BUTTERFLIES OF THE PYRENEES IN 1909. 109 



Lac d'Oo, where it was restricted to a very narrow zone, at a height of 

 about 4500 feet. Later, on July 14th, we took a single $ at Gavarnie, 

 at a considerabl}' higher elevation. Erebia epiphron occurred above the 

 Hospice de France, and on the ascent to the Lac d'Oo, and, especially 

 in the latter locality, was of very varied form. In nearly all the 

 specimens, the rusty band upperside front w4ng is maculate and 

 reduced, so that, in this respect, they do not correspond with the 

 desciiption of var. pi/reuoica given by Kane, who says that this variety 

 has the rusty band as well as the ocelli very conspicuously developed. 

 On the other hand, a considerable number of the specimens have large 

 ocelli, though in only one is there any suggestion of white pupils. 

 The size of the ocelli is in no way correlated with the development of 

 the fulvous band ; the ocelli may be large, while the fulvous band 

 either is reduced to narrow rings or is comparatively well-developed. 

 In one specimen where the ocelli are wholly wanting, the band is 

 quite conspicuous. A similar range of variation was found in 

 specimens obtained later at Gavarnie, the fulvous band being 

 occasionally well-developed, but usually reduced and sometimes almost 

 completely absent. The specimens from both localities are, on the 

 average, distinctly larger than var. cassiojie, and the ocellations are 

 certainly more conspicuous ; also the fulvous band, though not 

 markedly developed, is brighter and more definite than in var. camo]ie. 

 On the whole, there can be little doubt that the majority of the 

 specimens must be referred to var. pyrenaica. 



From July 6th to 15th, we collected at Gavarnie, and on July 9th, 

 we were fortunate to take two specimens of what we believe to be 

 Hespeiia andromedae. Mr. Wheeler agrees with our identification of 

 one of them, but feels doubtful about the other. We took another 

 doubtful specimen on July 12th. We do not remember seeing any 

 previous record of this species from the Pyrenees, and perhaps this is 

 not surprising considering its obscurity and apparent rarity. The 

 most plentiful Hesperiid at Gavarnie was H. alceiis; we also took //. 

 vialrac, H. carthaiiii, 11. scrratiilae (a little doubtful), and Poirellia 

 sao. In 1907, we found Krynnis lavaterac fairly common, but in 1909 

 saw only one or two specimens of this species. 



We seemed to be a little too early for that speciality of Gavarnie, 

 Lati<iri)ia pyrenaica, but we took ten specimens, including two ? s, all 

 in good condition. We were unable to find any locality which might 

 be termed its headquarters, meeting only with scattered specimens 

 from just above the village up to 6500 feet. This species is very incon- 

 spicuous on the wing, and difficult to follow when once sighted. L. 

 oihitiiliis was still rarer ; the few specimens we took answered to the 

 description of var. oberthuri. We also found I'ob/iDiiniatiia eras at 

 Gavarnie, but only three scattered specimens. One of these, a $ , 

 differed from the Swiss form we have taken by having a considerable 

 amount of blue on all four wings ; the <? s do not shew any variation. 



Ilr()it/iis pales was not abundant at Gavarnie, but the few specimens 

 which we took are peculiar on the underside front wing, in having the 

 black markings almost as pronounced as in the form var. arsilar/ie : 

 otherwise, they do not differ from the type. 



On our previous visit we had been too early for Krebia lefebvrei, but 

 on this occasion we were able to take a very fine series. As stated by 

 Dr. Chapman {Tram. Knt. Soc. Land., 1908, p. 308), this species 



