87 



June, I91I.] CoMSTOCK: IDENTITY OF ThECLA MUIRI. 



I Observed a like amount of variation in the starting of this Hne in 

 certain individuals, so that I selected the two females above men- 

 tioned as identical with the type. Male specimens in my series did 

 not agree so closely with the type male muiri. The differences, how- 

 ever were entirely in the shading of the ground color, and not m the 

 marking The marking of the type male and female of T. mmn were 

 exactly identical with the marking of the majority of the specimens 

 in my series. The result of my examinations is that I consider my 

 series of what I had thought a purple form of T. blenina from Utah 

 localities to be identical with the types of T. muiri, which came from 

 Mendocino County, Cal. ^ t tt^ • 



I thus arrive at my main conclusion that T. rnrnn Hy. Edw., is 

 related to T. blenina Hew., and not to T. nelsoni Bdv., to which it 

 has heretofore been attributed. Secondly, I consider that the name 

 muiri should be retained to designate the purple form as a variety 

 of T. blenina, and that our lists should be corrected to read as follows: 

 Thecla blenina, Hew. var. muiri Hy. Edwards. 



In reference to the original description of T. midri, I wish to 

 point out that it is entirely inadequate and positively misleading to 

 any one trying to identify an insect from it. The description omits 

 mention of the ground color beneath the wings which, as the type 

 insect shows, is a violet or purple brown shading with scattered blac^k 

 scales Moreover, it points out a distinction between T. mmn and T. 

 nelsoni which does not exist; namely that "the fringes (in T. mmri) 

 are concolorous with the wings instead of white" (in T. nelsom). 

 The fringes in the tvpe of T. muiri are not concolorous with the 

 wings but grayish and, in fresh specimens of the insect, of a sordid 

 white. The fringes in T. nelsoni are grayish also and noticeably 

 darker than the ground color of the wings, and not white. 



