42 ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. [February, 



NOTES ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF RHOPALOCERA OF 



NEW HAMPSHIRE. 



By W. F. FISKE. 



The following notes are additions to those published in the 

 NEWS for October, 1896. Since those were written there has 

 passed two collecting seasons, one of which was spent in Web- 

 ster and the other in Durham. Webster is situated near the 

 center of the State a few miles west of Concord. Durham is 

 about fifty miles to the southeast, and is situated on an arm of 

 the sea. The difference in the insect fauna of the two localities 

 is great, considering their proximity, but may easily be explained 

 to a great extent by the difference in the snowfall between the two- 

 localities. In Durham, owing to its proximity to the sea, much 

 of the Winter precipitation, which falls in the form of snow in the 

 interior, takes the form of rain, thus depriving hibernating in- 

 sects of the necessary shelter. The following is a brief account 

 of some of the more noticeable differences. 



All the large species of Argynnis were comparatively scarce 

 in Durham. This is especially true of idalia. The small species 

 were not so much affected. Melitcsa phceton and M. harrisii 

 were about equally common in both localities, but P. nycteis, so 

 common in Webster, did not occur at all in Durham, and tharos 

 was more abundant in the latter place. Vanessa milberti, one 

 of the more common butterflies inland and known to occur there 

 in its usual numbers, was at the same time so rare in Durham 

 that not a single specimen was seen in the course of a season's 

 collecting. Lwienitis arthemis was only represented by one speci- 

 men in Durham, the place occupied by that species in Webster 

 being taken by ursula, which is rare, if not unknown there. The 

 form proserpina seems to be about equally common in both locali- 

 ties, but there is no dividing line between it and ursula. Satyrus 

 alope was very common in Durham, but there was no trace of 

 nephclc in any specimens seen or taken. Neither Dcbis port- 

 landia nor Neonympha canthus was seen. Thccla strigosa was 

 fairly common, but titus, calanus and acadica were all wanting. 

 Of the early Spring forms, henrici and augustus were very scan < , 

 and niphon was but little more common. At the same time in 

 Webster niphon was in its usual abundance, and henrici and au- 

 gustus were more common than I ever saw them before. I could 



