BUTTERFLIES IN HUNGARY IN 1910. 191 



difficult to catch, on the summit of the Domogled during the last 

 fortnight in July, while Mr. Jones has received Herculesbad specimens 

 from Nicolas Kolopenza late in July. Our own experience is curiously 

 at variance with this ; our first specimen was met with at 8 a.m. on 

 July 1st at the very summit of the Domogled, but this was the only 

 specimen seen in this locality, and another expedition to the summit 

 on July 3rd proving a failure, we began to suppose that we must after 

 all be too early. It was therefore a pleasant surprise to discover on 

 July 10th that the laborious ascent of the Domogled was entirely 

 superfluous, since the best locality for E. melas was in reality the 

 familiar Weisses Kreuz, at an elevation of only 1600 feet. Some of 

 the specimens taken in this locality shewed that the species must 

 have been flying for at least a week, and we could doubtless have 

 obtained it much sooner had it occurred to us to look out for it here. 

 In our experience, the habits of E. vielas are in striking contrast to 

 those of E. Iffebvrei : the latter is to be met with at all times of the 

 day settling on the screes, but for the most part we found the former 

 flying gently up and down perpendicular limestone cliffs in the hottest 

 afternoon sun. Such a precipice is crossed by the path just below the 

 Weisses Kreuz, and here the butterflies may be caught ; they can be 

 seen on the wing for at least 100 feet below, but only at this point does 

 the rock-face become accessible. Naturally the butterflies only 

 occasionally cross the path in their course upwards or downwards, 

 and patience must be exercised. By this method, in spite of the 

 excessive heat, we obtained fourteen <y s, the last being taken on 

 July 15th. A single $ was also taken at rest on a shady path some 

 100 feet lower down. Our only ascent of the Suskului produced three 

 additional <? s, and others were seen ; these were found under exactly 

 similar conditions and at the same time of day, though at some 2,000 

 feet above the Weisses Kreuz. This would probably have been found 

 a good locality for E. melas, had we worked it more thoroughly. Our 

 series of eighteen c? s is very uniform ; none of the specimens shew 

 any signs of the fulvous patch round the apical eyespots on the fore- 

 wing, which appears in so large a proportion of our specimens of 

 E. lefebvrei. The degree to which the ocellations on the upperside 

 are developed shews some variation, but unfortunately none of them 

 exhibit the accessory apical ocellation, the relative position of which 

 is, according to Dr. Chapman, an important factor in distinguishing 

 E. melas from E. lefebvrei. Most of the other points of dift'erence 

 between the two species, which have been recorded by Dr. Chapman 

 {Trans. Ent. Soc, 1908, p. 307), can easily be verified by a 

 comparison of our series, the difference between the colorations of the 

 antennae and between the undersides of the 5 s being particularly con- 

 spicuous. We do not, however, find the difference in the position of 

 the apical ej^espots quite so great as Dr. Chapman states, our 

 specimens showing an average difference of only 1mm. {melas 4mm., 

 lefebvrei 8mm.) in the distance of the second ocellation from the cilia 

 instead of Dr. Chapman's 2mm. ; but, since the difference is almost 

 constant, this does not invalidate his point. On comparing the 

 series as a whole, one notices that E. lefebvrei is altogether a more 

 varied, a finer, and a more robust looking insect than E. melas. 



We had expected to be quite too late for E. medusa var. psodea, but 

 we found this interesting form to be still fairly frequent on the top of 



