The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Canadian Entomologist, Vol. XII., No. 2, February 1880
    
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The Canadian Entomologist, Vol. XII., No. 2, February 1880

Author: Various

Editor: William Saunders

Release date: October 30, 2018 [eBook #58210]

Language: English

Credits: Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
        http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
        generously made available by The Internet Archive)


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST, VOL. XII., NO. 2, FEBRUARY 1880 ***




Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive)










                       The Canadian Entomologist.

         VOL. XII.    LONDON, ONT., FEBRUARY, 1880.     No. 2




ON CERTAIN SPECIES OF SATYRUS.

BY W. H. EDWARDS, COALBURGH, W. VA.


1. NEPHELE.—Kirby, Faun. Bor. Amer., 1837, described this species as
follows: “Wings brown; primaries both above and below with a paler
submarginal broad band including two eyelets; the upper ones surrounded
by a paler atmosphere, with a black iris and white pupil; on the under
side the atmosphere of the eyelets is most distinct and forms a kind of
glory round them,” etc. Nothing is said of the sex, but apparently this
is the description of a female. The wings of the male are blackish-brown,
usually of uniform shade throughout—that is, in the typical male,
corresponding to the female of Kirby. But there is a frequent departure
from this type in the direction of _Alope_, the “pale atmosphere” about
the ocelli appearing in the male, and in both sexes gradually widening
and becoming less obscure till it culminates in a clear yellow band. When
this is reached we have _Alope_, Fabr. So that _Nephele_ intergrades
completely with _Alope_. But this is not everywhere and always. The
metropolis of the typical _Nephele_ is in Canada and northern New
England, that of _Alope_ in the States south of New York. There is a line
running about with the southern boundary of New York, or it may be, in
Pennsylvania, below which _Alope_ holds sole possession, and no tendency
is discoverable towards _Nephele_. In the extreme northern area, if there
is any departure from typical _Nephele_, it is the exception, not the
rule.

Mr. Scudder, in his essay on The Distribution of Insects in New
Hampshire, 1874, says of _Alope_: “This insect is tolerably abundant,
sometimes very common, in the southern half of New England. The most
northern localities … are Norway, Me., Thornton and Shelburne, N. H.,
and Sudbury, Vt.” Thornton is just south of the White Mountains, and
Shelburne is close by the mountains on the north-east. Of _Nephele_
he says: “It is found over the whole northern half of N. E. in
great abundance. The only locality in which I have met with it is
in Massachusetts, in the elevated region about Williamstown,” &c.
This place is in the north-west corner of the State, next the Vermont
line, and the elevated region spoken of is a continuation of the Green
Mountains. So it appears that _Nephele_ comes down to the Massachusetts
line and _Alope_ flies as far as the White Mountains. In the intervening
district the intergrades fly just as in New York.

I made application to Canadian lepidopterists for information about the
occurrence of _Alope_, and soon ascertained by examples sent me that
_Nephele_ with a pale atmosphere, but not at all indicative of a band,
passed by the name of _Alope_. Thereupon I sent a typical _Alope_ to Mr.
William Murray, of Hamilton, who kindly offered to make inquiry of his
acquaintances in different sections of Ontario. He replies, 31st Dec,
1879: “I now send you my information. Of all my correspondents not one
has ever seen an _Alope_ that has been taken in Canada, but _Nephele_ has
been taken by all. I begin to think that _Alope_ is not to be found in
Canada at any point.”

Mr. H. H. Lyman writes from Montreal: “In July, 1876, I spent a couple
of days at a farm near Freligsburg. P. Q., one mile north of the Vermont
border, and found _Nephele_ very common. Most of the specimens taken
showed a yellow ring about the eye-spots on primaries, but one of them
shows on upper side a somewhat faint, but quite discernible, patch
corresponding to the yellow band of _Alope_. Was at same place in 1877.
_Alope_ was not seen either year.” Mr. Caulfield writes Mr. Lyman: “I
have never taken a specimen of _Nephele_ showing any tendency towards
_Alope_, nor have I seen any Canadian examples showing it.” Mr. Lyman
adds that at Portland, Maine, where he collected several summers, _Alope_
was common as well as _Nephele_ and all intergrades.

(To the west of New York, in the latitude of the belt spoken of, it is
believed that the two forms fly together at least as far as Wisconsin.
Prof. A. J. Cook writes that both are common in Michigan, south of
the latitude of Grand Rapids. At Toledo, Mr. John Wilson writes that
_Nephele_ is rare, and _Alope_ unknown, so far as appears. At Cleveland,
O., Dr. J. F. Isom informs me that _Alope_ is very rare, but that
_Nephele_ is abundant in some seasons. In south-west Ohio, Dr. H. K.
Landis, of Columbus, writes that he cannot learn that either form has
ever been taken. They are not mentioned in Mr. Dury’s list of butterflies
found about Cincinnati. But in northern Illinois _Nephele_ is abundant
and _Alope_ not found at all. So that somewhere between New York and
Illinois, in Ohio and Indiana, _Alope_ seems to disappear, while
_Nephele_ becomes the sole form; but whether the separation is abrupt
or gradual is not ascertained. As the information which I have been able
to gather is so meagre as regards the States west of New York. I shall
confine my remarks to that State and New England.[1])

We have therefore in these separated districts two apparently good
species, answering to any definition of that name. But between, there is
a belt of latitude passing through New York and southern New England,
where in one section or other both types are found and the whole series
of intergrades. In this belt _Alope_ and _Nephele_ are found to be
dimorphic forms of one and the same species. I formerly was of the
opinion that they were distinct species, though in some districts there
were intergrades. I thought these approaches of one to the other did
not bridge the whole space between. In a paper printed in Proc. Ent.
Soc. Phil, 1866, I gave my reasons therefor. But some observations
made in July, 1876, at Martha’s Vineyard, led me to suspect a closer
relationship between the two species or forms. In the open country back
of Oak Bluffs, I found these butterflies fresh from chrysalis, and in
considerable numbers. They were all very black, diminutive, and there was
every grade from what I had been in the habit of calling _Nephele_ to
unquestionable _Alope_, with a broad clear-colored band. The band was not
yellow, however, as in the typical _Alope_, but reddish-yellow like that
of _Pegala_, which Fabricius called _rufa_ in distinction from _flava_,
applied to _Alope_. Mr. Scudder took the same small reddish-banded form
on Nantucket, which island is about 30 miles from the mainland, Martha’s
Vineyard being about 7. I call this variety _Maritima_, but whether it
is restricted to the islands, or appears on the adjacent coast, I am not
yet advised. Mr. Mead obtained for me a large number of eggs of this
butterfly, while at the Bluffs shortly after my departure. They were laid
by the broad-banded females in confinement and mailed to Coalburgh. There
the larvæ hatched out, and these as well as the eggs were found to be
precisely like the same stages of _Nephele_ from Catskills. But none of
the larvæ survived the winter.

In the belt spoken of, _Nephele_ rather keeps to the highlands. It is the
prevailing form in the Catskills, if with it are classed the intergrades,
but full-banded _Alope_ may be taken in small numbers every season.
Along the Hudson River, _Alope_ is the common form, but I have received
intergrades very near to _Nephele_ from Mr. Hulst, taken at Hoboken, N.
J.; and a black _Nephele_ ♂ from Mr. H. Laitloff, which he writes me
was taken some five years since near Greenville, Jersey City. It was so
unusual a form that Mr. Laitloff sent it to me for name. At Coalburgh,
W. Va., _Nephele_ is never seen, but _Alope_ is the only form; and so on
southward.

2.—_Alope_ was described by Fabricius, Ent. Syst., 1793, as fuscous
(_fusca_) with a yellow (_flava_) band; with two ocelli on fore wings;
on hind wing one ocellus above, six below. The band is very broad in the
female, usually narrower in the male, pale yellow in both sexes. The
ocelli resemble those of _Nephele_ and vary in same manner. Usually they
are round, but sometimes oval; are either small or large, often equal,
but sometimes the upper is larger, at others the lower. Now and then a
third pupilled ocellus appears, and individuals have been taken with
but one ocellus (the upper). It is not very unusual to find examples in
which a black point, or what may be considered as a rudimentary ocellus,
presents itself. On the upper side of hind wing is often a small but
complete ocellus near inner angle, but in many cases it is partly or
wholly wanting; and occasionally there are one or two black spots in
addition. The males in the majority of examples have six small ocelli on
the under side of the hind wings; the females rarely have six, and often
none at all. At the north, _Alope_ is blackish-brown, more brown in the
female; but to the southward brown prevails in both sexes; and it is of
a lighter shade, while the under side has a tint of yellow more or less
decided over whole surface, often mixed with gray. The band is of yellow,
or with a slight ochrey tint. This is a description of the extreme
southern type, and to distinguish I call it var. _Texana_. All examples
from Texas which I have seen have a complete anal ocellus, and six ocelli
beneath, of pretty large size—larger than in northern _Alope_—in distinct
ochrey rings; the pupils white points with a few blue scales about them
in the larger ocelli. Of 70 _Nephele_ ♂ examined, 50 have 6 ocelli, 11
have 5, 3 have 4, 3 have 3, 2 have 1, 1 has 0.

Of 55 _Nephele_ ♀, 6 have 6, 1 has 5, 4 have 4, 13 have 3, 7 have 2, 13
have 1, 11 have 0.

Of 24 _Alope_ ♂, 15 have 6 ocelli, 3 have 5, 4 have 1, 2 have 0.

Of 25 _Alope_ ♀, 12 have 6, 1 has 4, 4 have 2, 4 have 1, 4 have 0.

Therefore of _Nephele_ ♂, 71 per cent. have 6 ocelli, 4 per cent. have
under 3; 1.4 per cent. have 0.

Of _Nephele_ ♀, 11 per cent. have 6, 56 per cent. have under 3, 20 per
cent. have 0.

Of _Alope_ ♂, 62 per cent. have 6 ocelli, 25 per cent. under 3, 8 per
cent. 0.

Of _Alope_ ♀, 24 per cent. have 6, 48 per cent. have under 3, 16 per
cent. have 0.

3.—The dark Satyrus which inhabits Illinois and westward has gone by
the name of _Nephele_, though differing somewhat from _Nephele_ of the
east. I was struck by the difference between a series sent me by the
late Mr. Walsh from Galena, years ago and when I first began collecting
butterflies, and a series of _Nephele_ taken in the Catskills, and I have
always kept the two apart in my cases, considering the Illinois form as
at least a well marked variety. Mr. Worthington has recently written me:
“I have received a lot of _Nephele_ from New Hampshire and am surprised
at the difference between them and the Illinois _Nephele_.”

The males of this last are almost black, the ocelli are very small and
without rings. But in some examples there is a faint russet or yellowish
tint about the ocelli, and perhaps on the space between them. On the
under side the rings are russet or ochraceous, on both wings. The females
are almost invariably and uniformly dark, and only occasionally is there
a paler shade over the extra discal area of fore wings. Out of a number
of females I find but one in which there is a clouded yellow space about
the ocelli, and only three on which there are yellow, though hazy,
ocellar rings. Of 16 ♂, 14 have 6 small ocelli beneath, 1 has 5, 1 has 2.
Of 19 ♀, 2 have 6, 2 have 5, 6 have 4, 2 have 3, 6 have 2, 1 has 1. This
form prevails exclusively to the Rocky Mountains. I have received it from
Nebraska, Montana, Colorado and New Mexico, but _Alope_ is unknown to me
from that region.

In CAN. ENT., ix., 141, 1877, I gave the history of _Nephele_, bred from
eggs laid by a typical female from the Catskill Mountains, Hunter, N.
Y. In fall of 1878, I wrote to several correspondents for eggs, and by
their good will obtained many. Prof. Lintner and Dr. Bailey sent eggs of
_Alope_ from Albany, N. Y. Rev. Mr. Hulst, with the zeal and kindness
which distinguishes him, crossed the rivers from Brooklyn to Hoboken,
and brought away females of _Alope_, from which he obtained eggs for
me. I got _Alope_ eggs here at Coalburgh from three females. A friend
at Hunter sent eggs of _Nephele_, and Mr. Worthington sent many of the
Illinois form from Chicago. In each case the parent was sent with the
eggs that the type might be noted. From Albany, Hoboken is 150 miles
south; Coalburgh 800 miles southwest; Hunter is 35 miles southwest of
Albany and of about 2,000 feet greater elevation. Chicago is about 800
miles northwest of Coalburgh and 1,000 west of Albany. So that the
five localities are separated by considerable distances, and there has
probably been no intercommunication at any time so far as these insects
are concerned.

The eggs of the six lots were kept apart and as the larvæ hatched (at
from 14 to 28 days from deposition, depending on the temperature), they
were placed on sods in separate pots and left in the coolest room in my
house. But some of the Illinois eggs were sent to Mr. C. P. Whitney,
at Milford, N. H., who offered to put them on ice. I wished to try the
effect of cold in retarding the hatching. Early in February I received
the boxes again and found a number of healthy larvæ, with a few unbroken
eggs. These last proved to be dead. The eggs had been sent in a paper
pill box which was within a flat tin box, and this was set directly on
the ice. The young larvæ when I received them were fixed to the rough
sides of their box and had not been attacked by mould, the enemy most to
be dreaded. Mr. Whitney wrote that he was notified in December that the
ice-house was empty, and he thereupon removed the tin box without opening
it, and placed it in a snow bank, where it remained till I sent for it.
The larvæ may have been emerging from the eggs when he first received
them, or perhaps did so in the interval between ice-house and snow. This
method of keeping larvæ which become lethargic immediately upon leaving
the egg will probably be found successful with all species of butterflies
which have that habit—as the large Argynnids—and make it possible to
breed them in numbers. I have been unable to find any other mode of
wintering such larvæ without a certain loss of most of them.

On 23rd Jan., 1879, I transferred such of the Satyrid larvæ as were
living (and this included some of each lot) to fresh sods, and 28th Jan.
noticed that several were feeding. One Hunter _Nephele_ passed 1st moult
23rd Feb’y, and before 4th March several of the same lot had passed the
moult. But the Illinois _Nephele_ and all _Alope_ lingered. One Coalburgh
_Alope_ and one from Hoboken passed 1st moult 7th March, by which date
the Hunter _Nephele_ spoken of was swollen for 2nd moult, which it passed
two days later. Two Illinois _Nephele_ passed 1st moult 8th March. To the
end some of the Hunter _Nephele_ were in advance of all, and some of the
Illinois examples lingered behind all. The stages of Coalburgh _Alope_
were as follows:

    1st moult passed 7th March.
    2nd   ”     ”   21st   ”         1st to 2nd—14 days.
    3rd   ”     ”   14th April.      2nd to 3rd—24  ”
    4th   ”     ”    2nd May.        3rd to 4th—18  ”
    In chrysalis    26th   ”      4th to chrys.—24  ”
    Imago issued     9th June.    chr. to imago—14  ”

Of Hunter _Nephele_ I find no notes, but in 1877 the stages were

    1st moult     to 2nd—23 days.
    2nd   ”       to 3rd—14  ”
    3rd   ”       to 4th—14  ”
    4th   ”    to chrys.—28  ”
    Chrys.      to imago—14  ”

Of Illinois _Nephele_ the stages were:

    1st moult passed 8th March.
    2nd   ”     ”    21st  ”        1st to 2nd—13 days.
    3rd   ”     ”    9th April.     2nd to 3rd—19  ”
    4th   ”     ”    26th  ”        3rd to 4th—17  ”
    In chrysalis     17th May.    4th to chry.—21  ”
    Imago issued     30th  ”      chry. to im.—13  ”

The eggs of all these forms are alike, not to be distinguished from each
other. They are conoidal, truncated at top and slightly arched; marked
by about 18 vertical ridges running from base to top, the spaces between
excavated roundly, and crossed by fine striæ; the top is covered with
shallow cells, the outer ones irregularly hexagonal, the inner long and
narrow about a central oval cell.

Nor can the larvæ of these forms be distinguished from each other up to
second moult. The young, of first stage, are very peculiar and quite
unlike what they become after first moult, as well as unlike all other
Satyrid larvæ which I have bred. Under the microscope they look like the
vertebræ of a fish, by reason of the many rows of long hooked bristles,
those of upper and lower rows being curved back, the middle row forward.
General color carnation, with a medio-dorsal line, and three lines on
each side, all of crimson. After 1st moult the color is green, and the
stripes, which are the same in number and position as the lines of first
stage, are dark green; the hairs short and straight.

After 2nd moult the color becomes yellow-green and the stripes are
changed. There is now a dark green one on middle of dorsum and a yellow
one covering the ridge over the feet. On 24th March, I compared Hoboken
_Alope_, Hunter and Illinois _Nephele_, of same age, all lately past
second moult, and could see no difference whatever between them. Some
_Alope_ and Hunter _Nephele_ were much covered with long hairs which were
bent to the surface and gave them quite a shaggy appearance. But others
did not show this peculiarity.

On 18th April, I compared Coalburgh _Alope_ and _Nephele_ from both
localities, all past 3rd moult; length from .68 to .75 inch. All were
yellow-green and in general alike; all had the yellow basal ridge, but
in addition to this, the Illinois _Nephele_ had a distinct longitudinal
yellow stripe on upper part of side, and on either edge of the green
dorsal stripe was a fine yellow line. The Hunter _Nephele_ showed very
faint traces of the yellow side stripe; the _Alope_ none at all.

Comparing another Coalburgh _Alope_ and Hunter _Nephele_ a few days
later, both past 3rd moult, neither showed traces of these lines and I
could see no difference between the two.

At 4th moult all the Illinois _Nephele_, now .7 inch long, showed
same peculiarities as at last stage. No other larva of the several
lots presented the yellow lines so plainly at the same age, that is,
just after the moult; but there were one or more _Alope_ and Hunter
_Nephele_ which gave indications of the side line, and this came out more
distinctly as the stage progressed. But most were without the side line.

Comparing mature larvæ:

  One Albany _Alope_, length 1.25 inch, greatest breadth .16
      inch; color very yellow-green, no yellow side or dorsal
      stripes or lines.

  One Coalburgh _Alope_, length 1.6, gr. br. .2 inch; color
      yellow-green, the side more green than dorsum; a yellow
      side line, quite indistinct.

  Hunter _Nephele_, 3 examples; length of one 1.2 inch, gr.
      br. .15 inch; of another 1.15, br. .16 inch. Two were
      yellow-green, of same shade as nearly all the Coalburgh
      larvæ. One was more decidedly yellow, with less green;
      but in none was there a yellow side stripe or the fine
      dorsal lines.

  Illinois _Nephele_, length 1.36, gr. br. .14 inch. Color bright
      yellow-green, the dorsum more yellow than side; on the side
      as broad a yellow stripe as the one along basal ridge, and
      the green dorsal stripe edged by yellow.


Summary as to larvæ:

The five lots could not be separated before 2nd moult. After that,
through the stages to maturity, the _Alope_ from different localities
and the Hunter _Nephele_ varied somewhat in the shade of green, being
more or less yellow; in some yellow prevailing on dorsum, green on sides;
all had the yellow band on basal ridge, either pale or deep colored.
If the yellow side line was present, as in some examples it was, it
was indistinct, or obsolescent. They varied also in the hairy surface,
some having the hairs short and upright, others long and bent down. The
Hunter _Nephele_ could not be distinguished from _Alope_ by any permanent
character.

The Illinois larvæ were deep yellow-green after second moult, and the
side stripe was always present and distinct. The hairs were never long
and bent. The larvæ were distinguishable from all the others.


Comparing chrysalids:

One Albany _Alope_, A; length .56 inch, greatest breadth .21 inch; color
deep green, covered with smooth specks and patches of a lighter color,
but which scarcely affect the general green hue; top of head case, ridge
of mesonotum and ventral edges of wing cases cream color. This was the
only one I obtained, and it produced a male butterfly.

One Hoboken _Alope_, same size and color, and produced a male.

One Hunter _Nephele_, length .6, br. .2 inch; was precisely like the
Albany _Alope_ in appearance, and produced a male.

Another Hoboken _Alope_; color yellow-green, and on the dorsum were three
longitudinal yellow bands, one on middle of abdomen, ending at base of
mesonotum, the others sub-dorsal, extending from last segment to head.
This died before imago.

One Coalburgh _Alope_; length .8, br. .24 inch; bright yellow-green,
covered with the lighter specks and patches, but not so as to obscure
the ground; the wing cases clouded with darker green in long stripes;
the three yellow dorsal bands as in the _Alope_ last mentioned; edges
of head, wing cases and mesonotum cream color. This produced a female
butterfly, with broad yellow band and like the parent.

Another Coalburgh _Alope_, length .6, br. .22 inch; like the foregoing,
being both banded and clouded. Produced a female butterfly, with broad
yellow band.

One Hunter _Nephele_, B; color yellow-green, bands and clouding of wings
present but indistinct. Produced a female.

Three Hunter _Nephele_; all yellow-green, with no bands or clouding; the
edgings cream color. These all gave males. The chrysalis described CAN.
ENT., ix., 143, produced a female, but showed no band or clouds; the
edgings cream color.

Two Illinois examples; length .6, br. .22 inch; color a pale blue-green,
the powdery covering giving a whitish hue to the whole; no bands or
clouds; the edges of mesonotum, head and wing cases white. Both these
gave males. I obtained no females from this lot.


Summary as to chrysalids:

The largest _Alope_ and Hunter _Nephele_ were alike in color and in
dorsal stripes, clouds on wings, and edgings of head case, etc.; but
the bands and clouds were most distinct in _Alope_. All these large
chrysalids produced female butterflies. The plainer and smaller
chrysalids were male. But one female _Nephele_ chrysalis is recorded as
without clouds or bands.

The Illinois chrysalids were of same shape as the rest, but were small
and plain colored, and were blue or whitish-green; the edgings white
instead of cream color. They were readily to be distinguished from any
other.


Results in butterflies:

The chrysalis A, Albany _Alope_, gave a male not differing from many
males taken at Hunter, and which there I always regarded as true
_Nephele_, though off type, being without band, but with a narrow yellow
nimbus about the ocelli and connecting them, the edges everywhere fading
into the black ground.

On the other hand, the chrysalis B, Hunter _Nephele_, gave a typical
female _Alope_, with a broad and clear yellow band. The female which
emerged in 1877 from the Hunter _Nephele_ before spoken of had both
ocelli surrounded and connected by yellow, and stood midway between the
types of the two forms.

The two chrysalids from Illinois, as I have said, gave males; one wholly
dark, the irides without rings; the other had a faint russet nimbus about
them, and over the intervening space was a tint of russet.

The Coalburgh chrysalids produced typical _Alope_, with broad yellow
bands, and like the females which laid the eggs. Therefore outside the
belt of dimorphism _Alope_ produced _Alope_, but inside the belt _Alope_
produced _Nephele_ and _Nephele_ produced _Alope_.


In conclusion:

In Canada the typical _Nephele_ is the only form representing the genus
Satyrus, except that possibly in some localities _Alope_ or intergrades
may appear; but if so, it is only occasionally. In New York and part
of New England a belt of latitude is passed where in one section or
other both these forms fly, besides an endless variety of intergrades.
Finally, _Alope_ emerges in the south from this belt as the only form,
and inhabits a broad zone, which ends about with the southern line of
North Carolina and of Tennessee, but at the southwest flies in parts of
Texas, and has become slightly modified when compared with the _Alope_
of the middle States. And to the west, somewhere between New York and
Illinois, _Alope_ disappears, and a slightly changed form of _Nephele_
presents itself, and occupies the country to and on the eastern slopes of
the Rocky Mountains. In some cases this cannot be distinguished from the
typical _Nephele_, but as a whole, it has taken a departure, and has come
to have differences in its larva and chrysalis. I call this form variety
_Olympus_ (after the companion of the satyr Marsyas when the latter had
his little difficulty with Apollo).

The relationship between _Alope_ and _Nephele_ is in good degree
paralleled by L. _Arthemis_ and _Proserpina_, the first of which occupies
the northern half of the Continent, but is dimorphic with the other in a
belt of latitude which passes through the northern States from Maine to
Wisconsin. _Proserpina_ emerges from this belt on the south, and grades
imperceptibly into _Ursula_, which last changes gradually till it has
acquired a type, in Arizona, as different from that in which it manifests
itself in Pennsylvania as the Texan _Alope_ is from _Alope_ of New York.
This belt is nearly coterminous on both north and south with the belt of
dimorphism in the Satyrids. It is worthy of note also that the dimorphism
of P. _Turnus_ begins inside this belt.

In this last-named species it has been supposed that the melanic form
(confined to the female, _Glaucus_) first originated by accident, and was
afterwards perpetuated and obtained an advantage over the yellow form,
and finally in good degree supplanted it throughout its southern area,
and that the existence of enemies had much to do with the suppression
of one form, while their absence favored the other. What influence
has gradually transmuted _Alope_ into _Nephele_ it is difficult to
conjecture. It could not here be the presence or absence of enemies which
has affected one or other form. And if it is climatic, what can there be
in common between the climate of Canada and Illinois which encourages
_Nephele_ and extinguishes _Alope_?

In a second paper I shall speak of _Pegala_ and the Pacific species of
this genus.

[1] I shall be greatly obliged to any readers of this who will give me
information as to the occurrence of _Nephele_ or _Alope_ west of New
York. Two plates of Part IX Butterflies of North America will be devoted
to the illustration of these forms and varieties, and intergrades, and I
desire to make the history of the species as complete as possible in the
text.




ENTOMOLOGY FOR BEGINNERS.

BY JAMES FLETCHER, OTTAWA, ONT.


Entomology seems to be gradually throwing off the veil of contempt under
which it has been so long hidden. The Botanist has always to a certain
extent been deemed a philosopher from the important part plants play
in Pharmacy; the Geologist and Mineralogist, too, from the possibility
of their discovering precious metals have been treated by the outside
unscientific world as sages worthy of some respect. Entomologists,
however, have not thus been honored by the masses. The question would
be asked—What tangible results can come from collecting flies and bugs
and sticking pins through them? and in vain the amount of damage done by
insects year by year might be estimated and pointed out. This state of
affairs though I believe is now at an end. The claims of the science on
all agriculturists and horticulturists are daily becoming more apparent.
The institution of the United States Entomological Commission, and the
success that has attended that organization from the happy choice of such
men as Messrs. C. V. Riley and A. S. Packard as directors, has perhaps
done more than anything else to open people’s eyes to the fact that after
all there is something in Entomology. In Canada, too, much good work has
been done. In 1868 two Entomological magazines were started, our own
important organ, the CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST, in August, for Ontario; and
_Le Naturaliste Canadien_, edited by the Abbé Provancher, in December,
for Quebec; to these is chiefly due the progress the science has made in
Canada. The Editors of the CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST--Rev. C. J. S. Bethune
(1868-1873), and since that time our present esteemed Editor—have
always by their many charming and descriptive papers evinced a desire
to make the study of Entomology as fascinating and easy as possible for
beginners, while at the same time they have paid full respect to their
scientific readers. _Le Naturaliste Canadien_ is published in the French
language. It was commenced in December, 1868, from which time the Abbé
Provancher has fought bravely, and almost single-handed, against all
obstacles, striving by its means to create among the French Canadians
a love for the natural sciences, particularly Entomology. I am very
sorry to see by the December number that on account of the grant which
the Editor received from the Government having been discontinued, his
valuable work may possibly be stopped; this would be a great pity,
and every Entomologist ought to give a hand in helping him out of his
difficulty. The magazine has been of great value to the farmers of Lower
Canada, who in its pages have always received courteous answers on any
subjects in the many branches of natural history affecting agriculture.

In the eleven volumes of the ENTOMOLOGIST now published, or in the
Annual Reports of the Society, descriptions of nearly all the common
Canadian insects, and illustrations of many of them, will be found. I
would particularly call attention to a paper in the Annual Report of 1872
by Rev. C. J. S. Bethune, entitled “Beneficial Insects.” This gives an
outline sketch in a concise manner of the different divisions into which
insects are divided and the distinguishing points of each.

With the above mentioned volumes and Dr. Packard’s Guide to the Study of
Insects, a very complete knowledge of the rudiments of Entomology can be
obtained; the rest can only be learned by observation and experience in
the field. Undoubtedly the first and most important step of all is to
commence a collection. Study can only be carried on satisfactorily from
the actual specimens, which should be examined alive whenever possible
and full notes taken of any striking peculiarities observed; when
preparing specimens for the cabinet, the one idea which has to be borne
in mind, and upon which the whole value and beauty of the collection
depends, is that they may appear natural, and a knowledge of how to
effect this can only be attained by observing living specimens.

At the last annual meeting of the Society the importance of popularizing
Entomology was discussed, and the Editor of the ENTOMOLOGIST kindly
consented to give up some space every month entirely to popular
Entomology, for the benefit of beginners and others who are unable to
study the science systematically; this step it was considered might
materially increase the usefulness of our Society. It is proposed to have
short papers on individual species, which will be illustrated whenever
possible, and there will also be papers on the best modes of making and
preserving collections. The work will be considerably facilitated if
beginners will state any difficulties which they may encounter, for it is
only by their mentioning their difficulties that the Editor can know how
to assist them. Any questions which are of such a nature that they will
be likely to assist others in their studies will be answered through the
pages of the ENTOMOLOGIST when space admits.


THE CALOSOMAS OR CATERPILLAR-HUNTERS.

These insects belong to the Family called CARABIDÆ, which is a large
and difficult Family to study, or even to define and limit exactly. The
insects belonging to it are remarkable for their graceful forms, and at
the same time for their cruel and predaceous habits, both in the larval
and perfect states. It is this last trait which makes them such useful
auxiliaries to the horticulturist.

[Illustration: Fig. 4.]

The better known of the two represented here is called _Calosoma
calidum_, Fabr., (fig. 4) or “The Glowing Beautiful-bodied
Caterpillar-hunter.” As an exception to the general rule, its English
name is more formidable than the Latin; but so important a personage is
its bearer that I will not deprive him of a single letter of his title,
and indeed am almost tempted to add to it the words “most useful.” It
well merits its appellation, _Calosoma_ (_Kalos_ = beautiful, and _Soma_
= a body). Fig. 4 gives a life-size representation of it. The color of
the polished elytra or wing-covers is a deep blue-black, and the six
rows of dots with which they are adorned are of a fiery burnished red,
for which reason it has been called by the specific name of _calidum_.
The legs in our figure are too thick and clumsy, but it must be well
known to everyone. It may generally be found in early summer in damp
pastures, either hidden under stones or running in the grass in search
of caterpillars and other soft-bodied insects. Jaeger, who first called
the members of this genus caterpillar-hunters, says “they may be found
every morning and evening upon the branches of trees, looking out for
caterpillars and devouring them.” They do not, however, restrict
themselves to caterpillars, for they will attack and devour a perfect
June-bug when fresh from the pupa state and soft, with apparently the
same relish as their special dainty, a fat Cut-worm. In the larval state
they are equally rapacious; they lurk in holes in the ground or under
sticks and stones in the day-time, and only leave their retreats as night
draws on to go in search of prey. Every spring I have several of these
useful and luckily common beetles brought to me by kind friends who have
found them in their gardens. To the enquiry, “Is this of any use to you?”
I have always the answer ready, which somewhat surprises them: “No, but
it is of particular use to you; take it carefully back and put it in your
garden again; it is the best friend you have there, for it feeds entirely
upon your enemies, the Wire-worms, Cut-worms and White-worms.”

I am sure that through the agency of this beetle alone I have been able
to gain more respect for the science of Entomology among horticulturists
than from all the rest put together.

[Illustration: Fig. 5.]

Much resembling this beetle in shape, but of a very much more striking
appearance, is its near relative, _Calosoma scrutator_, Fabr., the
“Beautiful-bodied Searcher,” fig. 5. The color of its wing-covers is
bright metallic green, garnished with longitudinal lines and sparsely
punctured; round the margin runs an effective line of coppery-red. The
head, thorax and legs are almost black; the margin of the thorax having
a greenish tinge. The under side is of a deep burnished blue-green hue.
Its habits are the same as those of _C. calidum_, but it is a much rarer
insect. I have never seen a live specimen; but they are occasionally
found in Ontario, and dead specimens are said to be frequently washed up
on the outer shore of Toronto Island after a southerly gale.

       *       *       *       *       *

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY FOR THE YEAR 1879.—The Annual
Report of our Society for the past year is now nearly ready for issue.
Members may expect to receive their copies within a few days.




THREE NEW SPECIES OF BOTIS.

BY A. R. GROTE,

_Director of the Museum, Buffalo Society Natural Sciences_.


BOTIS OPPILALIS, n. sp.

♂ ♀ Allied to the _feudalis_, _s-linealis_ group. Pale ochrey, opaque,
powdered with deeper ochre and fuscous scales. Discal dots small,
indistinct, orbicular a solid point, reniform an open ring. Lines acutely
dentate. Outer line exserted opposite the cell, forming an inward tooth
at vein 2, and again another at vein 1, on primaries. On hind wings the
outer line runs evenly outward till over the median nervules, where it
approaches the margin, then running inwardly and straight across to
internal margin. This species wants the usual subcostal indentation of
the outer line on secondaries. A terminal ochre line. Thorax deep ochrey.
Beneath whitish; primaries shaded with ochrey superiorly; markings of
upper surface faintly repeated. Fringes concolorous or a little paler
than wings. _Expanse_ 28 mil. Two specimens, Mass.; one male sent me by
Prof. Peabody from Amherst, Mass.; Maine, Dr. Packard.


BOTIS OSCITALIS, n. s.

♂ ♀ Allied to the preceding, but both the discal marks are open. Opaque,
ochrey, but more dusty, or fuscous tinted. Lines in lunulated thick
scallops, not fine and dentate. Outer line forming three more exserted
scallops over median nervules, strongly drawn in below median vein, with
an outward projection below vein 2, else the lower part of the line is
tolerably even. Hind wings paler than primaries with the outer line
drawn in sub-costally and forming three exserted lunules over the median
nervules, thence running inwardly and more evenly and faintly to internal
margin. Fringes a little paler than the wing; terminal line obsolete.
Head and thorax like fore wings. Beneath paler, with the pale fuscous
markings repeated, slightly iridescent; body parts whitish. Labial palpi
dark above, whitish beneath. _Expanse_ 27 mil. Two specimens, Ohio, Mr.
Dury; Maine, Dr. Packard.


BOTIS DISSECTALIS, n. s.

Allied to _marculenta_. Of the same bright yellow, shading to ochreous
at base of primaries on costa and sides of the thorax in front.
Ornamentation sub-obsolete. This species wants the subterminal line
of _marculenta_. Instead there is a vague and broad darker shade only
visible with attention. The outer line is rounded outwardly over the
median nervules, as in _trimaculalis_. It is apparently disconnected
below vein 3, appearing again higher up below the open reniform
and describing an inward curve above vein 1. The orbicular dot is
imperceptible and the inner line very faint. Fringes faintly discolorous,
being pale fuscous, concolorous with the lines. Hind wings very pale
fuscous with a slight yellow cast. The line is continuous, squarely
projected over median nervules, very different from allied forms. A pale
terminal line before the pale fuscous fringes. Beneath largely washed
with fuscous, legs outwardly white. On primaries the marking of the upper
surface reappears relieved by pale interspaceal blotches; hind wings pale
fuscous, uniform, with the line repeated. Palpi white beneath, dark at
the sides. _Habitat_, Hamilton, Ontario, Mr. Moffat. The species seems a
little stouter bodied than _marculenta_, of about the same expanse.




CORRESPONDENCE.


SWARMING OF ARCHIPPUS.

DEAR SIR,—

The assembling of _D. archippus_ referred to in CAN. ENT. is perhaps not
so frequently noticed as their passing over localities in flocks. Several
years ago I saw them congregating in a bit of woods in the neighborhood
of the city which I was visiting at the time. At least every other day
they were hanging in a listless kind of manner to the underside of
branches in immense numbers, with their wings closed, and not noticeable
unless disturbed, very few being on the wing. Their favorite resting
place seemed to be dead pine twigs, which would be drooping with their
weight, and in more than one instance I saw one too many light and the
twig snap, and send a dozen or more into the air to seek for another
perch. In going to and from the woods I have seen several of them at
once coming from different directions, high in the air, sailing along in
their own easy and graceful way, all converging to the one spot. I did
not see them depart. I went one day and could not find one in the woods;
and as there were thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of them, it
would have been a fine sight to see them go. The following year they were
remarkably scarce and it was three years before they were even moderately
plenty.

                                         J. ALSTON MOFFAT, Hamilton, Ont.


SWARMING OF ARCHIPPUS.

DEAR SIR,—

I was surprised to learn from the letter of Mr. Edwards in your last
issue, that the flocking of _archippus_ is not a well known fact in
Entomology, and in view of this I venture to add a few facts in regard to
it which may be of interest.

[Illustration: Fig. 6.]

While spending the winter of 1875-76 in Apalachicola, Florida, I found
one of these _archippus_ swarms in a pine grove not far from the town.
The trees were literally festooned with butterflies within an area of
about an acre, and they were clustered so thickly that the trees seemed
to be covered with dead leaves; fig. 6 will enable the reader to form
some idea of their appearance thus grouped. Upon shaking some of the
trees a cloud of butterflies flew off, and the flapping of their wings
was distinctly audible. They hung in rows (often double) on the lower
dead branches, and in bunches on the needles. I find by my note book that
visiting the flock towards evening, it was receiving additions every
moment. I caught a net full off a bunch of dead needles, and, walking
away to some distance and letting them go, all but three returned to the
flock. The question as to where they came from seems a very interesting
one. I was told by Dr. A. W. Chapman that there was hardly Milkweed
enough in all Florida to produce one of these flocks, which doubtless
do not confine themselves to Apalachicola. During my visit I found two
more flocks not far from the first, but neither of these was as large. I
should mention that I often observed examples among them _in coitu_.

I have seen _archippus_ flocking at the Isles of Shoals, N. H., towards
evening, in very much the same manner, having flown nine miles from the
mainland. I have also seen clusters of _Vanessa J-album_ on tree trunks
at dusk in New Hampshire, which seemed to present a parallel to the
_archippus_ flocks, though of course on a very small scale.

                                           R. THAXTER, Newtonville, Mass.


DEAR SIR,—

Last summer I discovered, unfortunately too late, that a large _Cossus_
was working in some large and very old Oak trees near here. I hope
next June or July to find out what it is, as I shall construct nets to
envelop the tree trunks of several of these so infected Oaks. None of
my correspondents have been able to give me light on the subject; they
think it possible that this is a new species, and urge close observation,
advice which I hope to be able to follow.

I also purchased five large trees of a coarse variety of Poplar, known
here as Cottonwood, that were to be cut down, as they had commenced
dying, “caused by a _grub_ working in them.” I found it to be a _Cossus_
larva, but not as large as that working in the Oaks. Judging from a
comparison of the empty pupæ cases found in them, which in these Poplars
were very numerous, it is not the one described by Mr. Bailey in last
January number as “_Cossus centerensis_” but seems more like _Xystus
robiniæ_. I had three of the trees cut down in order to obtain the pupæ;
judge of my surprise and disappointment when my man came in, telling me
he could find _none_ but “lots of nasty _grubs_, of which he had given
the near chickens probably a hundred or more,” not thinking them valuable
to me. I sent him back with instructions to preserve every larva he could
find, and I now have about fifty in every stage of development from the
half-inch beet red, the nearly two-inch long pink, to the about two and a
half-inch long greenish-white larva. I have some in the wood in their own
burrows, and have put the rest in sawdust; and I have ordered him to cut
me pieces of that wood, bore some holes in the ends and put in the other
larvæ, and cork it in, leaving a few air-holes; with these I hope to
complete my observations in a warm room. I did not know before that these
hybernated in the larval state, much less did I think they would be found
of different moults.

                                             A. H. MUNDT, Fairbury, Ills.


MIGRATION OF BUTTERFLIES.

DEAR SIR,—

I have received the following notes on migration of certain butterflies
from Prof. J. E. Willet, of Macon, Ga., dated 19th Jan’y, 1880.

                                         W. H. EDWARDS, Coalburgh, W. Va.

“I saw Callidryas _Eubule_ passing here in great numbers during Sept.,
Oct. and Nov., 1878, from N. W. to S. E. About noon, when they were most
abundant, there would be half a dozen visible all the time, crossing a
15-acre square of the city. They pursued an undeviating course, flying
over and not around houses and other obstructions. They flew near the
ground, and stopped occasionally to sip at conspicuous flowers. A
geranium with scarlet flowers, and set in the open yard, attracted most
that flew near it. Papers in Southern Georgia noticed the great numbers
passing at different points; and a friend in Southern Alabama sent me
specimens of the same, saying that they were subjects of speculation
there. About March, 1879, there was a similar migration from S. E. to N.
W., but in diminished numbers. I saw the fall migrations again Oct. and
Nov., 1879, but in smaller numbers than in 1878. A lady of So. Georgia
told me that her husband called her attention to the fall migration 26
years ago, and that she had observed it every year since. C. _Eubule_ is
found here in small numbers at other seasons of the year.”


EARLY STAGES OF EPHEMERIDÆ.

The Rev. A. E. Eaton would like to communicate with anybody who would
supply him with examples in fluid of nymphs of some of the American
genera of Ephemeridæ. He would readily offer to pay a fair price for them
and would defray their carriage to England. All that would be required
would be five or six nearly full grown examples of one species per genus,
put up in narrow tubes or narrow cylindrical bottles (one tube for each
set), containing a solution of two parts of water to three of spirits
about 60 over proof, well corked and with the cork tied down. Some tissue
paper should be put into each tube with the specimens, to prevent the
solid contents moving about within the tube when its position is shifted,
care being taken not to compress the insects; and the tube should be
filled up as nearly as possible with the fluid, to the exclusion of air
bubbles. The tubes should be packed up with cotton, wool or tow, in a
box, so that they shall be kept upright during the voyage; and this
box should be packed into a stronger case with tow or hay or straw,
and forwarded to Mr. Eaton by express, or through the agency of some
bookseller, _not through the Post Office_. Address Rev. A. E. Eaton, 51
Park Road, Bromley, Kent, England.







*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST, VOL. XII., NO. 2, FEBRUARY 1880 ***


    

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.


START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

    This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
    other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
    whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
    of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
    at www.gutenberg.org. If you
    are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
    of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
  
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

    • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
        the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
        you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
        to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
        agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
        within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
        legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
        payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
        Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
        Literary Archive Foundation.”
    
    • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
        you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
        does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
        License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
        copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
        all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
        works.
    
    • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
        any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
        electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
        receipt of the work.
    
    • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
        distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
    

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.