THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 53 



and nearly always much larger in the imago, with differences in the shape 

 of each wing. (As is well shown in Butt. N. E., pi. 2, Arthemis fig. 5, 

 Ursula fig. 8.) 



8. All the species of Limenitis, at the east, have one style of flight, 

 and it is that which Mr. Scudder attributes particularly to Disippus (his 

 Archippus) : p. 277, "the flight is rather leisurely and sailing; it moves 

 irregularly from place to place." Of Arthemis, he says, p. 300, it has 

 "a rather short and rapid flight." Perhaps it has sometimes, but usually 

 it has the same leisurely flight as Disippus. Of Ursula, p. 287 : "Its 

 flight is similar to that of Disippus, but still more lofty and grand, more 

 leisurely and sweeping." Ursula is a very common species here at Coal- 

 burgh, and I can bear witness that there is nothing lofty or grand about 

 its mode of flight. It darts about from place to place, from the ground 

 to a leaf on tree, from tree to ground, haunts one locality, and once seen 

 may be seen there regularly for days ; feeds on excrement on the ground, 

 and lingers about the spots where that is to be found. A sustained 

 flight would be contrary to its observed habits. I should as soon expect 

 an Apatura butterfly to fly long distances as a Limenitis. The habits of 

 the two are very much alike. 



In the argument to prove Proserpina to be a hybrid between Ursula 

 and Arthemis, instead of a dimorphic form only of Arthemis, Mr. 

 Scudder says : — '■'■ Proserpina occurs- only in a very narrow belt across 

 the eastern third of the continent, a belt which forms the southern 

 boundary of the range of Arthemis and the northern of Ursula. It is 

 known at so many points in this belt, that it presumably occurs wherever 

 Arthemis and Ursula are brought into contact." I'hat this is an unwar- 

 rantable assumption follows from what I have before stated. " There are 

 but two arguments used to prove the improbability of such a relationship 

 as is here urged : i. To assert that Proserpina has been fou?id where it 

 is probable that Ursula does not occur within at least an easy day' s flight ; 

 a distance of a few miies is of no account whatever." Is it not? Are we 

 to suppose that Ursula, male, of the Hudson River Valley, is so seized 

 with a longing for Arthemis female, of Stony Clove, as to transform him 

 from a short and leisurely flyer into one "lofty and grand," to whom 

 " the distance of a few miles is of no account whatever," and cause him 

 to desert his own females and scale mountain ranges for other females 

 whom he has never seen nor heard of, and of whom there cannot be 

 a hereditary reminiscence ? Or do the Arthemis females attract the 



