70 Journal New York Entomological Society. [Voi. vii. ga/opyge differs from the Anthroceridse and Pyromorphidae only in the addition of the menabranous pads to the ordinary feet. We have only to imaging the loss of the crochets and the extension of the pads till they touch each other, to give essentially the Eucleid structure.* NOTE ON TWO HYDRGECIA LARVAE. plate ii, figs. 4-6. By Harrison G. Dyar. Mr. H. Bird has recently presented to the National Museum larvai of Hydnvcia uitela and H. piirpm-ifascia. A remarkable difference is seen between them in the ])osition of one tubercle on the seventh abdom-inal segment. The general rule in the Noctuidseis to have tubercle iv on the seventh segment low down near tubercle v, and this position is seen in H. nitela (Plate II, Fig. 5) In H. purpurijascia, however, this tubercle has been moved upward to the upper corner of the spiracle as on the other segments (Plate II, Fig. 4). The Hydroecia larvae are borers, and it is apparently requisite that such larvae should protect the extremities and surround the spiracles by corneous shields. For this purpose all the tubercles are large and distinct, even the ordinarily ob-scure tubercle iiia is plainly seen before the spiracle (compare the other-wise generalized Hypena hicmuli (Plate II, Fig. 6), which does not show iiia). On most of the segments tubercle iv behind the spiracle, iii above it, iiia before and v below form sufficient protection ; but on the seventh abdominal segment there is a lack of protection behind, ap-parently in a place where it is most needed. It would appear that the two Hydrxcia larvae before me have independently attempted to cor-rect this defect, and owing to some inherent difference of organization, have used different means to this end. H. piirpi/ri/ascia has moved tubercle iv bodily upward into the place of greatest efficiency. H. nitela, on the other hand, has developed an additional small tubercle at the upper corner of the spiracle, which bears no seta. This little shield va-ries in size in different larvae, its character being still not firmly fixed in the species. It would be interesting to examine the other species of Hydroecia in this respect. *It is to be noted that there are no feet on the anal segment in the Eucleidse-The suckers are on the first eight abdominal segments, the first and last not so well developed as the others. These (/. e., on abdominal segments I and 8) are in excess of those present in AI'\s;alopyge , but their less degree of development favors the view of their recent acquisition.
BioStor
