68 SAMUEL H. SCUDDER ON THE SPREAD 



dition to the "West Indies and South America, he passed two days at the Island of Do- 

 minica, and there "observed the butterfly [P. rajxie] along the edges of the canefields 

 and in many j)arts of the town (Roseau), and I was told, it lived upon the mustard plant." 

 This is an extract from his journal of February 23, 1884. In a subsequent letter he states 

 that he is quite confident of his identification of the butterfly as it was very numerous 

 and he had •■ paid particular attention to it in this country" from his interest in it through 

 his cousin Mr. G. J. BoAvles, who first brought it to notice in the Canadian Naturalist. 

 Unfortunately all his collections, possibly including specimens of the butterfly seen, were 

 lost by an accident on the Magazine River, British Guiana. Mr. Bowles gave me the 

 addresses of persons in the Antilles Avho, he thought, might ol)tain specimens for me, and 

 I have received replies from them, but as yet no autoptic evidence that P. rapae exists 

 there, nor indeed anything to corroborate Mr. Bowles' belief, excepting fi-om one gentle- 

 man who writes: "I have an idea I have seen the butterfly you mention, but am not cer- 

 tain." Enquiries are not yet closed, however. 



In conclusion, it may be I'emarked that the definite setting down of territorial limits to 

 each year's spread will naturally raise the question in the mind of every lepidopterist 

 who examines the map, whether it rightly interprets the matter for the ground with which 

 he is familiar. I beg therefore to ask those who see reason to question the accuracy of 

 the lines at any point kindly to give me the benefit of their better knowledge, by exact 

 and detailed statements; and, where possible, founded on something better than memory. 

 Should a sufficient number of important divergences come to light, I will make them 

 public in a formal statement. It may be stated, in a general Avay, that the lines are more 

 conjectural in the southern states than elsewhere, owing to the paucity of observations. 



Bibliography, 



1. Bowles, G. J. On the occurrence of Pieris rapae in Canada. Ccm. Nat. n. s, i, 



258-262. 8" Montreal, 1864. Separate, pp. 4. 



2. Ritchie, A. S. Notes on the small cabbage Imtterfly, Pieris rapae. Can. Nat. n. 



s. Ill, 293-300. 8" Montreal, 1867. Separate, pp. 7. 



3. MiNOT, C. S. Cabbage buttei-flies. Am. Ent. ii, 76-77. 8" St. Louis, 1870. 



4. Fitch, Asa. Cabbage worm or tui-nip butterfly. 13tli Bep. Nox. Ins. N. Y. 



(Ann. Rep. St. Agric. Soc.,) 543-563. 8° Albany, 1870. 



5. Riley, C. Y. Cabbage woi-ms. 2d Ann. Rep. St. Entoni. Missouri, 104-110. 8" 



Jefferson City, 1870. 



6. Bowles, G. J. Notes on Pieris rapae. Caii. Ent., iv, 102-105. 8", London, 1872. 



7. Bethune, C. J. S. Insects affecting the cabbage. Rep. Ent. Soc. Out., 1871, 82- 



88. 8» Toronto, 1872. 



8. Packard, A. S. The imported cabbage caterpillar and its parasite. 2iul Ann. Rep. 



Inj. Ins. Mass., 8-1 1. 8° Boston, 1872. 



9. Betiiune, C. J. S. Cabbage butterflies. Can. Ent.,\, H-AZ. 8° London, 1873. 

 10. Saunders, W. The English cabbage butterfly. Rep. Ent. Soc. Out., 1875, 31-32. 



8" Toronto, 1876. 



