THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



by him in Colorado, apparently after it had changed colour for pupation ; 

 he also describes the pupa from it, but unfortunately gives no feature 

 whatever by which a pupa could be identified or determined. 



Mr. Scudder assumes that Tsmeria, B. & L., is the same species as 

 Carlota, and gives that name priority. No one would ever know it from 

 either the description or Boisduval's plate (A. D. 1833). In Butt. N. E., 

 the description of larva and chrysalis is translated thus : Adult larva 

 " yellow, with blackish spines and three longitudinal stripes (of blackish) ; 

 the thoracic legs and ventral surface black, the other legs yellow." The 

 chrysalis: "ashen gray, with some paler light spots and little dorsal 

 tubercles nearly white." This description of the larva has no application to 

 Carlota, and that of the chrysalis is too indefinite for identification. The 

 figures of both are wholly out of drawing, and of the insects so barred and 

 striped and spotted as to be unrecognizable. I had a copy of the book, 

 and Mr. Reakirt had access to one, but to neither of us did it occur that 

 Ismeria was what was called Carlota. It appears that Mr. Scudder, some 

 years after the date of Reakirt's name, saw certain unpublished drawings 

 by Abbot, in the British Museum, among which was Ismeria. Boisduval 

 credits Abbot. Now, many of Abbot's figures, especially of larvae and 

 pupae, are bad as can be, and where Boisduval has copied them there is 

 no improvement on the original. Whether it is a true copy or not, Bois- 

 duval's figures of Ismeria do not represent Carlota, and by comparing 

 the description with the figures it is plain that it has been drawn from the 

 plate and not from nature. It fits no American butterfly. Consequently, 

 the name Ismeria has been rejected by every American lepidopterist, so 

 far as I know, except Mr. Scudder, and the species is known as Carlota. 

 It is right that any species so figured and described should have no 

 standing. 



It will be seen that the egg of Carlota is closely like that of Tharos, 

 built on the same plan, same shape, same ribs, though they are more 

 numerous, (about twenty-four in Carlota to about fifteen in Tharos), s-Axae 

 thimble-like depressions below the ribs. It differs somewhat from the egg 

 of Nycteis, which is taller in proportion to its breadth, and which shows 

 the depressions for a space below the ribs, while the lower part is smooth. 

 The young larvae of all three species are alike in shape and armature. 

 The adult Carlota is njore like Nycteis in one respect, namely, that its 

 pines are larger in proportion than those of Tharos. I discern no other 



