232 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



65) placed it in Evagora, to which it makes an approach in some 

 respects, but as it could not with strictness be placed in that genus, I 

 removed it (v. 4, p. 192) to Gelechia. But unless GeUchia is to remain a 

 miscellaneous waste box, it cannot properly be placed there, and I there 

 fore erect this genus for it. See v. 4, pp. 65 6° 192 for the generic and 

 specific characters. 



REMARKS ON LIMENITIS PROSERPINA AND ARTHEMIS. 



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



It seems probable to me that Limenitis proserpina will be found 

 related to L. arthemis, the two being forms of one species, as in Grapta 

 comma and dryas, and I desire to call the attention of Lepidopterists who 

 live where these species or forms are found, that they may observe them 

 from this point of view. They are alike in size and shape, and so far as 

 my experience and that of Mr. Mead goes (confined in both cases to the 

 Catskill Mountains), they are always associated. I notice in a late paper 

 by Mr. Grote that among a number of arthemis taken in western New 

 York, was a certain proportion of proserpina. The under side of these 

 two forms, excluding the white band, is essentially the same thing. I 

 should like to know the Northern range of proserpina, and whether up to 

 the limit of such range it is found wherever arthemis is found ; and 

 whether it is anywhere found where arthemis is not ; and whether it is 

 known anywhere to associate with what is undoubtedly Ursula. 



I formerly received large numbers of arthemis from high up in British 

 America, Slave Lake to Fort Simpson, and with them were no specimens 

 of proserpina. Like the black female of turnus, the last may have a limit 

 beyond which it does not pass. On the other hand, the range of arthemis 

 is limited to the south, and I am not aware of proserpina having been 

 found apart from arthemis, while Ursula swarms throughout the low lands 

 of the Middle States, and throughout the South. If proserpina is found 

 nowhere but with arthemis, this fact and the several points of resem- 

 blance between the two forms, makes the dimorphism probable. But it 

 still remains to be proved beyond question by breeding, that these forms 



