274 



THE ENTOMOLOGIST S HECORD. 



type, but greatly reduced in size; these, too, uiii/ht possibly be a J 

 form of the var. trajaniis (but again it was only "possibly"). So 

 far, the confusion only seemed to be getting worse. Of the remaining 

 two forms mentioned by Mr. Lowe, I was not concerned with the ab. 

 in/rrhula, having nothing approaching it among my captures, and 

 about the var. caecilia, one did not think there could be any un- 

 certainty. I have four specimens (as already noted) two S s and 

 two $ s, which I was sure were to be referred to this var. 



One 3 is entirely without the rust-coloured bands and black eye- 

 spots, both on the upper- and underside. The other S and two $ s are 

 nearly so. I was putting these specimens on one side, with a feeling 

 of relief, when another difficulty arose. 



I have in my collection a series of the beautiful Krehia from the 

 Pyrenees, which in all recent publications is mentioned as the var. 

 caecilia of /V. iiianto. On placing my specimens from the Grammont 

 beside those from the Pyrenees, it was at once apparent that both 

 forms could not possibly be placed under the same name. The Swiss 

 specimens were exactly like the type, but without the spots and bands; 

 i.e., the whole of the underside of the ^ is suffused with the beautiful 

 mahogany colour which is so conspicuous in the type ^ . In the 

 larger Pyrenean race there is nu trace of this whatever. My 

 P^a-enean specimens, too, were absolutely fresh when caught, and 

 this makes the want of the colouring all the more striking. A further 

 careful comparison of the Pyrenean specimens with typical ntaitto^ 

 and of the neuration of both, left little or no doubt in my mind that I 

 had here two separate species. 



There was only one thing left to do. I wrote to Mr. Wheeler and 

 asked him if he could get, and send me, the original descriptions of 

 the vars. caecilia, Hiibn., trajanus, Hormuzaki, and pj/rrhnla, Frey, 

 (his diagnosis of the latter, in his Bittts. of 'Switz., leaving some un- 

 certainty as to how closely this var. approached var. caecilia). This 

 troublesome job, in spite of his many engagements, he most kindly did; 

 and also sent me some most useful extracts from papers by Dr. 

 Chapman and Mr. Elwes {Trans. JhJnt. Soc. Loud., 1898) bearing on 

 this subject. 



To take the var. caecilia first, the folloAving is a translation of the 

 original description, which is given under the heading Pap. pi/rrha, 

 manto, Esp.:— " Caecilia, Hubn. (pi. xlvi., figs. 213, 214). — One finds 

 examples of this species in which the macular bands are partially or 

 entirely unicolorous. I have figured one of these varieties, and a less 

 pronounced one is at rat us, Esp." 



Mr. Wheeler tells me that the figure is nearly black on the upper- 

 side, with rather chequered fringes, and that the underside is not so 

 black, and with a small patch of reddish on the forewings. Fringes 

 yellowish-brown. 



Though Hiibner's is not a very minute description, it is perfectly 

 obvious that the central European form is the one which he intended 

 to name. He actually says it inhabits the " German Alps," and the 

 statement, " partially or entirely," in referring to the bands and spots, 

 shows that he was not even thinking about the Pyrenean race. The 

 Pyrenean race, therefore, has no claim to the name caecilia or to any 

 connection with it, and is apparently left in want of a name. 



I find that both Dr. Chapman and Mr. Elwes, dealt with this race 



