38 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



irus, and appended Edwards' description of the early stages of Henrici to 

 the description of a butterfly which is not Henrici, but polios. In 

 distinguishing between polios and iriis^ it is quite clear that Fernald was 

 misled by Strecker's misidentification into believing that what he called 

 Henrici {xt2\\y polios) was the species bred by Mr. Edwards, and the form 

 described by Grote and Robinson. 



Following Fernald, both French, G. H.,^ and Maynard, C. J.,^ give, 

 under the name Hejirici, a brief diagnosis] of polios, contrasting it with 

 irns. 



One other reference deserves attention in this connection, showing 

 how the true Henrici has been lost sight of in the maze of literary error. 

 In the " Butterflies of New Hampshire " (Technical Bull. No. i, N. H. 

 Coll. Agr. Exp. Sta., Durham, 1901), Fiske, W. F., gives Henrici as a 

 synonym oi irns in the caption of species No. 43, p. 45, and then (under 

 irus) discusses polios, as may be inferred from the statement that he has 

 taken the species as early as April 19th; or possibly he refers to /^//^^ and 

 irus regarded as one species. In the second paragraph he writes of a 

 very remarkable variety (of irus) having tails. This is illustrated, and 

 though the figure is not particularly clear, anyone acquainted with the 

 species will have no difficulty in identifying it as He?irict of Grote and 

 Robinson. That Fiske identified polios {i.e., the Henrici of Strecker, 

 Fernald, et al.) as Grote and Robinson's Henrici, appears probable from 

 the first sentence under species No. 44 (p. 46), where he says : ^^ Augustus 

 is between Henrici and niphon in point of emergence." Evidently some- 

 thing was taken for Henrici, and since it was not the real Hefirici, it must 

 have been either irus or polios; and the early emergence points indubit- 

 ably to the latter. 



I find Henrici properly identified in the Hill, Bailey and Corning 

 collections in this city (though all specimens are labelled 9 regardless of 

 their real sex, probably because no stigma is present in the ^ ), but there 

 is a specimen in the collection of the late J. A. Lintner (now the property 

 of the State of New York) labeled ^^ T. irus, var. Henrici (New Hamp- 

 shire)," wliich is a (^ .polios. I mention this for two reasons : first, 

 because it shows that some, at least, of the elder generation of lepidopterists 

 were led astray by Strecker's blunder ; and second, because formerly, 

 while making slow progress through the meagre and much-mixed literature 



2. The Butterflies of the Eastern U. S. (1886), p. 273. 



3. A INIanual of North American Butterflies (1891), p. 144. 



