THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 299 



attempt to distinguish between E. ausonides and E. kyaniis looks to me 

 like a failure, not that 'Jiey cannot be readily distinguished by size, form 

 of secondaries, depth of ground-tint, and size of white spots on under 

 surface, but because these differences are to be seen in undoubted season 

 variations in the European form, E. ansonia, and because if E. ausonides 

 is distinct from E. hyantis, the Vancouver form, which differs in the 

 pattern of the under surface, has an equal claim to separation. As 

 regards typical E. creusa, which Dr. Beutenmuller considers to be E. 

 /lyantis, I can definitely assure him that the type (which we possess) 

 agrees with his var. elsa. My idea of this species is that it can be 

 arbitrarily sorted out into seven graded forms: E. ausojiides, E. var. from 

 Vancouver, E. kyaniis, E. iotia, E. coloradensis, E. creusa = elsa^ 



In the same volume of the Canadian Entomologist (p. 56) Beuten- 

 muller says: "In answer to Dr. Butler's comments upon my revision of the 

 species of Eiichloe, I could state that Dr. Butler may possibly be right in 

 considering creusa (var. elsa)^ hyantis and lotta seasonal forms of 

 ausonides, but with the present knowledge it is not possible to place them 

 so, and for this reason I concluded it would be best to allow the species 

 to remain distinct until more light could be obtained on the subject. At 

 any rate, I was certain that what we had labeled in our collections as 

 creusa was not Doubleday and Hewitson's species, which Dr. Butler 

 definitely asserts is my var. elsa. What seems strange to me is, how was 

 it that Edwards did not recognize the figure of creusa sent to him by Dr. 

 Butler ? Creusa (var. elsa) cannot be mistaken for either hyajitis or lotta 

 (so-called creusa). Doubleday and Hewitson did not give a description 

 oi creusa, and their figure of the species is unrecognizable, consequently 

 has no scientific value." 



It has been supposed that hyantis is the spring brood of ausonides, 

 but Edwards (Can. Ent., XXIV, p. 109) contradicts this, saying that 

 ausofiides is monogenentic, as he had bred a few typical examples in 

 March. Last year, however, Mr. E. J. Newcomer and myself succeeded 

 in breeding ausofiides throughout all its stages, and a fair percentage of 

 the pupjfi emerged in early summer.^ These examples were certainly not 

 hyafitis, and differed from the spring brood in being slightly larger and 

 perhaps more yellowed. In order to straighten out this group, it will be 

 necessary to breed out the various forms. I would like very much to 



2. The fact that the European ausonia was 2-brooded and the American 

 ausonides single-brooded, was one of the distinctions g^iven by Edwards and 

 Beutenmuller for distinguishing the two. 



