294 THE entomologist's RECORD. 



,, 5. — Antenna x 70. 



,, 6. — Labium x 70. 



,, 7. — Posterior corner of prothorax with spiracle x 70. 



,, 8.— Labrum x 70. 



,, 9. — Dorsal aspect of third abdominal segment x 70. 



,, 10. — Femur and tibia of intermediate leg x70. 



,, 11. — Right cerci (dorsal and ventral) x 70. 



,, 12. — Side view of ventral cerci x 70. 



P.S. — M. Peyerimhoff has seen one of these larvfB since the 

 above was written and does not think it is that of Clari(/er. At the 

 same time the fact that the larva is without any trace of eyes (a point 

 not mentioned by Dr. Chapman) appears to me to be very significant, 

 since the perfect insect in the genus Clavuier is also blind. — 

 H.St.-J.K.D. 



A Further Note on Erebia gavarniensis, Warren. 



By H. ROWLAND-BROWN, M.A., F.E.S. 



I Avas much interested to read Mr. Brisbane Warren's observations 

 upon Erebia ))ianto and its forms {anted, pp. 273-277), the more so as 

 he was my companion in the summer of 1911, when we captured the 

 butterfly which he has christened Erebia i/avarnievsis. What Mr. 

 Warren says about the Gavarnie " inanto " is perfectly correct up to 

 this point ; it is a separate species from the manto of Central Europe. 

 But when he avers that the Pyrenean race *' has no claim to the name 

 caecilia, or to any connection with it," I must join issue with him. 

 Had he asked Mr. Wheeler to refer to M. Charles Oberthiir's notes on 

 the species {IJpid. Cnniparee, fai^c. iii., p. 291), he would have been 

 informed that Boisduval had already considered the matter, and also 

 M. Oberthiir himself. I find that the former author in his " Kurop. 

 Lepiil. Index Methodicus," published at Paris in 1829, arranges the 

 species as follows : — 



jnjrrlta, H., Och., God Alpes .... Julii 



VHicliaboeii^, Encycl. 



var. caecilia, H. (totus niger) . . Pyren 



Boisduval, therefore, is emphatic that caecilia is " entirely black," and 

 that it haunts the Pyrenees only. 



Now let us see Avhat M. Oberthiir says as to the specific identity of 

 manto and var. caecilia. "Manto," he writes {loc. cit.), "varies greatly. 

 Its most remarkable variety is caecilia, Bdv. [hones, pi. 33, figs. 5 and 

 6) " : — not caecilia, Hb., be it observed — "I find that caecilia, Hiibner 

 (Nos. 213 and 214), does not represent the same butterfly; in the case 

 of caecilia, according to Boisduval, the underside of the forewings is 

 entirely black, and is not marked with red as in Hiibner's figure." 



Boisduval, however, does not appear to have had any females of 

 caecilia in his collection. M. Oberthiir possesses, I believe, the 

 Boisduval types in his great collection. At all events, he goes on, 

 " Boisduval possessed but one male caecilia which is apparently that 

 reproduced in the ' Icones.' When he says (p. 168) that the Auvergne 

 and Pyrenean females are very like those of the Alps, he certainly 

 forms his judgment without authentic evidence, for the assertion is 

 absolutely erroneous." 



My own opinion, then, is that Boisduval's name caecilia refers to 

 the type of this lately separated species, and that var. caecilia, Hb., 

 stands for a central Alps (and other localities) variety (and aberration) 



