IS FOSSIL BUTTERFLIES. 



enem Hinterrancl gefunden wird; was von diesem erhaltcn 1st, spricht aber auch 

 melir fur die Hedonia als die Diana. 



Edwards, in his beautiful work on American Butterflies, refers to this insect 

 in his description of Argynnis Diana 1 and reproduces, from Ly ell's Elements of 

 Geology, Heer's figure of the insect. He remarks: "It is called Vanessa Pluto 

 in the text, but is plainly an Argynnis." 



Butler, when cataloguing the same insect, remarks : 2 - 



It is quite possible, as Mr. Edwards suggests, that the so-called " Vanessa 

 Pluto' 1 '' may be the ancestor of P. Diana, though in the narrower banding of its 

 wings, with but one row of snbmarginal spots, it more nearly resembles some of 

 the East Indian forms of Junonia Hedonia: the two genera to which these species 

 belong agree in many respects, and are perhaps nearly allied. 



Later, he figures the fossil and refers it doubtfully to Junonia, appending the 

 following remarks: 3 



I have noticed this species at p. 109 of my catalogue of Fabrician Diurnal 

 Lepidoptera; Mr. "W. H. Edwards of ~VV. Virginia having decided in his Butter- 

 flies of !N". America that it is unquestionably an Argynnis allied to A. Diana, 

 notwithstanding the important discrepancies which Heer points out [128]. That 

 it may bear some distant relationship to A. Diana is quite possible, but that it is 

 "plainly an Argynnis" is quite another thing; to my mind it is plainly a Vanessid, 

 probably a Junonia near to J. Hedonia, and I think some points in Heer's descrip- 

 tion (of which Mr. Edwards takes no notice) are very important, as evidencing 

 its near relationship to J. Hedonia rather than to A. Diana [here he quotes Heer's 

 description of the submarginal spots]. 



The ocelli are well shown in Heer's figure, but in the woodcuts by Lyell and 

 Edwards, which have in other respects been made much darker than the original, 

 the indication of the lower edge of the ocelli has been omitted altogether, and, 

 consequently, the resemblance to the species of Junonia is rendered less evident. 

 I think it just possible, from the great resemblance which V. Attavina of Heer 

 bears to the under surface of J. Hedonia, that it is the reverse of J. Pinto. 



This species is very simple in its markings (PI. II, fig. 17), the whole upper 

 surface, excepting a broad space next the outer border of the fore wings (the 

 equivalent part of the hind wings is not preserved) being of an uniform dusky 

 tint; a broad belt of a lighter shade margins the (fore) wings, growing less 



1 Butt. N. Amer., i, Argynnis, I. 3 I.ep. Exot.., i, xv, 127-28, PI. If, fig. 7; Ueul. Mag., x, 3-4, 



2 Cat. Fabr. Lep., 109. ri. 1, fig. 7. 



