost rapidity
during the whole time that the insect's head is thrust forth
from its cocoon. The first segment is black and corneous, the
next, and the rest of the body, are reddish-brown, and finely
granulated. The spiracles, though small, are very distinct and
of a black color. The first six legs are corneous and conical,
and about equal in size. The prolegs of the usual number
(probably, for I could not see the terminal pair), are very short,
retractile (?) with only the oval coronet of hooks visible. The
hindmost extremity is obliquely truncated, as in Scolytus^ the
truncated portion circular, and forming a flat plate of a drab
color, which exactly closes the hinder orifice of the cocoon
when the insect is included within it. The caterpillar and
its case were found on the oak, the leaves of which it eats.
It eats mostly by night, wli«n it wishes to be stationary ; to
change its place it comes partly out and cuts the threads,
and then stretching further out, lays hold of the leaf with
its six fore legs, an(£ suddenly shortening its body, brings up
the cocoon with a jerk. In this way it goes along half an
inch at a time. Internally the case is large enough to permit
the caterpillar to turn around, so that it can come out at either
end at pleasure, and if disturbed at the hinder end, it turns
with great facility, and shows its head and jaws to the disturber.
All my attempts to make the insect leave its case entirely
have been in vain, for it clings by its hind prolegs to the inte-

152

rior with tlie greatest pertinacity ; and I have been afraid of
injuring it by using too much force. The cocoon sent to mc by
Dr. Melsheimer, from which all the moths accompanying it
had escaped, contains the remains of the chrysalis ; both ends
were stopped by little flat lids of brownish silk of the thickness
and firmness of cartridge paper ; one of these lids remained
fixed, the other had been pushed off by the moth, but was still
attached by some threads. On the middle of the edges of the
six dorsal segments, the chrysalid had a transverse row of little
teeth, which could be shut down into corresponding cavities on
the top of the contiguous segment, forming six pairs of nippers,
which were undoubtedly intended to enable the chrysalis to
advance in its cocoon, and to take a firm hold when pushing off
the lid. The tail is blunt, with six minute points. The form
of the caterpillar and the structure of its cocoon are very dif-
ferent from those of Oiketicus and Psyche, and the moths, both
sexes of which are perfect and furnished with wings, and dif-
fer only in the narrower pectinations of the antennse of the
female, are not referable either to Oiketicus or Psyche. I
therefore propose to call the genus Saccophora, and the species
Melsheimeri. Will not this singular and interestino; insect
remove some of your difliculties respecting the transition from
Psyche to Bomhyx ? It may be that it is allied to some of the
Notodontiadce ; but I want several genera, such as Stcmropus,
Ptilophora, Chaonia and Peridca, to compare with it. [This
letter was published by Doubleday, with figures, in Newman's
Entomologist, pp. 99-101.]

HARRIS TO DOUBLEDAY.

Cambridge, Oct. 8, 1840.

You will recollect I suggested that tlie Bonihyccs may be
resolved into two groups of equal value, true spinners, and im-
perfect spinners. At the head of each must stand the Attaci

153

and the Ceratocampiadce, and in the followmg order you will
observe how one group represents another opposite to it.

BOMBYCES. PSEUDO-BOMBYCES.

5 Attacidse e. g., Attacus, etc. = Ceratocampa, etc. 6 Ceratocanijjiadae.
4 Bonibyciadas e. g., Mogasoma = Zeuzera, etc. 7 Zeuzeriadte.
3 Liparidas e. g., Orgyia = Psyche, etc. 8 Psychiadjc.
2 Arctiadfe e. g., Spilosoma = Clostera, etc. 9 NotodontiadEe.
1 Lithosiadas =

In the following order you will see how these lead from the
/Sphinges.

Sphinges veraj

( 6 Ceratocampiada3. 5 Attacidae,

\ 1 Zeuzeriada^ .... 8 Psychiadte,

o 1 . J V f 2 Arctiadaj 3 Liparidaj,

ophinges adscit£ErJ . -r. i •

11 Litnosiadae. . . .,. 4Bombyciada3

9 Notodon-
tiadse

Or thus:

8
5
4
3

Acronyc-

ta, etc.

Plusia,

etc.

7 8

6 9

Or thus: ^

1 4

2 3

Here the Ceratocampians represent the Sphingians, and the
Zeuzerians the ^gerians ; Avhile the Arctians and Lithosians
seem naturally to follow the Agaristians and Callimorphians.
Between the Zeuzerians and Arctians there is no affinity ; but
there are analogous forms in each,' as might be expected from
their situation ; e. g., Zeuzera cesculi and Arctia scribonia. So,
too, there is no affinity between the Paijcliiadce and the Lipa-
ridce ; but their forms are analogous, e. g., wingless and slug-
gish females in each, etc. Moreover, the antennae of Psyche
graminella and the venation of the wings are wonderfully like
those of Orgyia.

It would be impossible for me, within the compass of a single
letter, to repeat the various considerations which have confirmed
me in this arrano-ement. Takino- the families in a linear series,
I have begun in my report with the Lithosians, as intimately

154

connected with the abnormal Spbingians or Glaucopidians, and
particularly with such genera as my Lycomorpha^ a lichen-eat-
ing species, Ctenucha^ which Kirby puts with the Lithosians,
and Procris^ which closely resembles some of the Lithosians in
habit and general appearance. Mr. Westwood, you know, calls
many of the insects CalUmorpha which I refer to Crlaucopis.

You tell me that Stephens ihuA^?, Eudryas is near to Acontia;
you have stated your belief that it comes near to JSaphasia, or
to some allied genus, while Mr. Westwood, who has been dis-
secting it, sees an affinity with Deiopeia and Hypercompa^ and
you ask, " What's to be done when doctors disa2i;ree ?" I
have very carefully compared Eudryas grata with all the foreign
and native moths in my collection, and have arrived at the con-
clusion that unless Boisduval is right in putting it near to Aga-
rista and ^Egocera, it must go among the Notodontians. I be-
lieve that Westwood is not so far out of the way in seeing an
affinity in it with some of the Lithosians and Arctians. It is
just that kind of affinity it ought to have if it belong to the
great group of Bombyces rather than to the Noctuce. The re-
markable, dark, dilated or spatulate scales on the thorax of
Eudryas^ precisely resemble those in similar situations on Bom-
hyx velleda, but I have not seen anything exactly like them in
the Noctuce. In its winged state it seems to exhibit a close
affinity to Clostera, Pygcera^ Cerura, and even to JVotodonta
ziczac, dictcea, etc. In the form of the wings, their position in
repose, and in its woolly fore legs stretched out before the body
when at rest, it strongly reminds us of some Cerura^. Its collar
(pa^«^M<m) is narrower and not elevated, in which it dilfci's from
most Noctuce and agrees with the slender-bodied Arctke. Its ab-
domen nearly cylindrical, not tapering or depressed behind (dur-
ing life), and witli three rows of black dots, is, in these respects,
exactly like that of Euchcetes egle. Cerura? verbasci of Europe
and Pygcera bucephala have the rows of spots on the sides, which
are not found in any Noctua, to my knowledge. I do not know
whether any of your European Notodontce have simple, setaceous

155

antenngB in both sexes, but Phragmatohia^ Spilosoma Isabella
and IIyphcmb'ia.f etc., have. The maxillaa of Eiidryas are not
much longer than the thorax, and the palpi are rather small
and short. The eyes, especially in the males, are large, as in
Callimor'plia^ etc.

The posture of the larva of Eudryas when ai rest, is like
that of some of the Arctice^ e. g., Euclicetesegle^ and still more
apparently like that of Ayarista, which it resembles strikingly
in form and colorino;.

In looking over Stephens' catalogue, and also that of Mr.
Curtis, some queries and doubts have occurred to me respect-
ing the arrangement of certain genera in these works. Why
are not G-astropacIia and Odonestis placed immediately after
Saturnia, rather than Lasiocampa and Uriogaster? Their
larvae are certainly more S])hinx-like, and therefore nearer to
Bomhyx mori than Clisocampa, etc. On the other hand why
do not Poecilocampa pojyuU and Cnethocampa lead to the Lipa-
ridce by their larvce ? Compare the caterpillar of P. pojndi with
Hypogymna dispar, and of 0. pUyocampa with Clidia geograph-
ical and see the close resemblance. These gentlemen seem to
have mistaken the place oi Pentliophera and Limacodes. P.
morio and detrita are clearly Liparidm ; the antennee, venation
'of their wings, and general appearance indicate it, and, more-
over, their caterpillars are described by Denis and SchiflPer-
miiller as having only six tubercles on each ring, whereas they
have ten or more. If Mr. Stephens had known our American
Limacodes (not all of them true Limacodes^ but allied to it), he
would not have hesitated to put this genus among the Notodon-
tians, and near Cerura. By thus settling the place of Lima-
codes^ we of course decide that of Psyche. P. graminella^ $ ,
the only foreign species in my collection, resembles Limacodes
cippus closely in the venation and form of the wings ; but I
must also admit that in this respect it comes near to Penthop)hera
and Orgyia. However this may be, if Oiketicus and Psyche
stand together in one group, then this group must come between

156

the Zeuzeridce and Limacodce, tlieir naked larvae and imperfect
prolegs excluding them from the vicinity of the Liparidce^ and
bringing them to the other side of the Bombyces. Have you
observed how closely Clostera imitates Acronycta in the larva
state, even to the little tubercles on the fourth and eleventh
segments ? Yet they are far removed fi*om each other in Mr.
Stephens' catalogue. It seems to me that the Notodontm are
resolvable into two groups (like almost all the other families of
moths), — the type of one being Clostera^ with a pilose larva, and
of the other, Notodonta or Cerura^ with a naked one. Stauro-
pus in its antennee, and Centra vimda in the color and spots of
the thorax, come nearest to Zeuzera and Oiketieus, while Clos-
tera and Pygcera tend towards the Acronyctce by their larvge.
I must confess, however, that I do not know enough of the
Notodo7itce to speak with great confidence about them, and only
throw out these suggestions in order to see how they strike you.

DOUDLEDAY TO HARRIS.

Epping, Nov. 1G, 1840.

The Saturnia you allude to was given me by Dr. Bachman,
who did not remember exactly how he got it, but believed
it came from Charleston. It was in a box with a variety of
Charleston insects, so I took it for granted it was found there.
As to the name, you are at liberty, as in the case of all my in-
sects, to name it as you please ; I had given the matter but
little thought when I wrote to you ; and this reminds me that
I have discovered various errors in my memoranda of the
generic characters of the American JVotodontida', of which I
sent you a copy. You must take these characters with great
caution till you hear farther fi-om me. The history of the
Sacktrdger is very interesting. It certainly connects the Bom-
byces and Psyche^ especially by its habits. It cannot possibly

157

be an Oiketicus. The only Oiketicus I have seen has the
aspect of a Psyche.

The Sphinx I sent as Carolina is considered by Stephens
as the true Carolina of Linn. Both species have occurred in
England in or near nursery grounds. Probably the pupa had
been brought over with earth around the roots of plants.

Three other American Sphinges have crept into our Cabinets.
S. cingulata Drury, Donov., S. pleheia Fabr. and S. poecila
Steph. The last is, I believe, your S. sordida. Stephens says
that the specimens which I named sordida from your paper are
his poecila. I had a great many specimens of what we here
call Carolina given me by Mr. Calverly of New York, and re-
ceived about fifty of each species from Wilmington, Del., but
mostly rubbed specimens. The person who sent them says he
took them at the flowers of the poison-weed (^Datura? ^.

My brother and I have consulted together about the larva
and pupa of Eudryas grata, which came quite safely, and agree
that it must be Notodontideous. I can hardly find time to fol-
low you through all the details of your proposed arrangement
of the Bombyces, but must make a few remarks on it.

Your beginning with the Lithosice appears to me the most
natural plan, for certainly Lycomorpha pholus and Ctenucha
semidiaphana lead to them by their structure. The lichen-
eating habit of L. pholus, too, shows its affinity to the Lithosians.
In June I fovmd Gnop)hria ruhricollis in profusion in a wood in
Bedfordshire. I was struck with its resemblance to O, semidi-
aphana more than I had ever been before. It is not common
here. My 263, which I doubt not is your Gnophria vittata, has
a larva, according to Abbot, very like our P. fuliginosa. He
has drawn it on a Hicracium. I think I
mentioned to you that I have a Callimorpha
near to Carolina, but distinct, which was
taken about five miles from Wilmington, Del.
It is rather smaller, the anterior wings pale '^*

buff", or rather cream-colored, except just at the apex (the part

158

dotted), which is of the same ochreous hue as the under wings
of this and Carolina. The costa nearly to tlie apex, is brown-
black, not extending below the subcostal nervure. The outer
margin has a patch of the same color commencing below the
apex and terminating at about an equal distance above the anal
angle. The inner margin is rather broadly bordered with
black-brown, which commences near the base, and terminates
before reaching the anal angle, emitting a stout branch at its
termination towards the middle of the wino; and a much shorter
one in the same direction as the band itself, but not touching
the margin. The posterior wings ochraceous, immaculate. Be-
low bright ochraceous (body and legs the same, except the an-
terior tibite and tarsi, which are black), immaculate, except a
black, reniform spot, divided by a yellow nervure, which cor-
responds in situation to the inner branch of the marginal band.
The spot on the outer margin and the costal line arc not
visible below. Thorax above whitish or pale buff; Avith a
longitudinal line black ? (my specimen is rubbed here). Ab-
domen above ochraceous, with a black dorsal line. Do vou
know this ?

Scrihonia puzzles me. In the imago it seems to be so unlike
the Arctice, yet the larva is just an Arctian. You speak of
three Lophocampce. I do not know maculata, unless it be a
species like tesscllaris, but more distinctly marked, of which I
have a specimen from Mexico. I have a specimen named B.
'pyxidifera^ collected by Abbot. Where does this come ? I see
by referring to one of your letters, it belongs to your Lagoa^
with opercularis^ which I have not. When at Cambridge I told
you that I had a Porthesia from Trenton Falls. It is not a Por-
iliesia, but seems to be a Leucoma or Loilia. It is about the size
of Spilosoma virgiviica^ body and all of a uniform, not very pure,
Avhite. The antennae are more deeply pectinated and I think lon-
ger. It closely resembles Ladia ccenosa^ a very rare species. I
think I have never sent it to you. I have another broken spec-
imen of it from Abbot's old specimens (originally sent to Fran-

159

cillon.) Of the genus Orgyia^ I have three, if not four rspecies :
first, one close to our antiqua, wliich in fact might he mis-
taken for it; second, your No. 60, which varies a little in color;
third, a species closely allied to your 60, but of a uniform or
nearly uniform dark-broAvn ; it is from East Florida, and very
distinct from 60, though closely allied ; the two others are
from Trenton Falls. I have, too, a specimen taken at the
latter place, much Jarger than your 60 (it expands fully
Ij inches) and more highly colored, with a very plain white
patch near the middle of the costa. I feel sure from compar-
ing them again at the present time, that it is distinct. The
under surface is quite different from that of your 60. I have
not got Smith-Abbot's species ; may not this be their leuco-
stigma ? Perhaps they may have given that name to your 60,
from the small white spot at the inner angle. Besides these
four I have a small species from East Florida, possibly an
Orgyia. [60 Harr. mss. Catal.= Cladophora leucograpJia Hiibn .]

In regard to torrefacta do you know of two species in the
United States ? I think that I mentioned to you that in
Abbot's drawings in the Museum, two closely allied species are
represented, one I think the same as Cramer's figure (of this he
gives the country as Surinam, I believe) ; the other I consider
the same as a specimen I took in North Carolina, a less showy
insect. The larva) of these are very different. They may be
tussocks, and I think now are not Notodontidce,

I think velleda can hardly be a 3Iegaso7na, though I never
saw that genus. It is a most curious insect. Of the Olisiocam-
fee I have only one species, — mori ; I think as you do about it.
I never saw its wino-s closed en toil.

Of the Dryocampce I have only ruhicunda, and the species
you have now with my other Bombyces. I have no Hepialus
from America. I think Gosse told me that one was common
in Canada with metallic spots, — your species I suppose.

Have you compared the Georgian species I sent you of
Pygmra? gibbosa, with the Northern one. Abbot seems to

160

have been of the mind tliat there were two species of these ;
also of the true Pi/gcera^ — one ministra, tlie other scarcely
distinguishable from it at first. When next in the Museum,
I will again look at his drawings. I hope to have a specimen
of Acontia solaria for you Avhen I send next. The resemblance
between this and Eudryas is only an analogy. I mean an-
alogy in the sense in which Swainson and MacLeay use it.

I think I told you that the specimens of Argynnis you
sent me are the true Cyhele. Aphi^odite is smaller tlian the
smallest Cyhele I ever saw. Do you ever get Troilus near
you ? I have but very poor specimens. I have as yet but bad
specimens of P. Glaucus, but hope for more this winter from
Wilmington, Del. Wilcox told me it was found at New York.
Do you take Thecla Damon Cr. = Smilacis Boisd. ? I have
only one which you gave me. I saw it plenty near Cmnber-
land Gap, Tennessee, but could not then catch any.

DOUBLEDAY TO HARRIS.

Epping, Feb. 27, 1841.

In a box I received the other day from my friend Calverlyare
two specimens of a Colias like to, but distinct from Pli'dodice. I
have Phllodice in all its varieties (Query ; are not some of these
species, with Boisduval ?), but none came near to this. It is
smaller and has no black border to the under Avings, only a foint
black tinge along two nervures. Its whole aspect is different.
One is an albino, white where it should be yellow, but has a
faint yellow tinge towards the inner margin of the anterior
wings. I have two or three specimens of this variety oi Philo-
dice, but all differ much from these two. Both are 9 . The
black, discoidal spot on the anterior wings is very distinctly
pupilled with white above. It will not agree with any described
by Boisduval, in the Suites a Buffon. I have a suspicion that

161

Hiibner's figure, referred to by Boisdiival under Philodice, be-
longs to the (? of this species ; it does not seem to me to be
Philodice.

Have you ever seen Hiibner's Exotic Lepidoptera? Your
JEgeria cucwbitce is liis Melittia satyriniformis, and j^geria ex-
itiosa is his Paranthrene pej)sidifo7"me. Crocota ruhicundaria
is Boisduval's Lithosia Iceta, my 148. Ctenucha semidiaphana
is Hiibner's Glaucopis fidvicollis. Your Glostera he calls leh-
ihyura inclusa (Stephens has figured and described it as British,
though he wants to persuade me his is a distinct species).
There is a butterfly figured under the name of Symphcedra
Alcandra, said to be from Florida, which I do not know. It
belongs to the JVymphalidae.

The insect I took to be allied to Stephens' genus Thyridop-
teryx (and it is) is a true Oiketicus, the same genus as Guilding's
large species. His smaller one is nearer Psyche. I examined
a male of Guilding's 0. Kirhyi in Kirby's cabinet, now belonging
to the Entomological Society. In color, markings and form, it
comes close to Abbot's insect, but is larger, and the cocoon is of
a different form. I mentioned to you that I had seen a speci-
men from South Australia allied to Stephens' insect. From
what Gould tells me I have no doubt there is a large species
there like 0. Kirhyl. I have hunted our old collections in vain
for Abbot's species.

The last time I saw Stephens, about four weeks since, all
our conversation turned on the species of Lepidoptera supposed
to be common to both continents. Of these CyniJiia Gardui
seems to be the one which offers the least real difference. We
cannot find any, but the American Antiopa and Atalanta are
known at once. I have had a good many Swiss specimens of
Antiopa pass through my hands lately (though I have given
most away now) ; all these I would at once have picked out
however they had been mixed with American specimens.

Newman and I have had a great deal of discussion about
what are properly mosquitoes ; he maintaining them to be jSim-

OCCAS. PAPERS B. S. N. H. — I. 11

162

uUce, I Culices. He will have it that Ciilices are only called
mosquitoes by the English and English Americans, and Walker,
on Schomburgh's authority, says they are called zancudos by the
Spaniards, and Simulice mosquitoes. Now I do not believe this
at all. If you look in the last Diccionario of the Spanish Acad-
emy, you will see mosquitoe rendered OM?(?.rp?}?iews, and zancudo
only longipes. Pray what is the very little sand-fly, midge or
punky, of different parts of the States, which by river sides in
the south, especially towards the sea, swarms by millions,
enough to make one believe the stories we get from Hungary
about their choking men and cattle ? The same, or an allied
species I found, or rather they found me, by thousands, on the
hills south of Olean, N. Y. ; but the most I ever saw were on
the St. John's and Savannah rivers. They never were found
far from shore.

As the word mosquitoe is Spanish, surely the Spaniards are
the best judges as to what insect it belongs. I maintain we
are right in following them, and the Germans are Avrong, and
Newman wrong in following the Germans, as he does in his
grammar.

DOUBLEDAY TO HARRIS.

Eppixg, Oct. 19, 1841.

Our success this year .in capturing Lcpidoptera has been
owing very much to adopting a plan first brought to notice
by Mr. Sclby of Bedford, — brushing over the trunks of trees
near our house with sugar. Every tolerably fine evening, a
row of lime trees in one of our fields is sugared well for three
or four feet from the ground, and in addition, boards similarly
sugared are put out in a little plantation at the bottom of
another field. Twice or thrice before nine or ten o'clock, my
brother visits these with a lantern, and some nights takes a hun-
dred moths. He also occasionally sends a boy into the woods to

163

pursue the same plan there. In the woods there are some-
times swarms of particular species. One boy counted seventy-
specimens of Glcea vaccina on one tree. My brother finds that
coarse, strong-smelling sugar is to be preferred, and he generally
puts a moderate quantity into a pan of water, and brushes it on
with a large paint-brush just after sunset. I think you would
succeed in this way in getting a great many moths. I wish I
had tried it in East Florida and at Trenton Falls. In summer
the blossoms of the lime-tree swarm with Noctuoe. We used
to take a sheet and spread it on the ground under the trees,
and strike them sharply. This would sometimes shake down
forty or fifty moths at a stroke. Now the blossoms of the
common Ivy {Iledera helix), which is just flowering, swarm
with moths. By attention to these various modes of collecting,
we have made our vicinity unrivalled as to the number of Lep-
idoptera collected in it.

Should I go merely for a short visit to France I mean to take
a host of things for Boisduval's inspection. Especially your
TJicclm and Hesperice. This reminds me of a "blue " I have de-
scribed as Polyommatus Lygdamus, one of Abbot's. I told you
about it. I find there are two species like Argiolus in America.
I caught both, but only females of the Northern one. They
have males from Nova Scotia in the Museum. It is clearly
distinct from what I took in Carolina.

DOUBLEDAY TO HARRIS.

10 NewIngton Crescent, April 30, 1842.

I have not time to follow you in your remarks on the Noto-
dontians now, but Avill soon write you more fully on the sub-
ject. I will, however, remark on a few of them, and on some
of the others.

164

There appear to be two closely allied species known as the
P. alhifrons, one much smaller than the other. Of this more
in a short time. The Cerura from the cabinet of the Entomo-
logical Club is figured by Abbot in his drawings with the larvae,
of which I will send you a tracing. I much doubt whether the
beautiful Pyralidiform insect from Georgia is allied to JVotodonta.
It is figured by Abbot without a larva.

I found in the Museum, a few days since, some specimens
of 3Ielit€Ba Ismerta, collected by Abbot. It is nearer 31. Tharos
than Boisduval's plate would lead you to imagine. We have
there a specimen of an insect I much want to get, and which I
had fancied quite a Southern one, Polyommatus Tarquinius.
Our specimen was taken in Nova Scotia by Lieutenant Red-
man, who sent a vast number of insects thence to the British
Museum. This reminds me that I am now quite convinced that
pseudarjiolus of the North is not pseudargiolus of the South.
There are two species. To which does the name belong?
Boisduval's plate will not distinguish them.

I hope to go to Paris this autumn, or it may be sooner, and
shall take all my North American Theclce (thirteen species,
I think) and ITesjjerice (about thirty species) to Boisduval, and
if you think it worth Avhile will take yours. Do 3'ou like to
risk them ? I would gladly take charge of them for you.

I find in the British Museum a laro;e number of the true
Argynnis Aphrodite^ as named by Fabricius in the Banksian
Cabinet. I have a fine series of varieties of Cyhcle Fabr. (as
named in tlic Banksian Cabinet), varying in size and in the
color of both surfaces, but in all the distinction from Aphrodite
is quite clear. The Museum specimens were presented by
Redman of Nova Scotia, but I hope to be able to get you one,
though Ave have some trouble in giving away or exclij^nging
specimens presented.

Newman Avas the author of the papers signed " Rusticus,"
though he sometimes pretends to deny it. Hadena arnica
Steph., is your American moth, and is not H. arnica Ochs.
The specimens reputed British are of Abbot's collecting.

165

HARRIS TO DOUBLEDAY.

Cambridge, Nov. 17, 1842.

Whether we shall be able to identify his [Newman's] species
(in the " Entomologist ") I cannot tell; and I fear that in some
cases he may have raised varieties to the rank of species, and
may have re-named and re-described some old species. I re-
member an error of his. Leptura zebrata of Fabr. is not identi-
cal with the zebra of Olivier. One is exclusively a Northern
and the other a Southern species. I have both in my collec-
tion, and each exactly agrees with the original description.

The name Polyommatus pseudargiolus must be applied exclu-
sively to the Southern species, if the Northern blue species is
distinct from it. Deutargiolus would be a good name for the
Northern species. ^ Your specimens will enable you to point
out the distinctive characters, which I shall be glad to see from
your own observations, as well as those by which you separate
Argynnis Aphrodite from Cyhele.

HARRIS TO DOUBLEDAY.

Cambridge, Feb., 1844.

For more than a year I have made only two entomological
discoveries of any consequence. One of these is finding, in
September, Anthribus fasciatus Olivier, an insect unknown to
Schonherr, which heretofore I had supposed to be a rare and
exclusively Southern species. I have obtained several speci-
mens from a black, spherical fungus, stroma to Sphceria concen-
trica, growing on the Platanus occidentalis. The larva in-
habits and undergoes its transformations in this fungus, which
affords food to it and to the perfect insect. The Anthribidce
have generally been supposed to be parasitical insects ; but this

' [It has since been named L. neglecta by Mr. W. H. Edwards.]

166

species and some others I know to be fungivorous. The marmo-
reus of OKvier (= hinatus Fabr.) lives upon a tree Boletus, and
the variegatus of Say upon the smut of wheat ( Uredo segetum)
and other grains. The other discovery is that of considerable
numbers of the rare Horia sanguinipe7inis of Say, taken early
in April on the sands beyond Mt. Auburn. They had appar-
ently just come out of holes in the sand. Tliese insects never
fly, being wingless, but crawl about upon the sand, and proba-
bly lay their eggs in the burrows of some of the sand bees or
other fossorial Hymen optera, several kinds of which inhabit the
spot. The males are distinguished from the females by their
thicker antennae, and by having a longitudinal row of four vel-
vet-like patches on the ventral surface of the abdomen.

HARRIS TO DOUBLEDAY.

Cambridge, Dec. 12, 1845.

Some of my agricultural friends have sent me specimens,
in various conditions, of an insect which has committed great
devastations in some portions of this country ; and I am called
upon to give an account of the insect. I have had a bottle full
of the moths from Virginia; and though they are all more or less
rubbed and damaged, they will serve for the purpose of exami-
nation to determine the genus. From specimens in the larva
state, sent from Worcester, Mass., I was so fortunate as to
obtain a very few (five only) of the moths in good condition.

By the tabular sketch contained in Latreille's Families Natu-
relles it appears that these insects belong to his genus (Ecophora,
a genus, however (in the extent he gave to it), which does not
seem to be admitted by modern entomologists. I suppose that
Haworth would have put the insect in his genus liecurvaria. I
have Humphrey and Westwood's British Moths and West-
wood's " Synopsis of the Genera of British Insects," and have

167

endeavored to make out the genus by these works, but do not
find the insect in question to agree entirely with the generical
definitions taken together from both these works. I have
compared my insect, and find it comes nearest to Anacampsis
nivella and hlattariella (which Mr. Curtis sent me) in generic
characters. The last joint of the palpi, however, is somewhat
longer in my insect than in the two species last named. You
will perceive that the form of the hinder wings of my insect is
peculiar, and resembles that of these two species of Anacampsis.
I have tried my insect particularly for the genera Anacampsis^
Laverna, Cleodora, Acompsia, and Ostyages, as defined by West-
wood. These authors say o^ Anacampsis, " tongue shorter than
palpi " ; in my insect it is much longer. Of Laverna they say,
"palpi, second and third joints of equal length" ; in my insects
the third joint is the longest. Of Qleodora they say " palpi
slightly recurved"; in my insect they are more than slightly
recurved. Of Anacampsis (^Butalis in part) they say, " hind
wings broad, not attenuated at the outer angle " ; in my insect
the hind wings are narrow, and are suddenly attenuated at the
outer angle. Of Ostyages (^Butalis in part) they say, " max-
illee very short," etc. ; the maxillaB or tongue in my insects is
half the lenoth of the antennae.

I have reason to believe that this insect under consideration
inhabits Europe ; tliat it was known and described there more
than eighty years ago, and that it was introduced thence into
America, where it has multiplied to an alarming extent.

DOUBLEDAY TO HARRIS.

British Museum, April 16, 1846.

To-day Curtis called here, and on looking at Duponchel,
Supplement, 85, we find that your insect seems to be near, if
not identical with, the grain moth of France described by
Reaunmr. It is the (Ecophora granella of some, the Butalis

168

cerealella of Duponcliel. M. Hupin has published a memoir
on it in the Annales de V Agriculture Frangaise for June, 1838,
and again in 1842.

I have lent Curtis your book. He says it is " the best book
of the kind ever published." He will, however, put his opin-
ions on paper. I hope you were pleased with Mr. Spence's
opinion.

HARRIS TO DOUBLEDAY.

Cambridge, Oct. 24, 1846.

About a week ago, I received, by mail, a plate from Du-
ponchel's Lupidopteres containing a figure of Butalls cerealella,
and suppose that you must have been the sender of it. Allow
me to make some further comments on this insect, and the
genus to which it belongs. I take it for granted that some
species, at least, if not the cerealella included by Duponcliel in
his genus Butalls, must be found in England. This genus
either is or is not a good one. If good, why is it not recog-
nized and adopted by English Lepidopterists ? If not a good
and legitimate genus what do English Lepidopterists do with
the species contained therein ? Some of the species perhaps
they put in Acompsia ; in what genus are the rest arranged ?
Mr. Curtis referred me to his genus or sub-genus Laverna ;
does he still consider it as belonmng thereto ? And West-
wood (Genera, p. 110) states that in Laverna the second and
third joints of the palpi arc of equal length, and that the head is
short and broad. In my insect the third joint of the palpi is
evidently longer than the second, and the head is not broad.
My principal object in applying to you relative to this insect,
was to ascertain to what genus the best British Lepidopterists
would, without reference to Duponcliel, refer this species, if it
be at all referable to any British genus. If it cannot be in-

169

eluded in any such now existing, it must be the type of a new
genus.

Probably you have heard of the " army worm,"a caterpillar,
that invades the cotton fields of the Southern States, and has
this year destroyed at least one third of the crop in Louisiana
and Mississippi. Several communications have been made to
me respecting it, and a correspondent in Mississippi having, as
he states, profited by my book on destructive insects, so far as
to be able to trace the transformation of the army worm, has
recently sent to me in a letter some specimens of the moth de-
veloped from this Avorm or caterpillar, with a description of the
caterpillar. The moth was new to my collection, and though
a good deal injured in transmission, is yet in such a state that
the genus might be made out by one familiar with the modern
genera. From the habits of the larva it seems to me that the
insect must approach near to the genus Cosmia. My corre-
spondent states that the larva is green, with longitudinal stripes
of yellow on the sides, and along the back two black ones separ-
ated by a very narrow line of white. They are also studded
with black dots, each one producing a black hair. The legs
are sixteen. When about to pass into the chrysalis state, the
larva draws too-ether the edo;es of a leaf with silken threads, so
as to form a scroll, within which the transformation takes place.
Mr. Say described the moth from very bad specimens, under
the name of Noctua xylina. I have been requested to rede-
scribe it correctly, and wish to give to it the name of the modern
genus, to which it may belong. I expect soon to have the
means of raising this insect under my own eye, having sent for
eggs, which I shall place on some cotton plants now growing in
pots ; and hope in this way to be able to give a more exact and
faithful account of it than has heretofore appeared. In Brew-
ster's Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, article Cotton, there is an
account, by Dr. Chisholm, of the " Chenille " destructive to
cotton in British Guiana, — an insect, apparently a geometer,
differing from ours.

170

HARRIS TO DOUBLEDAY.

Cambridge, March 20, 1846.

And now, as business presses hard on me, I must improve
the present moment to make some remarks on the specimens of
insects sent to you, for exhibition to tlie English Entomologists.
Please to open my " Treatise " at page 365, near the bottom of
which you will see the words — " Fly-weevil that destroys
wheat." This is, or was the Virginia name of the little moths
sent you. Specimens of this same " fly-weevil that destroys
wheat," which has done, and still continues to do incalculable
mischief in the granaries and wheat mills and storehouses of this
country, are in your possession, and I hope in good condition.
The insect has been known to the farmers and millers of our
wheat districts nearly a hundred years, and yet a correct scien-
tific description of it has never been published here, unless the
account of the foreign insect contained in my " Treatise " be
considered as applicable to it. Wheat is not raised or ground
in this vicinity. We get our flour mostly from New York and
Baltimore ; hence the insect was unseen by me when my book
was written. Since then I have seen it, in all its stages, and
have had the moths living before me, and have observed their
manners, in confinement it is true, but where they have propa-
gated for more than a year. Sometime before writing the arti-
cle above referred to, I had come to the conclusion that the
fly-weevil of Virginia was a co-species, and perhaps, identical
with the Angoumois moth ; and, if I mistake not, I pointed out
in a letter to you, the synonymy of the European insect, and
the blunders of entomologists about it. Before publishing a
better account of the American insect, I wanted to know what
the best British Lepidopterists would call it, and Avhether they
would recognize it as a European species, witliout disclosing to
them what I knew and what I suspected about it. Even to you
I did not disclose my views, because I hoped to have your own
opinion uninfluenced by mine. I regret only to have received

171

Mr. Curtis's opinion as to the genus, Avithout any information
whether the species was known. Is not the Angoumois moth
in the British Cabinets ? You state that Mr. Curtis refers
my insect to "a section of Anacamjjsis formed by Curtis into
his genus Lucerna^ and refer me to his figure of L. ochraeeella^
a species alHed," etc., in plate 735 of Curtis's British Entomol-
ogy. This work is not to be found here ; and moreover the
genus Lucerna and the species ochraceella are not contained in
Curtis's Catalogue, of which he sent a copy to the Library.
Have you not made a mistake in the name ? In Westwood's
Synopsis of Genera, annexed to his Introduction, p. 110, I
find the genus Laverna Curt, characterized ; and in Hum-
phrey and Westwood's British Moths, Vol. II, p. 188, imder
Anacampsis sarcitella, I find this note. " Mr. Curtis forms
this, marmorea, atra and ochracella (ochraceella?) into the
genus Lavernay Westwood and Humphrey do not give any
description of their so-called ocliracclla ; and as to the notori-
ous Angoumois moth (or by whatever name entomologists
please to call it), it does not figure, and is not noticed in the
" British Moths." Well, I suppose Duponchel will have it in
due time ; but I do not want to see what he may say, before
the opinion of the English Entomologists comes to hand. He
alludes to it as a species not yet before him in good state under
the name of " Alucite des grains.''^ L^p. de France, T. xi, p.
450, pntting it in the genus (Ecophora.

The habits of our "Fly-weevil " agree exactly with those of
the Angoumois moth as described by Reaumur, Duhamel and
Tillet. As you may not have my old letter at hand, and as the
references in my treatise were not full enough, allow me again
to disentangle the synonymy of the European moth in question.

Chenille qui vit dans les r/rains de differents hies, et principalement dans les
grains d' orge. Reaumur, Memoires, U, p. 486, pi. 39, fig. 9-21, 1736.

Linsecte qui devore les grains de V Angoumois. Duhamel et Tillet, in
Hist, de I'Acad. Royale des Sciences, Annee 1761, p. 66; and Mem. de
I'Acad. Royale des Sciences (1763), p. 289, pi. 8, 9, 10. Histoire d'un In-

172

secte qui devore les grains de I'Angoumois. Par Duhamel et Tillet. 12mo.
Paris, 1762, with Plates.

Alucita cerealella Olivier, Encycl. Meth.,Insectes, IV, pp. 114, 121 (1789).

(Ecophora. La teigne des hies Latr., Regne Animal, 1" edition. III, p.
580 (1817).

a^copliora granella Latr., Nouv. Diet. d'Hist. Nat., XXIV, 226 (1818).

Tinea Jiordei Kirby and Spence, Introd. to Ent., 3d edit., I, pp. 173,
175 (1818). The same. 5th edit., I, p. 174 (1828).

YpsoIopJius graneUus Kirhy and Spence, Introd., 5th edit., I, p. 174 (1828).

Alucita cerealella Tigny and Guerin, Hist. Nat. Ins., IX, 298, 301 (1830),

(Ecojiliora cerealella Lam., Hist. Nat. Anim. sans V^ert., 2° ed,, IV,
189 (1835),

Tinea cerealella Oken, Allg. Naturg., V, 3, p. 1204-7 (1836).

(Ecophora.- Alucite des grains Godt. and Dup., Hist. Nat. Lep. de
France, XI, 450 (1838).

Tinea granella Westwood, Introduction, II, p. 410 (1840).

(Ecophora cerealella Harris, New England Farmer, XIX, 800 and 306
(March, 1841).

Anacampsis cerealella Harris, Report on Insects of Massachusetts, p.
365 (1841). The same. Treatise on Insects, etc., p. 365 (1842).

In the little box sent to you there were some other insects.
A mutilated specimen or fragments of a moth, the generical
name of which I should be very glad to know, and also whether
the species is new to you. Only two specimens have been met
with, both taken at New Haven. There was also the larva
case of the species of Porrectaria? Haworth, Ornix? Dupon-
chel, a very common insect on fences ; but the moth I have not
succeeded in rearing.

DOUBLEDAY TO HARKIS.

Brixton, April 2, 1847.

The genera of Tineidce arc a mass of confusion. In the Tor--
trices and Tinea', Stephens, Curtis, etc. have made endless gen-
era without any good characters. At least one half their

173

species are worthless ; in some cases, as in the genus Peronea^
ten or twelve species are made out of one. M. A. Guenee,
formerly of Chateaudeau, noAV of Paris, is the best authority,
and is now occupied on them. The first part of his work is
published in the Annals of the Entomological Society of France.
He is now at work upon the Tincce. I will forward specimens
of your insects to him.

Your Cotton Moth is near to OpJihisa, but is a new genus.
We have nothing exactly the same. I have searched through
Abbot's drawings and cannot find it. At present I am so occu-
pied with the Butterflies that I can find no time for other
groups ; but in a few weeks I hope to begin on the Bomhyces. I
have just got the last sheet of our Catalogue of Diurnal Lepid-
optera. Part 2, in press. This contains the Erycinidce and Ly-
ccenidce, above six hundred species. I have yet the ITesjyeridce,
about four hundred species, to do. The first part of our Diur-
nal Lepidoptera appeared in January, 1845. This contains
thirteen hundred and fifty species, the second part six hundred.
Add Sesperidce, about four hundred ; additional species to j^art
one, since January, 1845, about four hundred ; this gives two
thousand seven hundred and fifty species of Butterflies.

The Museum occupies me six hours a day, and I live three
miles from it, so that is eight hours occupation daily. My
book takes me full thirty-six hours a week, or five hours daily.
I belong to eight London societies, and am in committees or on
councils of several. I have to do a good deal to help Boisdu-
val and Guenee in the Suites a Buftbn, and occasionally lend a
hand in other books. I have correspondents from Labrador to
Valparaiso, from Copenhagen to New Zealand. You will see
that this is plenty of work.

174

HARRIS TO DOUBLEDAY.

Cambridge, Marcli 24, 1849.

Last April I captured another species of Breplios, which is
the analogue of the Partlienias of Linnasus and of the French
and German Entomologists, and equal to Notlia of the English
collectors. The antennae are not pectinated in the male. It is
more highly colored than English specimens of the genus, and
rather smaller also. I name the species Hamadryas [PI. i,
fig 4].

Before beginning this letter I sketched some insects on the
top of the opposite page, and now ask your attention to them.
I am not sure (not having kept copies of all my letters) whether
I may not have sent you a sketch of my 716 be-
fore. Rude as the figure is, you will know the
3=^ insect, if you have ever seen it in nature. The
Fig. 24. fore wings are white, with black markings,

somewhat like those of your Psilura monaclia^ and there are
three rich, brown spots on each fore wing. The antennas are
simple in both sexes. The thorax is not crested. The abdomen
has three or four elevated dorsal tufts, as in some species of
Plusia. Now look at the singular, humped larva by the side

of it, and you will see from
what this beautiful, moth
comes. Head blackish ; body
black and white, as in the
sketch, and highly polished.
It is found in August and
''^' ^" September on the Prinos ver-

ticellata, and also on the Lilac, the leaves of both of which
it eats. When the time for pupation arrives, the larva,
invariably I believe, gnaws a cylindrical burrow in a limb or
twig, selecting in preference one which is dead and dry, and
retires into this cavity, the mouth of wiiich it covers with a
web of silk. Not unfrcquently the insect remains in its retreat

175

a long time before becoming a pupa, and the perfect insect
will then not be disclosed before the second summer after-
wards in the month of June. I should not forget to state that
when the caterpillar is at rest on the plant, it raises the fore
part of the body, and if disturbed wags it violently from side
to side. The head of the young larva is armed on the occiput
with two little corneous tubercles, which, however, disappear
after two or three moultings. This insect is the Notodonta sex-
guttata of my MS. ; but I wish some competent person would
compare the moth with Tliyatira batis, and let me know if it
may not be near to that species in generic characters.

My No. 38 (a very common insect here, and a form of which
we have several species) you referred in one of your letters to
Ophiusa crassiuscula. The discovery of the larva by your
little namesake removes the insect to another group, and proves
it to be a true EucUdla. Edward's specimens made cocoons
of a dried leaf, interwoven with a little silk, in
which the larvse were changed to pupse, cov-
ered with a bloom like that of the pupa of
Catocala, The attitudes of the larvse, which
I have tried to represent, are vjery odd. Color ^^^- ^^•

brownish white, with darker longitudinal
stripes, and two black dots ^ on each side of
the body. The species is the Noctua gemina
Fabr., erectJiea Cramer.

I have also sketched three forms of Lima- ^Jg- 27.

codes, making, with Smith- Abbot's pithecium and cippus, five
different forms of the American species of the genus. Some
writers state that the prolegs in Limacodes are retractile.
This is not true of our American species, which are entirely
destitute of prolegs. The alternate contraction of the muscles
attached to the abdominal folds serves, instead of prolegs, to
assist the insects in movino;.

The larva, represented on the left [PI. ii, fig 10], stings by
means of the prickles wherewith the tubercles are beset, and

176

not by a retractile stinging ai)paratus, described by Duncan
as belonfifino; to his Doratifera vulnerans. Our stinging Lima-
codes wounds with its external armature in the same way as the
larva of our Saturnia lo. Of the tubercles, besides the four
long, conical ones, there are four of a spherical form before, two
behind, and one on the side of each segment of the body.
Body before, behind and beneath, and an oval spot on the
back, reddish-brown ; sides and rest of the back green, bor-
dered with a white line.

The next figure represents a very different larva ; in form
somewhat like an Oniscus, being oval and flattened, with lat-
eral tooth-like appendages fringed with hairs. General color
green, with lateral rows of minute, ocellated spots, each pupil-
lated with a black dot ; a dorsal row of dark spots, with two
of a rich scarlet color (in the figure black). Sonrel has made
me a magnified sketch of this curious larva [Plate ii, fig. 7 :
PI. Ill, fig. 6], shoAving the beautiful manner in which its
body is delicately variegated. This insect does not sting.

The third form [PI. iii, fig. 8] is that of my Limacodes
scajjJui. It is a " chunky " larva, almost lozenge-shaped, with
the back concave and the sides turned up, somewhat like an
old-fashioned cocked hat. Color green, edged and variegated
with brown.

Limacodes cipjms [PL ii, fig. 2J, approaches somewhat to my
first figure, but is still different, having a greater number of
elongated tubercles, not beset with stinging prickles.

Limacodes pitliecium is occasionally injurious to fruit trees.
It casts off its singular, lateral, velvety appendages before mak-
ing its pea-shaped cocoon, and then has the form of a kernel
of coffee.

I have not succeeded in obtaining the winged insect from the
first figured Limacodes^ my specimens having died in conse-
quence of the attacks of the little Ichneumons wherewith they
were infested. The onisciform Limacodes has not left the pu-
parium.

177

I hope to get a good supply of Say's HijjparcJda semidea for
you. Say has pretty correctly figured it in his American Ento-
mology, Vol. Ill, PI. 50, and states that it "inhabits the White
Mountains of N. H., and appears to be limited to that inhos-
pitable region," which I believe is strictly true. Boisduval, in
his Icones historiques des Lepidopteres nouveaux, etc.. Vol.
I, p. 197, under Chionobas Also, makes the following blundering
remark: '■'•J'ai repu de M. John LeConte, sous le nom d''Eri-
tiosa (J^ de Harris (.■'/} ^m individu pris dans les montagnes
calcaires (J!!^ de Neiv Hampshire, qiii 7ne parait appartenir a
cette espeee." Boisduval's Also, published in 1832, is very pos-
sibly identical with Say's semidea, published in 1828 ; and if
so, the latter name alone can stand. The specimens which
LeConte sent to Boisduval he received from me, with Say's
^geria exitiosa ; whence, probably, the blunder of the specific
name. My specimen of Hip'parchia semidea was taken on the
summit of Mt. Washington, one of the loftiest peaks of the
White Mountains, which, by the way, are not '■'■montagnes
caleaires."

HARRIS TO DOUBLEDAY.

Cambridge, Oct. 29, 1849.

I have now a few insects for you, and am seeking a safe con-
veyance of the parcel containing them. I think that I shall
venture to send you a lot of follicles of Oiketicus \_coniferariim
Harr. mss.] containing female pupa cases, filled with eggs.
Should these reach you safely and unhatched, you can hang the
cases in some trees, and thus probably get a brood or two of the
insects next spring. The larvas eat the leaves of many kinds
of trees, but especially those of cypress, larch and hemlock,
also of linden, maple, and even of fruit-trees. The species
is probably the same one noticed by you in your acceptable
letter in the Entomologist for May, 1841, pp. 97-8. Abbot's
figures are caricatures rather than likenesses of this insect.

178

The follicles vary in their outer covering according to the tree
on which the insects live. Those from the Tlivja occidentalis
are the most beautiful, especially when recent. Those from
deciduous trees are generally covered with bits of twigs, and of
the petioles of leaves, arranged longitudinally. Those of the
males are much smaller than those of the females, have the
lower orifice more prolonged, forming a long,
nearly cylindrical neck, and are generally cov-
ered with bits of leaves, sticking out on all
sides. The larvae carry about these follicles till
they have done eating, fasten them by a few
threads to the branch or leaf when they wish
to rest ; and when they want to descend from
one limb to another, they let th,emselves and
their pods down. Hence they are commonly
called " drop- worms " in Philadelphia, and
sometimes " basket-worms." The larva has
ten prolegs ; but these are exceedingly short
and retractile, so as to expose only the coronet
of hooks with which they are furnished. The
true legs, on the contrary, are very robust, in-
creasing in size from the first to the third pair,
and united in pairs by enormously lamolliform coxae. The male
and female pupae are very different from each other, in size, form
and structure ; that of the male being much the smallest, pro-
vided with visible wing cases, etc., and with a less prominent car-
ina on the top of the thorax. The male pupa forces itself half
way out of the cylindrical lower orifice of its follicles when about
to disclose the winded insect. I should have stated above that the
follicles have two openings ; one above, through which the larva
protrudes its head and legs when feeding and moving about ;
and to the edge of this upper orifice it fastens the strong silken
loop, by which the pod is permanently fistened to a twig Avhen
the insect has come to its groAvth. It then turns around in its
follicle, so as to have its head towards the lower orifice, and

Fig. 28.

idto

179

thus awaits its transformation to the pupa. The weio-ht of the
folhcle and the included insect is sufficient to close the upper
orifice after the pod is suspended. The males are disclosed in
September and the early part of October, and immediately after-
wards the females will be found to be impregnated. I exam-
ined about fifty female follicles on the 25th of October, and
found all the females escaped, and their puparia half full of fer-
t'lized eggs. It is not true that the females remain in their
l)uparia or in their follicles. Among all those examined as
above-mentioned, not a single female was discovered ; they had
come out of their pupa-skins and had also left their follicles. It
is only at an earlier period, or in some rare cases when the
females have remained unimpregnated till this time, that any
females are to be found within their pupa-skins. But they do
not leave their pupa-skins until they have been impregnated
and have laid their eggs.

How the male contrives to get at the female is a mystery
that I have not yet solved. The pupa-skin of the female splits
in the middle of the little carinated ridge found on the top
and fore part of the thorax, and also laterally, so as to ad-
mit of a kind of T-shaped opening. It is through this that the
male organ must be introduced, and passing between the
back skin of the pupa and the body of the female, reach her
hinder extremity in the bottom of the pupa-skin. But in ad-
dition to, this extent to be penetrated, the male has to penetrate
the whole length of the lower orifice of the follicle, say half an
inch, before he can reach the head of the puparium. The fe-
male lays her eggs in the puparium, or pupa shell, receding from
the bottom of it as she does so, and filling the shell half or two
thirds full of eggs ; the rest of the shell she fills with a fawn-
colored down rubbed off" her own body. You will find these
pupa-skins thus charged with eggs and down, when you open
them.

When her work is done, the female crawls out, a mere ema-
ciated skin, and makes her escape out of the cocoon. The

180

T-shaped slits in the pupa-skin close by their own elasticity,
so that the pupa-skin seems at first to be entire. I have only
one perfect specimen of the male [PI. ni, fig. 4.]. It has
curved antenna, doubly pectinated to the tip, but the pectin-
ations suddenly reduced in length towards the tip. The insect
therefore seems to be a true Olketicus. There is no white
spot on the disk of the wings, which, however, are semi-trans-
parent, and only furnished with scales on the margins and ner-
vures.

I have not yet finished my investigations of this interesting
insect, and propose to continue them another year, should I live
and succeed in raising a brood of larvae in my garden. Then
I hope to give you in print a fidl account of this Olketicus^ un-
less Mr. Gosse favors us with the same. Perhaps he has al-
ready published his observations ; if so, please to let me know
where they are to be found. [See a letter from Dr. Harris to
Miss Morris, Sept. 25, 1850.]

If there be any such thing in nature as affinity between
genera, I am convinced that Olketicus, Psyche and my Pero-
pJiora MeUheimeri are allied in this degree and all three of these
genera nearly related to Limacodes, on the one hand, and to
Zeuzera etc., on the other.

CORRESPONDENCE

BETWEEN

THADDEUS WILLIAM PIARRI8

AND

EDWARD CLAUDIUS HERRICK.

COEEESPONDENCE.

HEBEICK TO HARRIS.

New Haven, Jan. 24, 1840.

You ask me to point out the errors in Mr. Say's account of
Cecidomyia destructor, referring doubtless to that contained in
the first volume of the Journal of the Academy of Natural Sci-
ences of Philadelphia. These I must mention entirely from mem-
ory, as I cannot now go into a minute comparison of his paper
with my notes ; however, I feel quite confident that what I say
will not be erroneous. The matter was always exceedingly
interesting to me, and my memory on the subject is very clear.

With the description (p. 45 of Vol. I, supra) I have little
fault to find, except that it might be much improved by a new
casting over. P. 46, line 1 : " thighs furnished at the tip with
several very acute oiaws " is most probably incorrect, as I have
searched for them in vain. As regards the importation of the
Hessian Fly, I am decidedly of the opinion that it was im-
ported, and probably from Europe, and that it is not a native
of this country. I have not time to go into the evidence
here.

As to its being absolutely unknown in Europe, strange as it
is, I am inclined to think that it is unknown to their entomolo-
gists, as existing there ; but I have certain proof that the ani-

184

mal existed there in abundance in the year 1834, and have
good reason to suppose that it has injured wheat there for a
century or more. Mr. James D. Dana, whom you doubtless
know, had frequently assisted me in my examinations of the
Hessian Fly and parasites, and of their habits and metamorpho-
ses ; and when he went to Europe, in 1833, in the Delaware, I
gave him a card containing a drawing and description of the
animal, with directions and inquiries to be followed and made.
Moreover, he was at that time personally acquainted with the
Hessian Fly, and could, I think, identify it certainly. On the
island of Mahon, and also near Naples, he found the identical
insect in wheat stubble ; he saw the perfect insects, the pupas
and the larvse. He sent me in the seal of a letter three or
more specimens of the imago, and when he returned he brought
several glass tumblers containing the culms of wheat with the
pupae upon them. After the best comparison I could make I
thought the insect identical with the Hessian Fly of this coun-
try. This was also his opinion. It is truly astonishing that »
their naturalists have not found it out. I fear they have al-
ready, for Dr. Haramerschmidt, of Vienna, published three or
four years since a pamphlet on a two- winged insect which in-
jures wheat in Hungary.

Kirby's Tipula tritici is doubtless a congener of the C. de-
structor^ and exists in this country, at least in New Haven, in
abundance. I cannot find out, however, that it injures the
wheat here, which induces me to suspect that it is a difterent,
though closely alhed species. Kirby's description is quite too
imperfect.

Page 47 has many errors. Line 3, "eight" might as well be
fifty or a hundred, or perhaps a larger number. The assertion
in the next sentence has always surprised me, for it seems as
if he states what he had actually seen. But the statement is
certainly untrue, and, I may say, the fact is impossible. The
oviduct is so short and so soft that it would be impossible to
thrust the escff a twentieth of an inch between the culm and the

185

vagina of the leaf. The sentence is all wrong. Hundreds of
times, in all varieties of seasons, have I seen the animal de-
positing her eggs. She lays them on the upper surface of the
ligula of the leaf of the young wheat plant, and never at-
tempts to deposit them at the axilla. The animal, when it
leaves the egg, crawls down the leaf, descends within the va-
gina of the leaf, stations itself on the culm, generally just above
the nearest joint of the stalk, and never moves from its place
until the imago appears. Generally, perhaps always, the larva
becomes a pupa before winter ; I mean the larva resulting from
the egg laid on wheat planted in August, September or Oc-
tober.

Mr. Say was entirely wrong in referring the parasite (I
should say the chief parasite, for there are three others besides
the egg parasite) to the genus Ceraphon of Latreille. It is un-
doubtedly a Eurytoma of Illlger. The description is tolerable,
but may be much improved.

Page 48. According to my observation, the Eurytoina does
not (nor does any other parasite) attack the larva of the Hes-
sian Fly. They all wait until the larvag have become pup«.
This may not be universal. I see no reason why it should be.

At page 63, it is stated that the so-called Ceraphron destruc-
tor throws off its Avings, etc. This is not true. I have kept many
of them six weeks without any such results, and never saw any-
thing in my intercourse with them which indviced me to sus-
pect it. But it is certain that many of them are evolved with
only rudiments of wings. I have seen them come out of the
puparium in this state. This apterous animal is so similar to
the female that I have considered it the same species ; but I
hardly know how to consider it. In the field I have never seen
these apterous ones ovipositing or in coitu. Are they neuters ?
and if so, for what use ?

Page 64, line 17. It is ridiculous to attempt to show the hole
made by the parasite in ovipositing, as it is probably less than
the ten thousandth part of an inch in diameter. I never

186

could discover it, even when I knew within a tenth of an
inch where the puncture was, and employed an excessive mag-
nifyer. Such holes as are represented on the three central
stalks are very familiar to me, and were unquestionably made
by the parasites eating their way out from the puparium of the
Hessian Fly. The figures of the C. destructor are only tole-
rable. In fig. 3 a. b., the antennae of $ and $ are inter-
changed. The figures of the parasites are very much worse.
The antennas of the male are pretty correct, but those of the
female could scarcely be recognized.

As to the habits of the Hessian Fly, the account, which con-
tains the least errors and the most truths is one by Dr. Chap-
man, iA a volume (fifth, I think,) of the Memoirs of the Phil-
adelphia Agricultural Society.

Of the genus Cecidomyia there are five or six other species
in this region ; one of which, as I said before, is often seen
about the heads of wheat while flowering, chiefly at or a little
before sunrise. I have made partial descriptions of some of
these, and did intend to publish descriptions of all the Ameri-
can species of this genus ; but I fear I shall never be able to do
it. The Hessian Fly is much the largest species (in size, of
course) of the genus, — among those found here, at least.

The egg parasite of the Hessian Fly I discovered in 1833.
There are at least one hundred species of this genus Plati/gas-
ter already described and published, and I fear that this may be
one of the number ; but many of the descriptions are too im-
perfect for me to decide.

My investigations of the history of the Cicada septendecim
have nearly satisfied me that taking any one region, the insects
do really come in swarms only every seventeenth year. AVhether
they appear singly in intermediate years I am unable to say.
So many periods are now established in dilferent parts of the
country, however, that we must suppose that the regularity of
their appearance is sometimes disconcerted by vicissitudes of
weather or other causes.

187

HAERIS TO HERRICK.

Cambridge, Jan. 1, 1841.

Are you aware that the genera Cecidomyia^ Lasioptera, etc.,
have been revised by Haliday and other Enghsh entomologists ?
In Cecidomyia are now included those gall-gnats, etc., in which
the antennre, especially in the males, are long, and in which, more-
over, the joints are verticillate and pedicellate ; the basal joints
of the tarsi are very minute ; the wings (generally) have two
longitudinal and one furcate nervure ; species, C. tritici, etc. In
Diomyza Megerle (JLa^ioptera^ Div. A^ Meig.), the antennae are
short, the joints not verticillate nor pedicelled ; the basal joint
of the tarsi is short ; the wings have one longitudinal and one fur-
cate nervure ; the costa is thickened and black, with a whitish
stigma ; species, L. herhervna^ alhipennis, picta, etc. In Lasiop-
teryx Stephens (^Lasioptera, Div. B, Meig.), the antemiss and
the nervures of the wings are as in Diomyza ; the basal joint
of the tarsi is long ; species, L. obfuscata. •

You will perceive that the Hessian Fly cannot go into Dio-
myza on account of its (male) antennae ; nor into Lasiopteryx
on account of the tarsi. As to the nervures of the wings, I
think that you will find them to vary somewhat in the species,
as they do in many other genera.

I have no objection to calling the dried larva-skin of the
maggot of the Hessian Fly a puparium, though I think the
term pupa when applied to it rather incorrect. I supposed, of
course, that the included pupa had its own appropriate skin,
like the pupa of all other flies which are coarctate ; but I was
not prepared to believe implicitly in Mr. Havens' statement that
the insect canie out of the puparium before it threw off its
proper pupa skin. Is this true ?

I have never supposed our barley insect, the larva of which
lives within the culms of the barley, was the same as the Ceci-
domyia destructor ; and am inclined to believe that it is either
the barley midge (Tipula? cerealis} of Europe, or a species

188

closely allied to it, and probably also belonging to the genus
Cecidomyia,

HERRICK TO HARRIS.

New Haven, March 29, 1841.

The supposition that the Cecidomyia destructor lays her eggs
on the ripening grain, involves various improbabilities and im-
possibilities. 1. The egg is very delicate, covered only by a
fine cuticle, and if on the seeds of wheat, would be crushed
when they are thrown together. 2. It Avill hatch within ten to
twenty days after it is laid. The wheat is sown in two or three
months after ; of course the larvae must have all perished, for
they cannot eat grain, but can ouly suck the juices of the plant.
3. If the egg is hatched in the earth, it is scarcely possible that
the larva can crawl to its usual position, between the sheath of
the leaf and the stalk. 4. Whence come all the larvae which
we find in the young wheat in the spring? — not to ask the
origin of the eggs themselves, which we may find abundantly in
April and May on the leaves of the young plants.

Having planted wheat in my garden every year since 1832,
and watched with great assiduity and interest the operation of
the Hessian Fly, both there and in open fields, in many hun-
dred instances, I feel absolutely sure that this insect does not
lay her eggs on the head of the wheat, but that she does de-
posit them on the (upper surface of the ligula of the) leaves
of the young wheat, both in autumn and spring.

It is a very proper inquiry, — what do these people actually see
who assert that the Hessian Fly lays her eggs on the head of
the wheat? I have long been inclined to believe that the Tijni-
la (^Cecidomyia) tritici of Kirby attacks wheat in this country,
and also that the moth (allied to the Tinea granella Linn.) de-
scribed in Duhamel's Histoirc d'un Insecte, etc., is also to be
found with us. In Jas. Mease's Archives of Useful Knowledge,
Phil., 1812, Vol. II, p. 45, is an article by Jno. Sorain of Tack-

189

oney, Md., stating that this wheat moth had destroyed much
wheat in some of the Middle States. He says it appeared
about forty-five years before, and gives a mode of destroying
it. He mentions that it is attested by Benj. Mifflin (in Bailey's
United Mag., 1777), that in 1776 the wheat moth did immense
mischief in Kent Co., Del. I have never seen this moth ; but
think it highly probable that the insect (which I believe is al-
leged to lay her eggs in the ripening grain), attacks our Avheat
in some regions, and has been mistaken for the Hessian Fly.
The Q. tritici lays her eggs among the flowers of the wheat.
Now I have often seen in June, about sunrise, many insects of
this genus, but much smaller than the Hessian Fly, sporting
about the heads of the flowering wheat ; yet I never could de-
tect them laying eggs. However, I have often found minute
red larvse within the glumes of the ripening grain, but they
did not appear, in numerous cases which I have examined, to
have done any harm to the grain. I have endeavored to ascer-
tain their further history, but in vain. It is probable that the
C. tritici injures the grain in some parts of our country, but
perhaps not to any great extent.

With regard to the European origin of the Hessian Fly, I
have, for many years, had little doubt. By this I mean, of
course, that our insect was imported from Europe, and not that
the insect was first created in Europe, for it may have come
from Asia. In Duhamel du Monceau's Elemens d' Agriculture
(Paris, 1771, Vol. I, p. 299) you will find some account of an
insect which is most probably our 0. destructor. In May 1755,
the wheat was attacked : — " Nous y trouvons une quantite de
petits vers Manes, qui, dans la suite, deviennent couleur de ma-
tron ; lis SB postent entre les feuilles et rongent les tuyaux ; on
les trouve ordinairement entre le premier noeud et les racines, etc^
Further on he speaks of larvae in the head of the wheat, one
of them of " very red carmine " which may be the larva I
have seen here.

I cannot propose any remedy which will be likely to be

190

adopted. Steeping the seed is of course useless as regards our
insect, and probably every other, except so far as it contributes
to the vigor of the plant. If immediately after the wheat is
reaped in July, the stubble is burnt, and then plowed in and
harrowed, the insects then in the pupa state would be destroyed.
If this were done universally, we might extirpate the insect.
But it never will be done to any great extent. Feeding off the
young plants while the eggs are on the leaves would destroy
vast numbers, and would not much retard the growth of the
wheat.

«

The parasites cut off a large portion of every year's genera-
tion. In this region of country I am safe in saying that on this
account principally, not one egg in fifty produces a Hessian
Fly ; but the destruction comes too late for that season, as it does
not take final effect until the insect assumes the state of pupa.

I have observed four parasites. 1st. A species of Platygas-
ter which attacks the eggs. 2d. The Euri/toma (not Ceraphro'ti)
destructor of Say, which attacks the pupa ; this is the principal
parasite of the pupa. 3d and 4th. Insects of the tribe Chalcididce
or Oxyuri.

HEREICK TO HARRIS.

April 24,1841.

On looking at your former letter, I find a question which I
think I have never answered. The puparium (pupa-case) of
the Cecidomyia destructor^ which is of a brown color and leath-
ery texture, is formed from the skin of the larva ; this skin
gradually becomes brown, the pupa (or larva changing to pupa)
gradually cleaves off from this skin, and in two or three weeks
is wdiolly detached. This is the fact regarding the larva of the
0. destructor ; but nine-tenths of all which one may chance to
examine will contain a parasitic larva. " It was a long time be-
fore I could distinguish them with certainty.

191

HERRICK TO HARRIS.

New Haven, Oct. 19, 1841.

As you will of course need a description of the insect [Hes-
sian Fly], I give you the following, which I made long ago,
and which I now extract from a copy of my letter dated Jan.
10, 1834, to Dr. C. E. Hammerschmidt, of Vienna.

?. AntenncE corporis dimidii lonrjltudine, j^orrectce, moniliformes, tei'eies,
verliclUato-pUosce, 17-19 articulatce ; articulus primus turhinatus, secundas
globosus, sequenles ovati non pedicellati. Caput parvum; oculi mac/ni, lunati,
nigri, confluentes. Thorax gihhus, niger, politus. Abdomen fulvinn, pilis
atris ; ovipositor roseus. Pedes elongati, Jiliformes, tarsorum articulus basalis
perbrevis. Ala; atro-pilosce, basi fulvce, nervis tribus; primus, ab alee origine
ad marginem anteriorem paullo ultra medium recte tendit; secundus ab alee
origine ad apicem recte tendit; tertius obscurus (forsan spurius) ab cdoe
origine ad m,arginis posterior is medium Jlectus. Long. 12 poll.

S. Antennce fere corporis lo7igitudine paullo recurvcB ; articidi 17-19 sub-
globosi, pedicellati. Abdomen elongatum, griseo-pilosum. Pupa elongato-
ovata, badia, glabra, undecim lineis transversis ; articulus posterior scepe
bifurcatus. Long. .12 poll.

Larva hyalina, duabus lateralibus lacteo-albarum nubilarum seriebus. Ovum
hyalinum, fulvescens, lineare. Long. .02 poll.

I have an impression that in one of my recent letters I stated
that the egg of the Hessian Fly hatches in about a fortnight
after it is laid. If I have said so it is an error ; it should be
about four days. The period will probably vary somewhat with
the state of the weather, but this is near the average. .

In reo-ard to the Wheat Moth of the Middle States I mi^ht
have also referred to J. B. Bordley's Essays and Notes on
Husbandry and Rural Affairs, Phil., 1799, 8vo, p. 591. He
says " the moth-fly described by Duhamel was extremely numer-
ous, common and destructive in every year," until about the year
1772, etc., p. 296. He gives no description of the insect. I am
inclined to think we have it here ; at any rate, on one occasion,
several moths flew out of a parcel of heads of wheat which I
had laid away and had accidently disturbed. I did not secure '

192

. any of tliem, and have never seen any since. I have just re-
ferred to your paper on the barley insect, and am somewhat in-
chned to behevc that your pupa was tliat of the veritable Hes-
sian Fly ; and that the parasite which some of them evolved
was Say's Ceraphron destructor. I have planted barley in my
garden this spring, and find that the Hessian Fly (which I have
seen this spring) has no objection to laying eggs upon it, but
she evidently prefers wheat. As we do not know of any other
insect of habits like those of the Hessian Fly, is it unreasonable
to suppose that the latter attacks barley in New Hampshire ?
I am by no means confident in this conjecture, and the differ-
ence in the situation of the larva3 obliges us perhaps for the
present to believe that your barley insect is a different species
from 0. destructor^ though nearly allied to it.

HERRICK TO HARRIS.

New Haven, Aug. 17, 1841.

Among the wheat which ripened in my garden, in July last,
I have found a considerable number of minute reddish larvre,
such as I have seen in former years. They were within the
glumes of the half-ripe and ripening grain, but they appeared
to do no special mischief. They are small, the largest (and
apparently full-grown) being only about one twentieth of an
inch long. I have examined them very carefully with high
magnifiers. From a comparison of the larvaj, I have little
doiibt that this belongs to some species of Lasioj^tera or Cecido-
myia. What the parent insect is, I know not, but presume* it
to be one of those minute Lasiopterce,, which I have often seen
in Jmie, about sunrise, hovering around the spikes of wheat
while flowering.

My barley was but little visited by insects. On a fcAV stalks
I found larvfE of the Hessian Fly. I have also seen between

193

the slieatli and culm, two other larv« whose history is unknown
to me, but which appear not much related to the Hessian Fly.

HAERIS TO HERRICK.

Cambridge, Jan. 14, 1843,

Hoping that you may be induced to favor me with some of
your promised notes on my Treatise, and being particularly
desirous at this time for some further explanation of Mr. Ha-
vens' remarkable statement respecting the transformation of
the Hessian Fly, which, if true, I should be glad to be able to
make use of in some observations on transformations that I am
now drawing up for a lecture, I beg leave to call your attention
to the statement of Mr. Havens, quoted on page 428 of the
Treatise. " Whenever the fly has been hatched in the house,
it always comes forth from its brown case, wrapped in a thin
white skin which it soon breaks, and is then at liberty."

You are aware, I suppose, that the transformations of insects
from the pupa to the imago, consists in some of a single, and in
others of a double, moulting. Permit me, however, to name
some examples of the course of transformation, illustrating
these castings of the skin or skins.

The maggots of most flies become pupae within the indurated
maggot-skin, which then forms a puparium, or natural cocoon,
for the insect ; and which, if carefully opened a few days or
hours before the last transformation, will be found to contain a
real pupa, not greatly unlike the pupa of a beetle, having like
the latter the legs and abortive wings unconfined. When
about to come forth in the fly state, the inclosed insect breaks
off* the end of its puparium or old larva-skin, and at the same
time divests itself of the thin and delicate pupa-skin, leaving
the latter within the hardened puparium. This is an example

OCCAS. PAPERS B. S. N. H. — I. 13

194

of double moulting on assuming the winged state, for the insect
sheds both its larva- and pupa-skins at the moment it appears
as a fly.

Still more remarkable is the moulting o^ Epliemeridce. When
about to undergo its transformations, the pupa of an Ephemera
crawls out of the water, and, after resting a while on some stick
or fence, it throws off its pupa-skin and flies away apparently
fully formed. Soon, however, it settles again, and then casts off
another skin, exceedingly thin and delicate, which not only cov-
ered its whole body, but invested also its legs and filmy wings.
Beetles, wasps, bees, and most hymenopterous insects, cast off
only one skin, the true pupa-skin, when they take the winged
form. The same is true of gnats, musquitoes, horse-flies, etc.,
which cast off only the single pupa-skin to become a per-
fected insect, having some time before moulted the larva-skin
to become pupfe.

Is the Hessian Fly to be cited as an example of transforma-
tion like that of the Ephemera, or is it intermediate between
that of the Ephemera and that of common flies ? or, on the
other hand, is it altogether similar to that of the latter, as de-
scribed in my first example ? In other words, does this insect
come out of its flaxseed puparium in the form of an active
pupa, and then cast its pupa-skin, in order to become a winged
gnat ? Or does it come out of the puparium in the form of a
gnat, and then throw off a skin, like an Ephemera^ before it
can be said to have attained the perfect state ? Or, finally, does
it burst and extricate itself, at the same moment, from puparium
and pupa-skin, leaving the latter within its puparium ?

From a remark in one of your letters I infer that the latter
kind of moulting does not occur to the Hessian Fly ; but you
have not stated what the precise change is, nor how we are to
understand the statement of Mr. Havens.

195

HERRICK TO HARRIS.

New Haven, Feb. 21, 1843.

As regards the moulting of the Cecidomyia destructor^ I must
reply almost wholly from memory, for I am so much occupied
and interrupted that I cannot make a thorough examination of
my voluminous observations. I think, however, that I shall
not state anything about the matter which is not substantially
true.

The Hessian Fly mother lays an egg on the young wheat
plant : in a few days it hatches, and the larva crawls out of the
fine pellicle, which is left in situ. Here is one covering thrown
off. After feeding on the juices of the plant, the larva be-
comes plump and tense, and in process of time turns brown.
In two or three weeks after this change of color the animal
within becomes entirely detached from the old larva-skin, and
lies a motionless grub. Here is another covering thrown off.
The process of growth goes on, and by and by, on opening the
leathery maggot-skin (now a puparium) you find the pupa so
far advanced that some of the members of the future imago
are discernible through the scarf which envelops and fetters it
on all sides. In due time this scarf splits on the thorax, and
the imago works out, literally, — and, as I suppose, at or about
the same time forces the puparimn, and comes forth in full-
winged maturity. In the entire life of the insect, then, there
are three moultings.

I recollect distinctly finding among my wheat stalks one
bearing a pupa of the Hessian Fly ; and attached to one end
of the puparium (and, I believe, partly engaged in it) was this
scarf-skin ; showing that the emergence from the puparium'
must have been somewhere nearly contemporaneous with the
disengagement from the scarf. A paper lies before me con-
taining memoranda made May 12, 1837, of which I will give
an abstract.

" On looking over culms of wheat from my garden,, which

196

ripened last July, and were taken into the house in April,
1837, I found a puparium of the Hessian Fly ; began to cut it
open, and found witliin a Hessian Fly nearly matured. Opened
only the anterior part of the puparium ; but the animal soon
squirmed itself out, enveloped in a thin scarf. The puparium
was left entirely clean ; of course the thin skin, or exuvia, was
yet upon the animal. The antennae, legs, eyes and wings, as
seen through this covering, were black. The abdomen Avas
composed of eight annuli, besides a small appendage, mostly of
an internal red color ; each annulus sparingly clothed with dark
hairs. The animal worked its abdomen back and forth, and
in about twenty minutes the posterior part of the abdomen and
the ovipositor could be clearly seen within, detached from the
exuvia. The only split in this scarf-case was on the thorax."

I am somewhat puzzled to understand how the Hessian Fly
can make its way through the stout leathery puparium. Those
near the foot of the stalk are battered and shattered by the
weather, and are easily pierced, but those higher up seem to
me too firm to be forced by so feeble an animal. In these
latter cases another difficulty much more serious lies in the
way, — the sheath of the leaf must be pierced ; this is often
quite hard and firm. This tlicoretical difficulty is perhaps
never a practical one, for the parasites take good care of all
such cases.

HARRIS TO HERRICK.

Cambridge, Mass., Sept. 15, 1847.

Being very desirous of comparing Miss Morris's Cecidomyia
with recent specimens and the genuine Hessian Fly, I take the
liberty of reminding you of your promise to obtain for me if
possible some of both species for examination.

There are discrepancies in the published descriptions of the

197

Hessian Fly which ought to be explained or removed. The
first and most important is in the number of the joints of the
antennse. These ought to be the same in all specimens of the
Hessian Fly, or in all specimens of the same sex ; for I can
conceive and admit that the male may have one joint or two
joints more than the female.

In Elsworth's Report on Patents, 1845, p. 162, you state
that " the antennas consist each of from fourteen to seventeen
oval joints, besides the basal joint, which appears double"; that
is, the antennas are sixteen- to nineteen-jointed.

In your letter to me, dated June 7, 1841, you stated that the
antennse- of females as well of males were " seventeen to
nineteen articulate," — '•'• articulus primus turbmatus, secmidus
globosus" etc., noticing the difference in the form of the
following joints in the two sexes.

Dr. A. Fitch, in his account of the Hessian Fly, p. 41, states
that the antennge are "composed of sixteen joints"; "the two"
basal joints are globular, and compact or not separated by an
intervening filament, and exceed the following joints in diam-
eter." This is given in his description of the female. He
does not say that the number differs in the male. His figure
of the ^ shows sixteen joints ; that of the 9 fifteen joints.
If in this case the basal is to be counted as two joints, the male,
according to Dr. Fitch's figures, will have seventeen and the
female sixteen joints to the antennse.

Say does not give the number of joints in either sex (see
Journ. Acad. Nat. Sc, I, pp. 45, 46). In Lesueur's rather
coarse drawing (ibid, opposite page 64), the enlarged figures
of the antenntB (3, a and b) give fifteen joints in each sex ;
probably the double basal joint was omitted. The figures 2
a and b also show only fifteen joints in each sex.

Have you observed a greater number of joints in the anten-
nse of the males than in those of the females? Do you know
whether Dr. Fitch has noticed the like difference ? or is the
difference in his figure accidental? In insects so small and

198

delicate, a joint or two of the aiiteniiaB may easily be lost or
may be overlooked. Taking a number of specimens of each
sex, what is the greatest number of joints observable in the
antennae of each sex ? This will best show the normal number
for each. Have the males ever more than nineteen, counting
the basal joints as two ? Have the females ever more than
eighteen, including the two conjoined basal joints ? Have the
latter indeed ever so many as eighteen ? Until these points
are positively determined and settled we cannot have a per-
fectly accurate specific description of the Hessian Fly.

In your description of the female, in Elsworth's Report, p.
162, you state that the head, eyes and thorax are black ;
abdomen tawny red, famished irregularly with many black
hairs ; ovipositor rose-red color ; legs pale red, covered sparsely
with black hair; males less black (than the females).

In your manuscript description (before named) you say of
the 9 : — " thorax niger\ politus ; abdomen fulvum, lyilis atfis ;
ovipositor roseus ; alee atro-pilosce, basi fiilvcey $. abdomen
elongatum griseo-pilosumy Dr. Fitch, p. 41, says of the 9 :
" head black throughout ; thorax black, scutel of same color and
slightly polished, the suture surrounding it sometimes fulvous ;
poisers dusky ; abdomen black above, more or less widely
marked at the sutures with tawny fulvous and furnished with
numerous, fine, blackish hairs; ovipositor rose-red; wings slightly
dusky and fulvous at their insertion into the thorax ; legs pallid
brown, tarsi black, femurs paler at their bases." <? ; " abdomen
of a brownish black color, more or less widely marked at the
sutures with pallid fulvous or smoky whitish lines. In all other
points the male coincides with the female " (in color).

Say's description is : " head and thorax black ; wings black,
fulvous at base ; feet pale, covered with black hair." $ ; head
black, thorax black, glabrous, polished ; scutel color of thorax ;
wings ciliate, blackish, the fulvous color of the base sometimes
extended upon the nerves ; thiglis fulvous at base ; poisers
pale ; breast sometimes fulvous ; abdomen brownish. ? ; ab-

199

domen fulvous, with a dorsal and ventral black vitta, widely
interrupted by the sutures.

You observe here some diflPerences, particularly in the color
of the abdomen of the female, yours being described as tawny-
red ; Fitch and Say's as black above, etc.

Miss Morris describes the female of her species as quite
black, or blackish-brown, and not like Say's female. The male,
on the contrary, she states to agree with Say's description in
every particular. I hope you will give me a description of the
species which you recognized as similar to Miss Morris' speci-
mens, unless you can succeed in obtaining living specimens.

HEKBICK TO HARRIS.

New Haven, May 30, 1848.

Dimng the first year of my entomological studies I gradually
came to the conclusion that the number of joints in the antenna3
of the Hessian Fly, and also of several others of our Cecido-
myice could not be depended upon for constancy ; and ultimately
I made it a rule, whenever I met with a Hessian Fly, at once
to set down the number of the joints in the antennae. Many of
these data I must have consulted when I wrote the paper in the
Patent Office Report issued in 1845. Special attention was
given to those cases where I saw the insect in the act of evolu-
tion from its thin membranous exuvia, for I thought it probable
that many of those found in the field had suffered some muti-
lation in the antennte.

I copy now from almost the first paper which meets my eve.

"May 13, 1833. C. destructor, male, evolved this morning;
I saw him before more than half was extricated from the mem-
branous bag which envelops him. When first evolved the
color is much paler than a few hours after ; his thorax was red,
his genital organs quite distinct, antennae 17-jointed, besides the

200

basal.i ^ very large specimen, rather larger than any female
I have yet seen. Joints of antennse rather stouter at top tlian
bottom, not globose." Then follow various remarks about
head, abdomen, etc. : " When at rest the wings extend be-
yond the abdomen one third of its length, of just about the size
of Say's fig. 1. His figure errs in making the abdomen
extend to the tips of the wings. Abdomen of a dull clay
yellow," etc.

" May 13. Another male evolved. One antenna has sixteen
joints besides the basal, and the other has fifteen joints besides
the basal, but the terminal one (in the latter) is rather larger
than usual." " When the antennae of the male are perfect, each
joint has two sets of hairs. Each joint in fact consists of two, the
upper one globose, and rather larger than the lower, which is
rather paler." (According to my recollections there is only a
slight stricture visible here with a hio-h mao;nifier, but indicative
of a tendency to division, or perhaps rather of the union of two
joints. And in some species of Cecidomyia we find this sepa-
ration clearly carried out.)

" May 18. A male evolved ; both antennge have sixteen
joints besides the basal.

" Sept. 6, 1838. On opening a box containing stalks with
pupje collected from wheat in garden, July, 1833, I found a
male Hessian Fly, and three very small Hymenoptera, etc."
"Antennae have seventeen joints besides basal." "I have no
doubt that this Hessian Fly came from a pupa of last fall," etc.
Sept. 9 (doubtless 1833). " The fly ? . Posterior part of
each joint of abdomen naked." " Antennae dark red," etc.
" Of sixteen joints besides basal ; ultimate longer than penulti-
mate."

" Sept. 23, 1833. $ . Antenna} about half the length of
body; fourteen joints besides basal; the terminal joint twice

* " Bastil " means here, and beyond, what I often called " bibasal " ; the joint sessile
on the head, and apparently double. Some persons would consider it, and perhaps
properly, as making two joints.

1^

201

as long as the preceding." (This looks like an unsuccessful
conatus to form another joint.)

"June 5, 1833. Found a Hessian Fly ovipositing." "Fif-
teen joints (in antennas) besides the basal; the last no longer
than the penultimate. Query: When the terminal joint is
long, is it not really double ?"

" June 3, 1833, 2 P.M. Clear day, not very warm. Found
a Hessian Fly ovipositing upon the leaves of the Avheat, most
of it 'heading out.' I was somewhat surprised at it, as I sup-
posed that the spring crop of Hessian Flies had long ago come
out, laid their eggs, and died. I secured it, but found nothing
peculiar about it." "Had fifteen joints (in antennse) besides
the basal, which last was plainly biarticulate."

" June 7, 1833, 2 P. M. Found a male and female Hessian
Fly on wheat in the garden ; secured them. The male had
sixteen joints (in antennae) besides basal ; terminal joints larger
than preceding and possibly biarticulate. The male is fully as
long as, and I think somewhat larger than, the female."
" The female has fifteen joints besides basal." " Confined
them both in one vial. The female has laid many eggs
(about fifty) upon the sides of the vial and cork." Then
follow divers notes on the changes of the egg.

" June 13. Several of the eggs hatched. The larvse when
first hatched resemble the eggs in size, shape and coloring,
and have some little activity; i. c, craAvl about rather slug-
gishly. Nothing is left of the egg except a very thin, trans-
parent membrane, entirely devoid of color. Whatever of color
the egg had is carried off by the larva."

Mem. without date. " 9 . Antennae in one, sixteen-jointed
besides bibasal, but the last two are connate.

"(?. AntennaB rather more than half as long as body; one
had sixteen joints besides bibasal."

I may have other memoranda touching this point, but those
which I have copied above will, I think, justify my statement
in the Patent Office Report ; and they show that the number

202

of joints is not constant, and that at any rate this character
ought not to be depended on for discriminating the species.

I cannot reply just now to your questions respecting the color
of the abdomen in the $ . According to my recollection the
color is due chiefly to the mass of eggs within, and varies much
in different individuals, and so does the hairy clothing of the
abdomen.

HAREIS TO HERRICK.

Cambridge, Sept. 20, 1852.

I am sorry you could not send me specimens of Say's Cera-
fhon\ those received from Dr. Fitch differ somewhat in color
from Say's description ; — but if otherwise the same cannot be-
long to Eurytoma. My article is partly in print already, and
cannot be materially altered now. I have thought best to re-
tain Mr. Tighlman's statement because it is so full and circum-
stantial, and withal of an early date. I have seen the Hessian
Fly in the flaxseed state, and have raised therefrom specimens of
the fly, and so far, can speak from personal observation. I have
also several other species of Cecidomyia^ several of which have
been raised from the larvae. Including the Hessian Fly, there
are now four species, Avith whose history and transformations I
have become acquainted from personal observation. These are
C. destructor^ C. salicis, C. tritici and C. rohinice. All of these
agree essentially in their characters in the winged state. There
is no genus, except Ceeidomyia^ to which I can satisfactorily re-
fer them ; and I am at a loss to know what the characters of
Cecidomyia are, if not such as are found in these insects. In
that section of LasiojJtera which has the first tarsal joint short,
the antennas are not surrounded with whorls of hairs, one of
the essential characters of Cecidomyia. On revising your valu-

203

able letters I found that you had noted the condition of the
Hessian Fly after it had taken the flaxseed form, and before it
had any trace of the wings and limbs of the fly about it. You
spoke of its lying within its flaxseed case " a motionless grub."
Mr. Worth mentions something similar. He says that soon after
the change of color, if the insect be gently rubbed with the
finger, the flaxseed skin may be detached, and the animal with-
in will be disclosed in the maggot form, or words to this effect.
Putting these facts in comparison with what I had myself seen
in the other species, I was led to the conclusion that the
conditio of the insect between that of the active or feedincr
larvae and the fully developed pupa, in which it still retained
the larva form, could not properly be called the pupa state.
I have not come to this conclusion hastily, or without fully
considerino; all the circumstances attendino; the transformations
of the four species above named. C. salicis retains the larva
form till a few days before the evolution of the fly, and it is
converted 'to a mature pupa without casting off" or detacliing
itself from a larva skin. The same occurs with O. roMnice.
O. tritiei, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, casts off one
larva-skin before it leaves the wheat ears, then still retainino-
the larva form, it descends to the ground and penetrates a little
way below the surface, where it remains unchanged till a few
days before the fly is disengaged. The pupa state is very
brief, and the form of the insect in this state is similar to
that of others, and is assumed without again casting off" its skin.
In a very few cases, the larva does not cast off" its skin
till just as it is entering the earth. You seem to agree with
me that the matured pupa is a different thing from the larva, in
form ; for it shows the rudimental members of the fly beneath
the " scarf" skin of the pupa. You also have observed that the
Hessian Fly insect retains the form of a larva after its flaxseed
skin has become detached from its body. These two important
points you have the credit of making known before they were
discovered or announced by Dr. Fitch. Whether " the insect

204

may be said to enter on the pupa state " (of course immature
pupa state, must be understood) as soon as it has assumed the
flaxseed form and color is a mere matter of opinion, and is of
httle consequence so long as we understand what is the actual
form of the insect included in the flaxseed shell. It wears the
form of a larva, whether you call it one or not. So the C. salicis^
C. rohinice and C. tritici, after the larva has ceased eating, has
become quiescent, and is waiting the development of the limbs
of the fly, before these actually become visible, — are all, during
this state, exactly in the condition of the Hessian Fly insect
after assuming the flaxseed form externally, — and during this
period they all retain the larval form. The mere name given to
the insect during this period will not change the facts. The
caterpillar of a butterfly, when it has come to its growth, ceases
to eat, seeks a suitable place and then suspends its body. It
remains hanging awhile, still wearing the form of a caterpillar,
and then becomes a pupa by casting off its caterpillar skin.
The condition of the insect between the active state of the
caterpillar and the pupa state is exactly analogous to the con-
dition of the Cecidomyians during the period above mentioned.
The difference between them is this, — the caterpillar casts off
its skin to take the form of a pupa ; the Cecidomyians do not
cast off their (apparent ?) larva skins to take the form of a pupa.
By the " form of a pupa " you will understand that I mean a
form different from that which the insect previously had, one in
which the members of the future fly are more or less distinctly
visible, beneath the skin that envelops them.^ This peculiarity
in the transformation of the Cecidomyians, described in my last
letter, I should not have credited if I had not seen it myself. It
was a suspicion that the transformation of these insects had

1 The true or mature pupa is that condition of the insect in which the limbs, etc., of the
future fly are developed but still remain in an immature state, each separately inclosed
in a portion of what you call the scarf-skin, just as the fingers of the hand are in a glove.
'Phis kind of ii pupa is said to have " the limbs free " because they are not (as in the
Lcpidoptera) soldered to the breast.

If

205

some peculiarity, that led me, some years ago, to question
you so closely relative to the moulting of the Cecidomyians.
According to my present views, — the point of time when "the
insect may be said to enter on the pupa state " is the mo-
ment when the limbs of the future fly become visible ; this
occurs only a very few days before the evolution of the fly, as
I have myself witnessed. Previously to that moment the insect
appears in the form of a larva, a mere maggot, without a vestige
of wings, antenna or legs. The conversion of the insect fyom
this form to that wherein the wings, antennas, and the legs are
visible, is effected (by the growth of these parts) without a
casting off" of the skin, as before stated. The Hessian Fly is
said by some to undergo a coarctate transformation, or rather to
have a coarctate pupa. This is true in one sense, but not in the
sense commonly so understood by entomologists. It was this
very difference that so much puzzled me years ago. All this
time you were fully aware of it ; but owing to our not making
use of the same phraseology, you failed to communicate your
discoveries to me fully. It was only after I had examined the
puparium of the Hessian Fly, and the included pupa, and had
compared the latter with the (mature) pupa of other species, and
had witnessed how the latter came into this state, that I saw
through the whole matter, and then discovered from various
passages in your writings, that you had seen the same long ago.
I have been anxious to give you full credit for every item of in-
formation derived from you and contained in my work. At the
risk of being tedious, I have here taken some pains to make my-
self understood now, and have had to write amidst various inter-
ruptions. My object is not to controvert what you may have
stated as to the time when the Hessian Fly " may be said to
enter the pupa state," but to show that I understood that there is
a period, a long period, during which the insect included within
the flaxseed shell has the form of a larva and " lies a motionless
grub " as you have stated. Dr. Fitch calls the insect, during
this period, a dormant l^rva ; perhaps you would call it an

206

immature pupa.^ A mature pupa it certainly is not, till it is
provided with limbs, etc. The wheat-fly (C. tritici) during this
same period has likewise the form of a larva ; but instead of re-
maining dormant all the while, it actually possesses the power of
locomotion ; and though unprovided with legs, crawls down from
the wheat ears to the ground, and burrows in the earth. Can
it be in the pupa state while doing this? I trow not. It was
this fact with others that induced me to change my opinion re-
garding the time when the insect may be said to become a real
pupa.

In the Patent Office Report you allude to Raddi's account,
as you do in your last letter ; but have not stated where it is to
be found. For this reason I have not referred to it. Dr. Fitch
seems to have made a strange geographical mistake about the
places where the Hessian Fly was observed in Europe, as
stated by Kollar. Altenburg is in Hungary, at the confluence
of the Leith and Danube, forty miles south-east of Vienna, and
seventeen south of Presburg. Weikendorf is in Austria, six-
teen miles north-east of Vienna : the former more than four
hundred, and the latter above three hundred and seventy-five,
miles from Hesse Cassel.

Did I tell you that C. salicis is nearly twice as large as the
Hessian Fly? The magnitude of the larva makes it an ex-
cellent subject for observation of the (to me) extraordinary
peculiarities in the transformations of the Cecidomyice. These
peculiarities seem to be wholly unknown to European entomolo-
gists, and are not distinctly stated even by Dr. Fitch. With
the exception of these insects, there is no instance on record
of an insect passing from the larval to the pupal form without
casting off' or becoming; detached from the skin with which its

1 I was disposed formerly to consider the insect in this staj^e as analogous to wliat
the French writers term houle allongee; but tlic active condition for awhile of the wheat-
fly larva, after its feeding state is over, and after it has moulted its skin, has induced
me to change my opinion. Moreover in C. salicis and C. robinice there is no moulting
at all till the fly is developed.

207

body was immediately previous thereto enveloped. The moult-
ing of the wheat fly maggot and the detaching of the flaxseed
skin by the Hessian Fly insect cannot be cited in proof that
these insects conform to the general rule ; because even after
these processes, they still retain the same shape that they had
before, — namely the shape at least of a larva; and the skin
then investing the body is not thrown off till it is converted
to a (scarf) pupal skin, and is cast in order to develop the
perfect fly.

CORRESPONDENCE

BETWEEN

THADDEUS WILLIAM HARRIS

AND

JOHN LAWRENCE LECONTE.

COEEESPONDENCE.

HARRIS TO LECONTE.

Cambridge, Jan. 23, 1849.

Blethua quadricollis, when placed by the side of my species,
proved to be obviously distinct from the latter, for which, there-
fore, my name of B. americana remains good. The distinction
was not only plainly perceptible to myself, but was immediately
recognized by Professors Agassiz and Pierce, to whom the in-
sects were shown. I know not what standard of measurement
Prof. Haldeman used, in making his B. quadricoUis to be seven
and one lialf lines long and three wide. I use the English
inch, divided into tenths or hundredths, and in measuring the
length exclude the mandibles. My female B. americana meas-
ures six tenths of an inch in length, and not more than one
hundredth of an inch less than three tenths of an inch in its
greatest width. B. quadricoUis I make to be also six tenths
long, but only two and one half tenths broad. There is not
the slightest vestige of a tooth on the under side of the anterior
femora in quadricoUis', neither is there any in the female
of my americana. I may add, what you probably have
observed, that quadricoUis is a female, and that it has the
anterior femora incrassated, as in the female americana. The
quadricoUis, compared with the female americana, wants the

212

cupreous lustre of the latter ; is a more slender insect ; the
head is narrower ; the thorax not so wide and more contracted
behind the middle, is destitute of punctures on the basal edge,
and the basal foveas are smaller ; the coleoptra are more pro-
longed behind, and not so obtusely rounded ; the external strise
near the tip are not so much angulated, and there is no vestige
of the obsolete impressed fovea which is found adjacent to these
angulated strise in my species ; the striae are not so deeply im-
pressed, and the little punctures in them want the decidedly
shining, brassy color of B. americana; tlie large, impressed
foveas are similarly placed, but are smaller and not so deep.^

Upon examination and careful comparison of your typical
Notiophili, the following results Avere obtained : —

1. Your^o. 422 is the true porrectus of Say. Herbst's de-
scription of ceiieus applies also well enough to it ; but his figure
(bad enough, doubtless, and probably incorrect) is widely dif-
ferent.

2. Your specimen from Lake Superior is the semistnatus of
Say, agreeing exactly in size, form, color, and sculpture with
my specimen from Pennsylvania. Your 421 is also identical
witli setnlstriatus, differing from my typical one in being rather
smaller.

3. Your 423 and the specimen ticketed novemstriatus, consti-
tute but one species ; not the semistnatus of Say, but the species
which I long ago named quaclrifoveatus, and whicli by that
name I have distributed among my correspondents in Europe.
It is the analogue of the European Mguttatus, from which, how-
ever, it differs in many obvious characters. You will see that it
has near the tip of each elytron an obh^ng fovea, wliich, taken
with the ordinary one before the middle of each elytron, sug-
gested the descriptive name quadrifoveatus. I regret that sucli

1 Having examined more tluiii a dozen specimens of B. qmulricolUs, I may say that
tlio diirerences mentioned in tlio above letter are not specific, but merely individnal.
At the time the comparison was made by Dr. Harris, but one Lake Superior specimen
of quadricolUs was known; since then it has been found not unfrequently in Northern
Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan. [.T. L. L.]

213

a name should have to yield to novemsti^iafus, which is not char-
acteristic of the species. This is by far the most common spe-
cies, thoucrh confined to certain localities. I have examined
specimens from New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, New
York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Alabama. The base
of the antenna and the tibi;e vary in being more or less tinged
with brown, and consequently in being lighter or darker in dif-
ferent individuals. In some of my specimens there is a faint
and almost obsolete, rufous, oblique spot near the tip of each
elytron. •

Having examined a good collection of European Notiophili., I
feel confident in pronouncing our American species distinct
therefrom. Som,e years ago I drew up the following tabular
formulfB of the species : —

o
u

'one abbreviated stria near the scutel;

dorsal striae obsolete behind the middle;

legs entirely rufous, 1. porrectus Say.

legs black, 2. horealis Harr.

dorsal striaj continued to the tip, ... 3. americanus Harr.
two abbreviated strire near the scutel;

each elytron Avitli one foveole, ... 4. semistriatus Say.
each elytron with two foveoles, . . 5. quadrifoveatus Harr.

N. horealis and americanus appear to be unknown to yoii, and
I regret that I have not now any duplicates of them^. I hope,
however, to get horealis next July or August, when I propose
going to the White Mountains, where the sj)ecies has been
found by Dr. Pickering and Mr. Tuckerman.

Considering how much the synonymy of our species has been
confused, I venture to suggest whether it would not be better
to name the five foregoing species thus: 1. wneiis Herbst;

1 This N. borealis was described by me under the name pundatus; it scarcely differs
from the Asiatic sibiricus Motsch. I think americanus is merely an individual varia-
tion. No. 5 is the most abundant sj^ecies, and agrees with Say's description and I have
regarded it as semistriatus. No. 4, by Dr. Harris's comparison, is my confusus, and dif-
fers by the more coarsely punctured elytral striae. [J. L. L.]

214

2. horealis ; 3. striatus ; 4. semistriatus ; and 5. americanus
(rather than novemstriatus^. The fifth species being the most
widely diffused, seems to merit the name americanus, rather
than the third, which is very rare, and appears to be local ; and
I am perfectly willing to drop the name quadrifoveatus if I have
your consent also to drop novemstriatus.

Last August I went to Blue Hill to catch Cicindela Hentzii.
I could find only five specimens. I have again compared
the species with others, and conclude that it is a genuine
species, intermediate in marj\ings between punctulata and ru-
fiventris, but with far more distinct spots than either. Like
the former it has a distinct subsutural row of ocellated punc-
tures, visible even to the naked eye. Compared with rufiven-
tris the thorax is more nearly quadrate, is almost straight at
the sides, and the punctures on the elytra are smaller and less
distinct, — besides the difference in color and markings. If C.
Hentzii and C. rufiventris constitute but one species, then C. ru-
fiventris should be the variety ; and other individuals, having
the elytral spots larger and more distinct than in the variety,
but smaller and less clearly marked than those of Hentzii,
ought to be found. Such never having occurred, and other con-
siderations moving me, I go back to my first opinion that C.
Hentzii is a genuine species, distinct from the southern C. ru-
fiventris.

In adverting to the confusion of the synonymy of the JVbtio-
phili, . . Say himself began it by confounding his semi'
striatus and porrectus under one name ; and Dejean has made
the matter worse, by referring all the American to European
species, Avhich evidently he had not carefully studied. In fact
the European JVotiophili, as characterized by Dejean, require
revision just as much as the Amarce.

Have you not been led to mistake Say's Notiophilus semistri-
atus on account of the name ? If you will look at Say's descrip-
tion, you will find that the name was not intended to denote the
want of elytral strias behind the middle, but the want of them

215

near the sutural striae. In fact, the second and third striae are
wanting, and thus leave on each elytron, a wide or " dilated,
smooth, polished, longitudinal, continued space " as expressed
in Say's description.

Two of my' five species have this wide, impunctured, polished,
longitudinal space near the sutural stria or row of punctures ;
one of them being the true semistriatus, and the other my quadri-
joveatus. One of them has two abbreviated stria3 near the scu-
tel; the other three species have only one punctulated stria
near the scutel, one only of the longitudinal striae being want-
ing in them; semistriatus has only one impressed point on
each elytron, and the tibise are dark rufous ; quadrifoveatus has
two impressed points on each elytron, one before the middle
and the other near the tip, and the tibiae are darker, being de-
cidedly brownish ; quadrifoveatus is somewhat smaller than
semistriatus^ and .ordinarily has about nine strise on the head,
while semistriatus ordinarily has only seven. This last char-
acter, however, is not much to be depended on. I am inclined
to think that the type of your novemstriatus may be my quad-
rifoveatus ; but I shall be glad to examine your specimens of
this genus, as well as your Bletliisce.

HARRIS TO LECONTE.

CAMBiaDGE, Oct. 13, 1851.

You ask me what differences I find between Oicindela rugi-
frons and C. unicolor. The insect that I refer to the unicolor
of Dejean, Vol. I, pp. 52, 53, appears to me to be distinct from
the nearly or quite immaculate varieties of rugifrons. Nu-
merous specimens and varieties of the latter I took on the sands
beyond Mt. Auburn in Watertown, in August, 1826, and sub-
sequently there and at Chelsea Beach, and have seen others
from Martha's Vineyard. A practiced eye would at once

216

separate the southern unicolor from all those varieties. And
here let me remark, incidentally, that I never saw or heard of a
black variety, or of the obscure, in either of these localities. It
is easier to perceive than to describe the difference between these
varieties o^ rugifro7iS£a\6. the southern wwzco^or. The latter was
taken at St. John's Bluff, East Florida, in Febiniary, 1838, by
my lamented friend Mr. Edward Doubleday, who kindly pre-
sented two specimens to me. The vnicohr referred to is abso-
lutely immaculate, not a vestige of white being upon the el^'tra.
The color is more blue than green, with a beautiful purple
or reddish reflection on the elytra. Size smaller than 7'U(/i-
frons ; thorax more smooth ; elytra more convex, and more
rounded at the humeral angles and tip. > Head rather smaller
than that of rugifrons^ etc. Indeed, I cannot amend Dejean's
description, which seems well to characterize my specimens,
except that he does not notice the purplish reflections of the
elytra. The whole surface has a smoother and more satiny
lustre than rvgifrons. All these, I admit, are on paper slight
distinctions ; but were you to see the specimens side by side
with rugifrons^ I think the differences \v^ould strike you as they
did both Doubleday and myself.

Of tortuosa I have four specimens, also taken by ]\Ir.
Doubleday in Florida, and na two of them are marked exactly
alike. There is some disparity in size in the 'two sexes, but the
males are not proportionally much narrower than the females.
They are more densely punctured tluin imnctidata^ but the
punctures are not confluent. In one $ , the terminal lunulc
consists of a nearly straight white line along the hinder slope
of the elytron, slightly enlarged at the tij). Li a female,
this same line is a little enlarged at both ends. In a second
male, the line is enlarged at tip and refracted at a right angle
from till' other end, and almost united there with a white spot.
In the other female the union is coni])lete, the terminal line
forming a kind of hook at the anterior extremity. The thorax,
I should think, might be called suhtilissime riigoso ; perhaps you

217

would say evidenter rugoso. These specimens do not ex-
actly agree witli any of your descriptions, and they certainly
are all of one species, and were all taken in one locality.

I was much struck with your suggestion regarding C. Heyitzii
and C. rufiventris, and almost tempted to consider them as con-
stituting but one species. I want to see more specimens of
rufiventris, however, before adopting this conclusion. Of all
those of the JTentzii that have passed under my observation
(and I suppose that I have seen every one that has been taken,
amounting to near a hundred in all), I never yet saw any one
so obsoletely characterized as rufive^itris ; nor, of the latter,
any one so completely marked with lunules and band as
Hentzii. Should any specimens occur intermediate between
the two in characteristic markings, and also in size (for our O.
Hentzii is, I believe, uniformly larger than rufiventris)^ it may
help to settle all doubts on the subject of identity. Both being,
I believe, mountain species, others should be looked for on moun-
tain ranges between North Carolina and Massachusetts, and on
porphyritic and sienitic rocks, in such localities. If in the ^nd
the two should be considered as forming only one species, —
then, C. Hentzii, being the most perfectly marked, must consti-
tute the type, and C rujiventris the variety ; but I am not
yet prepared to sink either of them to a synonym in nomen-
chiture. Mr. MacLeay has somewhere remarked that he did
not see any difference between permanent varieties and species.
There is something for consideration in such an opinion even if
we do not adopt it to its fall extent.

Allow me to add a criticism on Cicindela trifasciata of
Fabricius, to which I find you referred tortuosa of Dejean.
Of trifasciata, Fabricius says: — ''^Habitat in America, in
Italia paidlo minor. Corpus supra ohscurum, suhtus ameo
nitidum. Labium album. Elytra strigis tribus, prima abbre-
viata, lunata, secunda flexuosa, tertia apicis.^^ Ent. Syst., I, 177,
No. 33. Please here to observe two things; first, that the in-
termediate band is described as fiexuosa ; and second, that a

218

smaller variety (or species) is found in Italy. Now what
Fabricius meant hy fascia or stri^a jiexuosa may be discovered
by other descriptions of his, as of Cicindela jiexuosa and lurida.
O. jiexuosa described from Olivier, who has figured it (as well
as trifasciata and lurida')^ has the intermediate band irregularly
bent, as in C vulgaris. See Olivier and Dejean, Iconogr., I,
pi. V, fig. 5. So also lurida has a nearly similarly formed,
intermediate band ; and in both of these Fabricius describes it
as ''''jiexuosa^ The shape you will perceive, therefore, is very
unlike the tortuous band of tortuosa. Secondly, the Amer-
ican trifasciata has its representative in Italy, according to
Fabricius. Illiger considered the Italian one to be sinuata
" without any doubt," and this has the intermediate band
angular and recurved, also unlike that of tortuosa?-

Therefore upon an examination and comparison of the Fabri-
cian and Olivierian descriptions and figures, I have come to
the conclusion that the tortuosa of Dejean is not the trifasciata
of Fabr. For the right understanding of the Fabrician de-
scriptions I find it important to refer to the works which Fab-
ricius published before his Systema Eleutheratorum, as they
often contain additional remarks that are not embodied in the
last.

HARRIS TO LECONTE.

Cambridge, Dec. 6, 1851.

Among the insects collected by Prof Hentz in North Caro-
lina, there were numerous specimens of a Steiwcorus QUlajyhi-
dioTi), allied to the putator of Peck, as also a few of the
latter species. They were intermixed, but I had no difficulty
in separating the species, notwithstanding their similarity and

1 Some authors suppose that the Italian trislgnata 111., is the same as the Italian vari-
ety oi trifasciata Fabr.; the intermediate band of trisignata is also unlike that oitortit-
oia, and represents that of kirticoUis.

219

their varieties. The southern and more numerous species was
generally rather larger than our putator, the glabrous tubercules
and line on the thorax more distinct (in putatoi' often entirely-
wanting) ; but they were especially distinguished by the spines
on the antennse, which were much larger, longer and more
unequal in length, and by the aculeated tips of the elytra,
the outer spine being much longer than the inner, while in
putator they are equal. I have always supposed that the
greater part of the American insects found in European col-
lections in the time of Linnseus, Fabricius and Olivier were
obtained from the Middle and Southern Colonies or States ; and
am not aware that there were any collectors in New England
who transmitted insects to Europe at that time. Hence, in the
case of nearly allied species of New England, and of the States
farther south, I have considered it more likely that the former
would be undescribed than the latter. For such reasons I have
•marked the southern Stenocorus above referred to as probably
the villosus of Fabr., and the mucronatus of Say ; leaving the
putator to Peck alone, though confessing it was possible it
might be identical with villosus Fabr. I cannot believe that
I have mistaken Peck's insect, having raised numerous speci-
mens from the larvae found in the cut-off branches of the oak.
I have one of these original specimens still left, and will send
it to you if you want it. Your description of mucronatum
applies best to the southern species, which is not found in Mas-
sachusetts. Your villosum, to which you refer putator as a
synonym, seems to be our Massachusetts insect. But are not
villosus Fabr., and mucronatus Say identical? Please look into
Fabricius again and see what he says of his villosus.

220

HARRIS TO LECONTE.

Cambridge, Nov. 22, 1852.

In regard to Carahus externus Say,= Oalosoma longipenne
Dej., you remark '•'■ propter corpus apterum^^ etc. Dejean says,
'■''ily a des ailes sous Us elytres.''^ The latter is certainly true
of a pair in my collection, both of which have wings. On
other grounds I believe you are right in restoring the insect to
the genus Carahus ^ and I expressed the same view in a letter
written to one of my correspondents fourteen years ago. From
an examination made at that time of numerous species of Ca-
rahus and Calosoma, I came to the conclusion that none of the
characters by which these genera have been distinguished are
constant ; and that either the two must be combined, or else
many new genera, more strictly and artificially defined, must be
instituted. I came to the same conclusion concerning Ci/c7irus,
ScapMnotus and Sphoirodtrus^ as you may gather from my
paper published in the Boston Journal of Natural History.

Calosoma scrutator and Carahus sylvosus are indeed very
distinct from each other in what have been considered gen-
eric characters ; but there are numerous species that may be
placed between them, showing a regular gradation of charac-
ters from one to the other.

Are you aware th^t Dicoelus jyurjmratus of Say is nothing but
an old and faded specimen of his D. violaceus ? Such is the
fact. He himself seems to have had some misgivings about the
species ; for he did not describe and figure it with T>. violaceus
in his American Entomology.

I follow Latrcille in arranging my Carahidce thus: 1. Trun-
catipennoi ; 2. Bipartiti ; 3. Quadrimani ; 4. SimpJicimani (^Fe-
row/(B Dej.) ; 5. Patellimani; 6. Grandipalpi or Sinq^licipedes],
and 7. Suhdipalpi ; believing this to be a more natural order
of the gi'oups than any since proposed. It ajipears to me,
moreover, that PJatynus (including Agonum and Anchomenus)
should go with the Patellimani rather than with the Simplici-

221

ma7ii; and I do not see the propriety of removing Patrohus-
from a near connection with Calatlms and Platynus, to place it
where Kirby has put it, near to Blethisa, etc.

Dejean w^as not acquainted Avitli the male of his Metrius con-
tractus, the only species he had examined. I think he was
wrong in putting it with his division of SivipUcipedes. The
tarsi of the males in this genus show that they should go among
the Patellimani. The palpi are almost exactly like those of
Dlccelus ; the short antenna3 remind you of those of Panagceus ;
the emarg-ination of the tibia also removes the insect even
from the neighborhood of Nebria, etc. It is, in fact, one of
those insects which serve beautifully to connect the Patellimani
with the Grandipaljn. Artificially, it will come between Eury-
soma and Panagmus, for it has a bifid tooth in the emargination
of the mentum, two dilated joints (the second much smaller
than the first, but covered beneath with the same kind of
brush) to the first pair of tarsi in the males, and the last joint
of the palpi subsecuriform (as in Dicadus, CJdcenius, etc.).
Artificially I say it Avill come between these genera, but I con-
ceive its natural place to be near to Oodes, Remhus and Diccelus,
and especially near the latter. .

HARRIS TO LECONTE.

Cambridge, Nov. 29, 1852.

Are you aware that our big Bu/prestis virginica is the true
B. Mariana of Linnaeus ? Such is the fact, as you will discover
on consulting Linnaeus' Museum Ludovic* Ulricas RegiuEe,
where it was first described.

I am glad to be able to set you right in one instance where
you regret having changed one of Say's names, — that of Poecilus
chalcites. The change was unnecessary ; and Germar's Poecilus
chalcitis (not chalcites) is of later date than Say's chalcites.

222

"The Transactions of the American Philosophical Society were
published in parts. The first part of the second volume of the
new series, containing Say's Carahici and Hydrocanihari was
printed and published in 1823. The covers of the parts had a
printed title on the side, with the date. Unfortunately this was
not repeated in the pages of the text, and when the parts came
to be bound, there was nothing to show that one half of the
volume had actually been published and distributed a year or
more, as the case might be, before the last part, the title page
bearing the date only of the latter, and being printed with it.
Mr. Say seems almost to have foreseen the consequence of this
carelessness, for he had separate title pages printed to a con-
siderable number of copies of his paper above named, and these
copies were stitched and distributed by himself to his corre-
spondents. I have one of these same copies.

You ouffht not to take the dates of Sav's insects in the Tran-
sactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series,
Vols. IV and VI, from the dates of those volumes, excepting
only what begins on p. 177 of Vol. VI, with Elater hellus and
onwards, which was printed from Say's manuscript. All the
preceding portion is a reprint of his New Harmony papers,
dating from March 17, 1830 to Auijust 1, 1834. It has been
generally supposed that these New Harmony papers came out
only in the " Disseminator " ; this is not true. Only a few
numbers appeared in the Disseminator, and of these separate
copies were struck off, and were stitched with the succeeding
sheets, and were distributed by Mr. Say with a separate title
page, till he had gone to the seventy-third page of the work.
The last eight pages were printed after the title ])age, and only
a short time before his last sickness and death. About one
half of the whole work, ending with the description of Lathro-
hium dimidiatum, was actually printed and distributed in 1830.
Thence to AntJiojjhagus verticalis inclusive, in 1831 ; thence to
AUocTiara semicarinata inclusive, in 1832 ; which finished what
is contained in the fourth volume of the Transactions of the

223

American Philosophical Society. Thence to Agrilus politus, in
1833 ; and the remainder, to Elater exstriatus inclusive, in 1834.
In your list of species unknown to you is enumerated the
Feronia caudicalis of Say, and yet you have a doubtful refer-
ence to it on page 243, under P. luetuosus. For a specimen
of a Feronia which I sent to Mr. Say, he returned me the name
of caudicalis, and I have (without, however, very critically
comparing the species with his description) supposed it to be
rightly so named by him. The insect belongs to a group which
I had previously studied, and therefore I could not have made
any mistake as to the identity of the specimen retained with
those sent. You must have seen the insect in my cabinet.
His Agonum scutellatum is merely an accidental variety of a
small and very common species, the variation consisting in a de-
pression about the region of the scutel, which is sometimes found
in various species, and which is purely accidental. I think you
told me that my species (in which this occurs) is melanarium
Dej. It is not, however, what I consider as melanarium.

HARRIS TO LECONTE.

Cambridge, Dec. 21, 1852.

How Fabricius and Olivier came mutually to quote each
other for Cantharis atrata will appear when their works are
fully examined. You will find the species described by Olivier
in the Encyclopedic M^thodique before the date of his Entomo-
logia Systematica ; and you will find it in the earlier works of
Fabricius, as well as in his Systema Eleutheratorum. Meloe
cinereus Forster, is undoubtedly the species known to us by the
name of C. marginata Oliv. and is probably also the L.
marginata Fabr., who however gives for its habitat the Cape
of Good Hope. I have very little doubt that Fabricius was
in error as to the place, and moreover, I believe he may have

224

described the insect from the cabinet of Sir Jos. Blake, where
also Olivier, and probably Forster, saw it. Sclionherr is wrong
in referring Forster' s species to cinerea Fabr. Now, although
Forster describes his 31. cinerea in 1771, and Fabricius his
L. marginata in 1775, yet this is one of those very rare
exceptions which I would make in the rule regarding priority.
Forster's name is evidently faulty and deceptive. The
Fabrician name is exceedingly pertinent, being descriptive and
unmistakable ; it is unnecessary to add that it has been long
established, for that does not make wrong right ; though in this
case, added to the other advantages arising from retaining it,
it may be allowed to have some weight. But we have a species
which is cinereous, and to which Forster's name may with
very great propriety be applied ; and since this species has
also long borne this truly descriptive and pertinent name, I
think it best to let it so remain. Hence, because the Cantliaris
of Clematis virgmiana is a marginated species, and the
Cantharis of the Leguminosce (^Baptiaia, etc.), is a cinereous
species, I have been contented to let the former bear the
name of C. marginata and the latter that of C. cinerea, which
Fabricius gave respectively to them.

By the way, did you ever see a Brachinus clear its antenna3
with its forelegs? It would give you an idea of the use
of the deep emarginations in the anterior tibite, which
are admirably calculated to assist the insect in this operation.
Some naturalists have conjectured that the emargination was
designed for sexual purposes, but it is not so, for otherwise it
would not exist in both sexes.

In copying my Catalogue, I have come upon a few cor-
rections made by you in the names I had given, in which it
appears to me you were wrong, from not having examined the
authorities that I had consulted. I recollect only one instance
at this moment. It is this ; " Buprestis aurulenta Limn.=stri-
ata Fabr." ; you added, " not aurulenta., which is European."
The aurulenta of Linnaeus is really North American, and is of

225

earlier date tlian aurulenta Fabr,, which is European. The
latter is auricolor Herbst; and there is another aurulenta of
Rossi = austriaca Fabr. See also Olivier and Herbst for
our auride^ita. In all those cases where I have rejected a
Fabrician name, I have adopted the one substituted from an
earlier authority which has been examined for the purpose.
In my printed catalogue you will find several cases of this kind.

HARRIS TO LECONTE.

Cambridge, May 14, 1853.

Your specimens of Eurypalpus^ with the pupa, were safely
received, and I am obliged to you for them. In the dry state
I am unable satisfactorily to examine the pupa, which however
has in its general configuration considerable resemblance to
Eurypalpus. Among my Cehrionidce I find a single specimen
of Murypalpus? from New Hampshire, which I have been
hitherto unable to refer to any described genus ; but it differs
from yours in having pectinated antenna. It is the Physo-
dactylus ? cisteloides of my printed catalogue. I was not aware
before receiving your letter how much revolution had been
made in the Cehrionidce or Oebronites of Latreille. Westwood
I knew had divided them into two groups, Cehrionidce and
CypJionidce, but I supposed these would be regarded rather as
sections of one family. There is no intimation in your paper
in the Lake Superior book that you regarded Eurypalpus as
belonging elsewhere than in the same group with Cyplion
where Dejean seems to have put it ; and now are you not
rather hasty in transferring it to the Macrodactyla of Latr. ?,
or the Parnidce of Erichson ?

A few days ago, Mr. Clark found an aquatic larva, almost
exacfly like one figured by Westwood among the Lampyridce^
but having beneath the terminal segment five bunches of

OCCAS. PAPEES B. S. N. H. — I. 15

226

branched filaments, from their constant motion evidently
connected with respiration. Unfortunately the specimen was
lost before a drawing could be made of it. Classification will
become still more complicated if it turns out that there are
aquatic larvae among the Lamjjyridoi ; ' and this should serve as
a caution against removing Eurypalpus from the Cebrionites.^

I have not now any specimens of Xenos PecJcii^ the only one
of the Strepsiptera which I have seen. This species infests our
common Polistes fuscata, the species of slender, brown wasp
that makes an open, horizontal comb, suspended by a stem
beneath some sheltered spot. I have found their combs in the
hollows of the skulls of sheep. Some naturalists have stated that
only female Hymenoptera are infested by the Strepsiptera ; but
I have seen as many males as females attacked by them. I us6d
to find the infested wasps most plentiful about the twentieth
of August, when pears begin to ripen and fall from the trees.
These wasps are very fond of the fallen decaying pears ; and

1 [I append here a note of a similar larva found by Prof. Clark two years previously,
adding Dr. Harris's note thereon, and a memorandum by Dr. LeConto.]

This Coleopterous larva found at Fresh Pond on August I7th, 1851 [PI. Ill, fig. 7],
adheres to the surface of stones and generally to such as are round; the circulation
of water among the branchiaj is kept up by the flapping of the tail-piece. The sides
of the body are extended out into a broad, concavo-convex shield, under which the
head and feet are hidden. The head is furnished with mandibles, maxillaj and their
palpi and biarticulate antenna}; the base of attachment to the tail-piece is raised
into a high rim. Cellular transparent branches extend out from the sides of the
abdomen into the flattened side pieces, toward the extreme edge of which tracheae
may be seen branching. H. J. Clark.

On comparing the description of the supposed larva of Eurypalpus Lecontci given by
Dr. LeConte in the Lake Superior of Agassiz and Cabot, p. 241, with Jlr. Clark's
drawings, the former will bo seen to differ in several respects from the latter. Dr. Le-
Conte says that the head " is concealed under the large, shield-like prolongation of
the dorsal epidermis of the prothorax." If j\Ir. Clark has rightly represented the
connections of the legs, the portion anterior to them, which covers the head, cannot
be a prolongation of the prothorax, but must belong to the he:ul alone, and is to be
regarded as a clypeus. Dr. LeConte says that the antenna? arc " a little longer than
the head"; in the drawing they ai-e much longer thau the head and each joint shows
DO " tendency to become divided at the middle"; the maxillary palpi are more than
"half the length of the antennae." Dr. LeConte says that "the abdomen is furnished
on each side with six bunches of long branchial filaments" ; in the drawing there are

227

the infested wasps can always be detected by their peculiar
zigzag or irregular flight. So remarkable is their appearance
in flying that I have detected them even when riding along
tlie road and have stopped and caught them among the bushes
fey the way-side. After catching one of these infested wasps,
put it under a tumbler, and feed it with sugar, and in a few
days or a week or two, you may have winged specimens of the
male JCenos in the tumbler. This insect is very impatient of
confinement, and keeps in almost perpetual flight till it seems
to die from exhaustion. The females never come out of the
wasps, and are not to be distinguished without close exami-
nation from the cased pupce or mature larvae. You will see the
black heads of the one or of the other just protruding from the
intersection of the dorsal rings of the abdomen. I have found
four specimens in one wasp. Two or three are common.
This is about all I can tell you of the insect from my own
observations. Some years ago I drew up a little paper on the
relations of the Strepsiptera, and came to the conclusion that,
from the structure and habits, as far as then known to me, they

only five. " A lai'ger bunch connected with the anal aperture" is not shown in the
drawing.

These differences lead to the suspicion, either that Dr. LeConte has not con-ectly
described the larva or that the figure drawn by Mr. Clark represents another and
difierent insect. T. W. H.

Since reading the above note I have reexamined the specimens of PsepJienus larvtc,
collected by me at Niagara, and find no reason to change the description published by
me in Agassiz' Lake Superior, except iu regard to the branchire, which are five, as fig-
ured by Mr. Clark, instead of six as stated erroneously by me. The head is small but
prominent, and concealed under the shield-like pronotnm and the membrane of the ar-
ticulation is distinctly visible. The appearance of a tendency to division in the joints
of the antennee is caused by a slight compression and twisting or rather by a faint ob-
lique imijression. I may also add that the larva described was not the ' supposed ' but
the ascertained larva of Psephenus (late Eurypaljpus) since pupoe, having the recogni-
zable form of theperfect insect were found under stones near the water, protected liy the
shield-like epidermal extension of the larva. I have also examined the very nearly allied
larva of Hdiclms fastirjiatus, and the remotely allied Stenelmis crenatiis, in both of
which there is a hood-like prolongation or rather expansion of the pronotum ; the last
named has however no external branchiae. [J. L. L.]

228

were more nearly allied to the Coleoptera and Hymenoptera
than to any other order of insects. But I did not venture
(nor shall I now) to place them in the order Coleoptera al-
though in organization the Strepsiptera are coleopterous rather
tlian liymenopterous. Moreover the young larvse are very
much like those of S>/mbius, which likewise are parasitical in
their habits. The structure of their feet, however, removes
them decidedly from the Coleoptera, and still more the pecu-
liarities of their transformatio'ns. No instance is known among
the Coleoptera of any larvae being pedate and active Avhen
young, footless and fixed subsequently, and becoming coarctate
pupa3. The fact also that the female remains in an apparently
undeveloped state Avithin the larval skin, and has to be im-
pregnated (as that of Oiketicus is) through an opening in the
head of the pupa, is an anomaly without precedent among these
orders of insects. I do not know who has had the hardihood
to crowd the Strepsiptera into the order Coleoptera; but it
certainly is a measure as inappropriate as that of putting the
3I(dlophaga QNii'tnus, etc.) among the Orthoptera and
Neuroptera, as some naturalists have done. When you come
to consider the entire structure in detail, and the singular trans-
formation of the insects, you will see that the latter must stand
by themselves, and that they cannot be placed in the order
Coleoptera without violating all analogies, and all legitimate
rules of classification. The mere possession of the abortive
elytra and slender mandibular organs is not enough to justify
such a step. Their other relations to the Coleoptera are over-
balanced by structures far removed from what are found in that
order. I express this opinion with great confidence, after long
consideration of the subject, and patient investigation, with the
best lights afforded by my own observations and the various
published memoirs on these insects.

229

HARE.IS TO LECONTE.

Cambridge, Sept. 17, 1853.

I have changed my manuscript name of the new Cicindela
from the White Mountains from ancocisconensis (objectionable
on account of its length and becavise you tell me it has been
taken in Pennsylvania) to Catliarma. This fine species seems
to approach to the European C. maritima, and like it is found
only near the Avater. As you are fond of Latin descriptions
I subjoin one that I concocted for this species. O. ( Oatliarina)
labro alho tindentato, medio suhprommido ; supra aeneo-nigra
vel nigro-euprea, viridi tenuiter marginata ; elytris e humerali
apicalique integro, sfrigaque media, ohliqua, abbreviata, flexuosa^
cum lineola laterali conjluente, albis ; ano purpurea. Long. 5,
5-^ lin.

I believe you will be able to make out the species by the
above description, especially as you have specimens before you.
By the way, I prefer calling the humeral and apical white
characters a c rather than a lunule, the former being nearer
to their true shape. A lunule proper tapers to a point at the
extremities.

HARRIS TO LECONTE.

Cambridge, Oct. 29, 1853.

Now upon the genus Adrastus I have a remark to make.
Dejean puts both E. quadrimaculatus and E. limbatus in this
genus, the former having simple and the latter pectinated or
toothed nails, and the two differing from each other in several
other particulars. Twelve or thirteen years ago, having just
received Dejean's Catalogue, and being ignorant of the existence
and contents of Latreille's paper on the Elaters, I undertook to
examine carefully a pretty large collection of European named
species for the purpose of ascertaining on what characters

230

the genera of Elaters in Dejean's Catalogue were founded, n.id
in many cases, I drew out the characters in detail, and still
have them by me in manuscript. At that time I concluded
that the two species above named could not both be included in
Adrastus : but which of the two was to be regarded as the true
type I could not tell, and therefore made my own election,
adopting the quadrimaculatus as the Eui'opean type. If, how-
ever, the Umbatus be the true type, I suppose you or somebody
will have to make a new (sub-) genus for the quadrimaculatus
of Fabricius.

I append some of the characteristics of five closely allied
species of Agonum (or Platynus Lee), of black color, etc.,
arrano;ed in a table : —

A. Fifth elytral stria not dilated beliind.

a. Two impressed points on the third, and one on the second stria.
* Sides of the thorax regularly curved.

•j- Thorax broad. Tibiaj and tarsi black . .1770 melanarium^ ? Dej.
fj- Thorax narrow. Tibiaa and tarsi rufous . 61 polilidum" Hentz.
** Sides of the thorax somewhat angulated .1771 nitidum Harr. MS.

b. Impressed points irregularly disposed; one

impressed point on the third stria, one on
the interval between the second and third
stria, and the third on the second stria,
or on the third interval 1525 collare Say, ined.

B. Fifth elytral stria dilatefl behind, one im-

pressed point on the third stria, and the
., , ., J i- , „^o 1 -"<"''*'*''"LeConte.

other two on the second stria It t2-{

( sulcatum HaiT. M8.

HARmS TO LECONTE.

Cambridge, Nov. 24, 1853.

The insect you have sent me as the '•'■Elater collaris Say,
ven*s" seems to me to be a variety of Say's E. i'id)ricus^
with an inunaculatc thorax. Say's description is faulty, be-

1 Dr. LcConte thinks this a mere variety of 1772.

2 vidanarium Dej. (to Dr. LcConte).

231

cause drawn from a variety or immature specimen with rufous
elytra. Perfectly mature specimens have the elytra black ;
but there is considerable variation even among these. In some
the oval black spot covers a great part of the blood-red thorax,
reaching almost to the base, and between this and the entire
want of the black spot every gradation in size of the spot may
be found. In a series collected in Maine, I found some exactly
like your specimen, taken in the same place and at the same
time as others with the spot and with the black elytra, as
well as others with testaceous or rufous elytra.

HARRIS TO LECONTE.

Cambridge, March 2, 1854.

I have seen numerous specimens of Otcindela vulgaris from
the Southern States, which were invariably smaller and less
highly bronzed than those which occur here. In ToAvnsend's
Oregon collection there were specimens also slightly difJerino"
both from our New England and from the southern specimens.
Still these all agreed with each other in so many respects, that
only the practised eye of an expert entomologist would recognize
any material difference between them, and on the whole, there
does not seem any more reason for separating them as distinct
species than for separating some of the remarkable varieties
of C purpurea as such.

HARRIS TO LECONTE.

Cambridge, March 6, 1854.

Did you particularly notice among the specimens from
Missouri a Cicindela resembling marginata Fabr. (= varie-
gata Dej.) ? Perhaps you took It for one of the varieties of

232

the latter. Having careftilly compared and examined both, I
am satisfied that the Missouri specimens are distinct from the
marginata ; and, as Dejean's name variegata has been dropped,
I propose to transfer it to this Missouri species if undescribed.
This species should find a place in catalogues near to marginata ;
but it does not seem to be included either in your catalogue
or in those of Dejean, or Dr. Melsheimer. Has any descrip-
tion of it been published ? Though belonging to the same
group as marginata^ which likewise it strikingly resembles in
the white markings of the elytra, it differs essentially in the
following particulars. The male wants the posterior tooth near
the tip of the right mandible. The teeth on the edge of the
labrum are obsolete (the central one, usually the most promi-
nent, being scarcely visible at all). The outer margins of the
elytra of the female towards the tip, have a conspicuous tooth,
followed by an emargination extending to the apex ; and the
inner margin of the apex is not curved downwards. The
hinder part of the intermediate band is continuous, not so much
dilated, and not broken up into venose fragments. It is some-
what smaller and more brilUantly colored than marginata.
The posterior angles of the thorax are not elevated ; but before
the ano-les there is a transverse elevated line or tubercle. It is
interesting to find a species so closely imitating the ely.tral
markings of marginata., but yet difl:ering from it in other
essential characters, although the most remarkable of these
happen to be sexual characters. Perhaps you have not noticed
the additional or posterior tooth of the right mandible in the
males of Cicindela dorsalis and marginata. If not, let me
recommend it to your notice. It is visible only on viewing the
mandible sidewise, as it projects backwards nearly at right
angles with the posterior face of the mandible. In both sexes
of C. dorsalis and C. marginata., and in tlie male of the Mis-
souri species, there is a slight prominence on the outer edge of
each elytron towards the tip, followed by a narrowing or straight-
ening of the margin backwards ; an indication of an approach to

233

the tooth and emargination which characterize the elytra in the
female of the Missouri species. The thorax of the latter ap-
proaches to the cylindrical or barrel shape that it takes in other
groups, departing (gradually, however) from the quadrate
form with elevated posterior angles, which is found in dorsalis
and marginata^ and agreeing in this character with hlanda
and lejnda. I have not a male of blanda, and therefore have
not seen whether it has the posterior tooth of the mandi-
ble ; but infer from other circumstances that the tooth is want-
ing. It seems very singular that a species so near to our
maritime 0. dorsalis and marginata should be found in Mis-
souri, and I would be glad to know whether the Missouri
species lives on the banks of streams, or other wet places. ^ I
have taken marginata on the muddy banks of salt water creeks,
amongst the grass to the water's edge. My Cambridge speci-
mens are more dull in color than those I have from Florida,
and the white markings of tlie elytra are often obsolete. They
are likewise generally larger than southern specimens. The
only part of Massachusetts where G. dorsalis has hitlierto been
found is the shore of Martha's Vineyard, where also C. patru-
ela has been found. The latter occurs on the shores of Lake
Champlain, in Burlington, Vt., but I have seen it from no other
part of New England. C. generosa and rugifrons were for-
merly abundant on the sands beyond Mount Auburn, about one
and a half miles from my residence ; they are now almost ban-
ished from the place by the cutting of a railway, and a little
settlement which has grown up in that place. They may still
be found on Lynn beach, and some other of our sea-beaches,
where only have I met with O. hirticollis (alhohirta Dej.).

1 The species here referred to is C. cuprascens Lee. and is quite common on the
banks of the -western tributaries of the Mississippi and Missouri. [J. L. L.]

234

HARIIIS TO LEOONTE.

Cambridge, April 21, 1854.

Half a dozen specimens of the greenish variety of Cicindela
Umbalis were sent to me from Ohio a few days ago. They
were perfectly fresh, having been just taken, and were not yet
stiffened. No two are exactly alike in color, and there is some
difference in their markings. Upon a careful comparison of
sjjreta with them, I am compelled to reverse my decision
respecting the latter, and must confess, notwithstanding the
differences noted in a former letter, that sjjreta seems to me
really to be a dark, or as Zimmermann would call it, negro
variety of Umbalis. It would be interesting to ascertain
whether the Umbalis found at Eastport, Maine, usually assumes
this dark hue, or whether tj^pical specimens prevail there.
Among thousands of specimens of C rugifrons which I have
seen on the sands beyond Mount Auburn, on Chelsea beach
and elsewhere, I have never met with any so black as my
single specimen of C. ohscura from New Jersey ; and the very
few dark specimens of rugifrons which I have met with were
alwavs tinged more or less with green. Still I have no doubt
that o?>scMra; should be really referred to rugifrons', audi am
curious to know whether this negro variety is common in
the Middle States, and also whether it occurs bv itself or in
company with characteristic specimens of rugifrons. The
questions regarding it are of the same nature and interest as
those which may be made respecting spj'eta and Umbalis.

Since receiving your last letter I have borrowed of Professor
Agassiz the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences
for April, 1852, containing your descriptions of Cicindela
cuprasce?i8 and C. tarsalis. From these I infer that the single
specimen from Georgia, given to me by your f^ithcr for blanda
Dcj., must be your C. tarsalis, on account of the prevalence of
white upon the elytra. Until I read your description of tarsalis,
I had never compared my specimens with Dejean's description

235

of hlanda, and took it for granted that my specimen was a typi-
cal one of this species, which I now find it is not. Where did
the specimens come from, which your father sent to Dejean,
and which were the types of his description of hlanda ? You
will observe that Dejean makes no mention of any emargina-
tion near the apex of the elytra of the female, and indeed he
does not note the sexes of his specimens at all.

HAERIS TO LECONTE.

Caisibridge, May 10, 1854.

Your last communication does not give me all the informa-
tion wanted on the subject of my last letter, and leaves the
question of the identity of the Oicindela hlanda of Dejean more
doubtful than ever.

I beg you to refer to Dejean, Species G^n^ral, Vol. V, p.
238, for the following quotations concerning his hlanda^ " La
levre superieure ... a, dans les deux sexes,^^ etc., "Xes elytres
. . . surtout dans la femelle" etc. See also the remainder of
the description. From these quotations it appears that Dejean
had both sexes, and certainly the female. Now this being true,
or admitted to be true, would Dejean have neglected to describe
the remarkable excision of the outer margin of the elytra of
the female, if such excision existed in his specimen ? I trow
not. It appears to me that Dejean must have been culpably
negligent in drawing up his description of hlanda^ or must
have mistaken (!) a male for a female, or that the species which
you have taken to be hlanda is not the real hlanda of Dejean.
I do not believe that one species would, be found to vary to so
great an extent as to have emarginated elytra in one female,
and entire elytra in another. May not Dejean's O. hlanda be
some variety of O. variegata with which he compares it, — or

' 236

some species, unknown to us, intermediate perhaps between his
variegata and tortuosa ?

What you state, quoting from Dejean, of the terminal hmule
being nearly lost in the lateral margin, does not seem to me of
so much importance as the structural character of the elytra of
the females.

Mr. Alex. Agassiz told me that on examining his Missouri
specimens, you gave to them the name of Cicindela cuprascens^
and I find that they agree in the main, though not in every par-
ticular, with your description, as stated in my last letter. I re-
memljer now that all tlie trochanters (not the hinder ones
only) are red or testaceous in the Missouri specimens, as they
are in my wliite Cicindela^ which your father gave me. The
latter, since reading your description, I have referred to your
tarsalis^ tliougli my specimen has the tarsi mutilated, so that I
cannot judge of their comparative length. Having only a male
of tliis supposed tat'salis, I do not know except from your de-
scription, hoAv the elytra of the female are constructed, and even
this seems a matter of doubt, for althono-h in your descriptive
catalogue, under C. Manda, you say '■'■elytra in foe minis prof unde
sinuata "' — in your description of tarsalis (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc.
Phil., VI, p. Q^') you refer only to " one male,"' and make no
mention of any female, or of the structure of the female elvtra
of tarsalis.

I venture to suo-o-est the followino; conclusions in regard to
these species, etc., though it may be rash to do so without see-
ing your specimen.

1. C. hinnda Dejean. Elvira in lioth sexes entire. (Georgia?)

var. albina vel decolorata (C tarsalis Lee.) Georgia.

2. C. cuj)r(isccns Lee. Elytra in (lie fenialc I'niariiiiiatoil.

C. hlanda a Lee., from Conn. Jliver and St. Croix, Wisconsin.
^ Lee., from Arkansas River and Missouri?

The Roanoke specimen or specimens, referred to in your Cat-
alogue, but omitted in your last letter, remain to be disposed of.

*

237

Have, you got tliem, or were they (as I suspect) those which
your father sent to Dejean ? The foregoing arrangement is
based on the presumption that the typical blanda of Dejean re-
mains to be found and that the female of your tarsalis has en-
tire and not emarginated elytra, thereby agreeing with the true
blanda^ of which it is to be regarded as only an albino variety.
This satisfies me, and I hope it will you.

I

CORRESPONDENCE

BETWEEN

THADDEUS WILLIAM HAMIS

AND

MISS MARGARETTA HARE MORRIS.

COEEESPONDENCE.

HARRIS TO MISS MORRIS.

(Without date.)

Sometime last summer, a little parcel was put into my hands
containing; some insect's eggs. These arrived during my busiest
season, and as the eggs were new to me, they were laid aside
for further examination when leisure would permit. I have this
day received a similar sample of eggs on a tAvig of the white
rose-bush. They Avere brought from Pennsylvania, and my
friend says they are the eggs of the large-winged, green grass-
hopper (probably he means Pliylloptera ohlongifolia) ^ which
lives on trees and shrubs in Pennsylvania. These eggs are of
a brown color, about one eighth of an inch long, oval, but lat-
erally compressed, and seemingly composed of two parts like a
bivalve shell. Tliey are arranged obliquely, and overlap each
other, in a double row along the sides of the twig. They are
in fact exactly like the eggs sent by your sister. I have never
seen the eggs of the Katy-did,nor of any other of the iveeGrylli
\_Locusta7'i()e Latr.] ; but I have long suspected that these in-
sects laid them on trees because I never saw them laying their
eggs in the. ground, after the commonly observed manner of
the Locustce [^Acrydli Latr.] . The accounts given by European
authors of the habits of the Grrylli are derived from those of
Gryllu8 viridissimus, verrucivorus, etc., all which are constantly
represented to lay their eggs in the ground. Hence my gen-

OCCAS. PAPERS B. S. N. H. — I.- 16

242

eral remarks on tlie group contained in my book, p. 126, are
derived from European accounts, and in this the same state-
ment occurs tliat the Grylli " commit their eggs to the earth."
If the information given by my friend be correct, then my
suspicion becomes verified, and my statement must be changed.
I confess, however, to belonging to the sect of doubting philos-
ophers, and am not fully reconciled to the conclusion that the'
eggs in question are those of the great, green, tree Gryllus. I
suggested to my fi-iend that they might be those of the Si^ec-
trum femoratum, which Mr. Say, in his American Entomology,
has represented as inhabiting the rose bush.

HARRIS TO MISS MORRIS.

«

Cambridge, Oct. 23, 1849.

All the Notodontians (together with Limacodes) remain a
long time in their cocoons, or in earth, before turning to pupje.
The parasite of the Drop-worm is Ichneumon concitator Say,
a very common and somewhat variable species, whicli attacks
all sorts of larvoe. It is one of the most common parasites of
CUsiocampa americana.

The parasites of the Saddle-worm appear to be identical with
my No. 366, Microgaster carpata Harr., Catal.

HARRIS TO MISS MORRIS.

Cambuidge, Sojit. 25, 1850.

Tlie Drop-worms claim notice first. Last autumn, my good
friend. Dr. Henry Bond, sent to me from Philadelphia a box full
of their pods, containing eggs in great numbers. Early in the
spring, I tied twenty or more of them to the twigs of an Arbor
vitae tree in my little enclosure, and gave the remainder to Pro-

243

fessor Agasslz and to other friends, with instructions and cautions

respecting them. In my Httle place, I have but a single Arbor

vitse, a magnificent specimen ; it was above fifteen feet high,

a dense and graceful pyramid from bottom to top of deep green

foliage, and so planted as to be a pleasing and conspicuous

object from the parlor windows. For a long time I looked for

the larvce in vain. During the whole of June, and the early

part of July, my time was so entirely given to the Library

(this being my busiest season of the year) that I hardly thought

of the tree and the drop-worm at all. It was not till the

twentieth of July that I was at liberty to

make a careful examination of it, and then

to my surprise I discerned vast numbers of

the insects upon it, but principally at the

very summit, where they had begun the

work of destruction in earnest. It seems

that the greater part of the worms, soon

after being hatched near the bottom of the

tree, made their way to the top, so that

they escaped observation until carefully

looked for. Already the top of the tree

beofin to show bare twio;s, and the foliage

below was filled with masses of chippings,

looking like brown saw-dust. The pods

were not more than three eighths of an '^'

inch long, of a conical shape and green color, and were

often borne vertically above the body of the insect, like a

shell on the back of a snail. Within a week, the insects

began to appear plentifully near the lower part of the tree,

and I thouo-ht it hio;h time to diminish their numbers, and

began killing all I could reach from the ground. Some of the

insects were carried, apparently by the wind, to neighboring

trees, and some were found on an apple tree above a hundred

feet from the Arbor vitae. All the stragglers that could be

found were promptly killed, and I set my little son at Avork on

244

a ladder to catch all that he could reach on the Arbor vitfe,
but this did not much reduce their numbers, for in the early
part of Aufjust, the whole tree was alive with them, and I had
to give an hour or two every fair day to killing them ; but, as
this could be done only by crushing their pods singly with the
thumb and finger, it was slow and tedious work. On the sixth
of Auo'u'st I left home for an excursion to Maine and the White
Mountains. Before leaving; home, I charged the bovs to kill all
the drop-worms they could find on the upper half of the tree.
Upon my return on the seventeenth, I found they had done as
directed ; but the tree at the top, for the distance of six feet
downwards, was now entirelv bare of leaves, and the foliao-e be-
low was becoming very thin. There must have been millions
of the drop- worms on the tree, it seemed to me, to have done all
the damage, for the insects were still very small, fcAv of their
pods being more than three fourths of an inch long. I have
continued killing the insects, and still have many left ; but
owing to the rains, or the cool weather, or both, they have
not grown fast, and only one pod has been seen of full size,
and probably the greater part will be arrested by the frost
and by cold weather before they have come to their growth.

I have a single specimen of a moth which I supj^ose to have
come from a saddle-worm. The head, thorax and fore winofs
are pea-green, the latter Avith a triangular spot on the middle
of the front margin, and with the broad outer edge brown
or nankin color, as are the abdomen, hind wings and short,
pectinated antennge. The specimen is a male.

The Limacodes that you have sketched in your last letter is
the pithecium. Though generally very rare here, it has
occasionally been seen in considerable numbers. One of my
agricultural friends told me of a swarm of these which once
appeared on a cherry tree, and nearly stripped it of leaves.
It is very singular that this larva casts off s])ontaneously the
long, flattened and velvet-like projections on the sides of its

245

body before making, and frequently uses them in the con-
struction of, its cocoon.

On the Lilac and on Prinos verticillata you may find another
very extraordinary caterpillar, whitish in the middle, brownish
at each end, sparingly clothed with a few hairs, having a big
hump on the top of the eleventh segment, and resting in an
oddly crooked attitude, or wdien disturbed wagging its head
violently from side to side. This creature grows to the length
of one and one fourth inches, or more. Before cold weather it
eats a burrow in the side of a dried branch, and retires within
it, where it remains unchanged all winter, and sometimes for
more than a whole year. Ordinarily, however, it transforms
to a beautiful six-spotted moth in June, This moth comes
near to the ge