TYPES AND SYNONYMY

Two papers in the last (April) number of the Canadian Entomologist are of great interest to me, and both on the same general topic applied to very different species. Mr. Lyman makes an earnest effort to save Mr. Walker's name Spilosoma congrua, and gives all the facts relating to the name, its publication and subsequent history; upon which facts Mr. Lyman and Sir George Hampson reach opposite conclusions. I have no liking for Mr. Walker's species, but I think I would side with Mr. Lyman in this case, because, with all the examples before them, Messrs. Grote and Robinson separated out a good species with which a specimen of another, previously knolwn, was erroneously associated. By removing one example, a good species remained, to which the name given by the author could be correctly applied.

NOTES ON WALKER'S TYPES OF SPILOSOMA CONGRUA, AND A FEW OTHER TYPES IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM

Having arranged for a two months trip to Europe during the past summer, I determined to visit the Natural History Branch oi the British Musenm, to endeavour to clear up the doubt surrounding Walker's spilosoma Congrua, taking with me a number of specimens of S. Antigone, Strecker; a pair of the heavily-spotted Gomin form of Spilosoma, which Dr. Fyles calls Cunea, lent to me by Mr. Winn; a typical female specimen of S. Prima, kindly given to me by Mrs. Slosson; and a small series of Hyphantria Cunea, Drury. I reached London late on the 26th June, but on the morning of the 29th received a cablegram which necessitated my immediate return home. After making my arrangements to sail from Liverpool on the 30th, I found I had a few hours to spare, and so paid a very hurried visit to the Museum, and was shown what was supposed to be the three types of Congrua by sir George Hampson, who kindly remained after the closing hour to accommodate me.

FURTHER OBSERVATIONS UPON BOMBYX CUNEA, DRURY, ETC.

To make my way clear I beg to state the objects I had in view in writing the article that appeared under my name in the number of the Canadian Entomologist for last May. They were these:I.—To establish the identity of the Spilosoma Antigone of Strecker with the Spilosoma congrua of Walker.II.—To show that Dr. Riley's series of wings in Fig. 87, Packard's Forest Insects, does not afford a proof conclusive that cunea, textor, punctata and punctatissima are one and the same species of insect.III.—To bring into notice a Spilosoma which answers to the figure given by Drury of his Bombyx cunea.

A CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION OF SPILOSOMA CONGRUA

I have found the discussion of the identity of Spilosoma congrua, originating with the article by Rev. Dr. Fyles, most interesting, and am tempted to record certain facts not in consonance with the published views of the gentlemen who have already written.Dr. Fyles appears to argue that cunea may be congrua. He tells us, speaking of textor, that there is one brood in his locality usually spotless and measuring 14 lines, and then states that “southward there is a second brood of textor noted for its variations, this being supposed to be the cunea of Drury.” He then refers to Prof. Riley's figures of cunea (Forest Insects, page 245), and declares that with his series of bred specimens of congrua he can match all of Prof. Riley's figures in maculation, and especially in size.

IN RE SPILOSOMA CONGRUA, WALK

In reference to the present controversy my testimony is as follows: I examined, in 1867, Mr. Walker's material. This represented a form unknows to me, undoubtedly a Spilosoma, not a species or form of Hyphantria. I was so struck with this that I drew up a description and carefully compared the palpi and antennæ. From these and the slightly larger size, I felt confident that it was a Spilosoma unknown to me at the time. The description is published in Trans. Am. Ent. Soc., 1868, but I have no copy, unfortunately, at this writing, of the paper. My memory is vivid that I compared it with Hyphantria cunca, and it was not that species nor any form of it. I conjectured even, at the time, that the material might be European with a wrong locality, so dissimilar was it from S. virginica or S. latipennis, the latter form being known to me from Stephen Calverley's collections from Long Island before, long before its description by Stretch.

BOMBYX CUNEA AND SPILOSOMA CONGRUA

The paper in the May number of The Canadian Entomologist on the above subject is very interesting, but does not, in my opinion, entirely conclude the subject. Dr. Fyles proves definitely a considerable range of variability in what he calls congrua, and what is without any doubt antigone, Strecker. It seems to be certain that there are two species having a very similar range of variation—the insect that we call the fall webworm in the larval stage, and the insect bred by Dr. Fyles. Of the variability of cunea there is no doubt. I had not been aware, heretofore, that antigone had anything like the same range.In the matter of determining what species Walker had before him a number of factors must be considered, as we have not available for ready examination the actual specimens described. In the first place there but three examples, apparently similar, for no variations are mentioned; but all from Georgia, and there is a very considerable range of variation in size; that is, from 16 to 20 lines, or one-third of an inch in a small species.

OBSERVATIONS UPON SPILOSOMA CONGRUA, WALKER

On the 29th of June, 1897, I found, in the Gomin Swamp, two Spilosomas, females, lying side by side. One of them was much spotted, and presented the exact appearance of the insect which is figured, with closed wings, in the original edition of Dru Drury's work, and named by him Bombyx cunea. The other was white, but on the median nerve, at the angle of the second fork, there was a small black dot, hardly perceptible. The thorax was clothed with light down; the abdomen was white and spotless. The eyes were black, as were also the under sides of the antennae and feet. The front of the thorax under the head was luteours.This second moth laid eggs on the 10th of July, and the eggs produced larvae which, in due time, pupated. The moths appeared in the following spring.