158 THK entomologist's record. 



Wheeler and Mr. L. B. Prout for giving us assistance with various 

 determinations. 



Very few insects of othei- orders were collected. The ruby- wasp, 

 Chn/siti ii/)iit(t ( J s) was not rare. The following Ants were taken : 

 Myriiu'ca riKjinodis, M. scahrinadis, Lasius niijer, Forinira riifibarbis, h'. 

 prafensis, and Camponotus JierciileanitK. 



The grasshopper Podmua fiii^idiiui occurred sparingly. Miles of 

 suitable ground were explored, but the species was rare in contrast to 

 its abundance above Lesje. (Jmocestus viridiiliis, Mecostethtis i/rossKs, 

 Goniphuceros iiiaciilatus, and StanroderitH hicolor {3 ■> $> ^^^ nymph), 

 were also taken. "We took the following Caddis-flies : Liinnophihis 

 stigma, Curt., L. auricula, Curt., Halesus radiatiis. Curt., lUnjaciiphila 

 nubila, Zett., and Pldlopotamus viontanus, Donovan. Al^o, umong the 

 Odonata : AeHcItna coerulea, Strom, (common), and A. jnncea, L. 

 Among the Perhd^: Leuctra diijitata, Kempny ; and among the May- 

 flies : Cloeun situ He, Eaton. 



Erebia manto var. gavarniensis. 



By T. A. CHAPMAN, M.D. 



One or two correspondents seem to think I ought to make some 

 reply to Mr. *\\'arren's paper on p. 109 of this volume ; though for my 

 own part, having nothing to alter in what I have already said (p. 35), 

 I hardly see the necessity. 



Mr. Warren notes that I deal with manto and caecilia of nearly 

 equal sizes ; this ought to have prevented his point (8) in which he 

 apparently accuses me of the error that he thinks I had imputed to 

 him. This I certainly did not do, as I supposed his observations were 

 properly made and accurately recorded. As regards (6) angulation of 

 cell in hindwing, I thmk the figures on PI. III. fully justify my saying 

 there is no such difference. (6) Here again Mr. Warren forgets that I 

 was comparing specimens of almost identical size. (7) Falls under the 

 same remark. 



Now I do not for one moment suppose that Mr. Warren does not 

 report precisely the facts that his specimens show, but I should like 

 him to admit that I do the same. 



I think our divergence arises from Mr. Warren making his obser- 

 vations on manto from an area in Switzerland, where practically all 

 the races are small. I have manto of larger size than average caecilia : 

 several of my specimens of the latter expand 44mm. only (I have no 

 very small ones), whilst my manto average little less than this; I have 

 a good many of 44mm. and several up to 46mm. in expanse, and 

 have one specimen as small as 34mm. My largest specimens are from 

 Innsbruck, St. Anton, and Chamonix. I also saw a large form near 

 Cogne. 



Now there was one point as to which my facts were not impartially 

 gathered. In order to easier comparison, 1 selected specimens for 

 examination of the neuration as nearly of the same size in the two 

 forms as might be. In doing so I had no other intention than easy 

 comparability, but I think the result, as far as the questions of 

 neuration go, is to show^ that in comparing manto and caecilia, Mr. 

 Warren was comparing small manto with larger, and, as it happens, 

 found a fair average difference, I was comparing large manto with 



