NOVITATES ZOOLOGICAE XXI. 1914. 301 



specimens of an Eucldoc which, above resemble ausonia melanochloros in colour as 

 well as in shape, bat below are in markings exactly intermediate between that 

 and the present species. I was .inclined to believe that these specimens were a 

 third or autumn generation of belemia, but I find that we took a similar specimen 

 on April 22, 1912, and I am therefore most reluctantly obliged for the present 

 at least to look upon them as hybrids. 



It is a curious fact that up to now neither Dr. Nissen nor Victor Faroult 

 has captured either belemia distincta or dusonia melanochloros in the autumn at 

 Guelt-es-Stel ; so that if these intermediate specimens are really hybrids it would 

 seem that the fact of interbreeding hastens on the development. 



4. Euchloe ausonia melanochloros Rober, gen. aest. 



EuchloS helia melannMoms Ruber, ia Seitz, Grossschm. der Erde vol. i. p. 52 (1908) (Batna). 

 Antlwcharh tagis alglricu gen. vera. Oberthur, Etnd. Entom. Comp. Fasc. iii. p. 145 (1909) 

 (M^cheria) (= EtiMoe belia auct. nee Linn.). 



The confusion in the nomenclature of the group of forms whose correct 

 collective name is Euchloe ausonia Hiibn., but which has been almost always called 

 Euchloe belia Cram., is as astounding as it is heart-breaking. 



Most authors when discussing the synonymy of this group of forms dismiss 

 the question far too lightly, for they almost invariably take refuge in the assertion 

 that Linnajus' Pupilio belia of 1767 is a doubtful species, and therefore the name 

 cannot be used, and the oldest name for the ausonia group is belia Cram. Now 

 by this assertion Staudinger, Verity, Oberthur, and a host of others commit 

 two separate errors ; the first error being in terming Linnaeus' Papilio belia 

 a doubtful species, and the second in adopting a later author's nse of the name 

 belia. With regard to the first error Linnaeus, in his Editio XII., vol. i.. Part 2, 

 ]). 761, No. 84, says of the underside of the hindwings of his belia, '^flnvissime" 

 meaning intense yellow. Now as to the question of doubt, his description of the 

 upperside is : white, the forewing with a black luuule and a yellow apex, and he 

 gives the habitat in Barbaria. (Brander.) 



There are only two butterflies in Mauritania (= Linnaeus' " Barbaria") which 

 have a white upperside with yellow (or orange) apices to the forewing — viz. the 

 ? of Euchloe eupheno Linn, and the desert insect Teracolus daira tinirna Lucas ; 

 and these various authors assert that Linnaeus' diagnosis fits both. This I deny, 

 as " Jlavissime'" (= intense yellow) does fit the ? Euchloe, but certainly not the 

 Teracolus, which has the underside of the hindwings whitish, or jiinkish brown 

 or dirty jiink. 



Again, Brander, who sent the insect to Linnaeus, was the Swedish Consul at 

 Algiers, and at that time could not go outside the town of Algiers and its suburbs. 

 The Euchloi: at the present day is still abundant in and around Algiers, but the 

 Teracolus, except in the extreme west of the province of Oran, is confined to 

 the desert in and beyond the southern Atlas range. Therefore it is quite clear that 

 as Linnaeus' '■'Papilio belia" came from Brander and therefore was caught in the 

 environs of Algiers itself, and had an intense yellow underside to the hindwings, 

 it can only have been the Euchloi;. This being so, and as the ? Euchloi; is 

 described on page 761, while the c? Euchloi: is described on page 762, the name 

 Euchloa belia Linn, must be used for the butterfly hitherto called by most authors 

 Anthocharis eupheno (Linn.). 



