PROTECTIVE RESEMBLANCE. 295 



of iiianto. The fact that Boisduval in his " Catalogue " places H. 

 after the name does not appear to ati'ecc the apphcation in view of the 

 conclusive " totus niger " which accompanies it, and the given locality 

 of the Pyrenees. 



I may add that M. Rene Oberthiir captured E. caerilia. Bsdv., at 

 Le Lioran, where 1 looked for it in vain in August, 1909, being 

 obviously too late on the ground ; and M. Charles Oberthiir in this 

 instance is not prepared to differentiate the Cantal caecilia from those 

 of Cauterets and Gavarnie. Whether typical iiianto occurs in the 

 Pyrenees is extremely doubtful. 



M. P. Rondou, a first rate entomologist and observer, who lives at 

 Gedre below Gavarnie, says (in lift.) that typical iiianto never occurs 

 there. Pierret, in 1848, records, probably in error, a single female 

 caecilia, Hb. But neither de Graslin nor i3ellier mentions either type 

 or variety in their respective list of captures hereabouts [Trans. Soc, 

 Ent. Erance, 1857-1858). 



Caradja (Beit, zar Kejitnixs des (Trotinschiiiet. des Depart. Haute- 

 (jraronne, " /;/s," 1894, Dresden) mentions several localities in his 

 catalogue where he asserts that the type occurs with ab. caecilia — 

 Mont d'Antenac, Porte Venasque, Lac d'Oo, Lac Vert, Porte de la 

 Picade. 



D'Aubuisson {Cat. . . . de la tiaute- Garonne, " J3all. Soc. Nat. 

 Hist. Toulouse," t. a., 1868, suppl. 1885) adds, for type and var. 

 alike, Mont Cagire (1800m), Saint-Beat (520m), and Luchon (622m) ; 

 caecilia, " rather rare." 



But I do not accept Caradja as an accurate guide to the alpine 

 butterflies of his region. Guillemot, who is more reliable in this 

 respect, informs us {Cat. Lepids. du Puy-de-D6iue, p. 43) that the type 

 and var. caecilia occur together on the elevated pastures of Mont- 

 Dore in July, and that the variety is more abundant than the, type 

 " which is never so marked as the Swiss form." 



That there should have been some confusion among authors as to 

 the relative identity of caecilia, Hb., and caecilia, Bsdv., is natural 

 enough. But if we are satisfied that Boisduval's caecilia is the same 

 insect, which Mr. Warren and I took in the iris fields of the Val 

 d'Ossue at Gavarnie, then I think there is no justification for him 

 to assert that the Pyrenean race has no claim to connection with the 

 name caecilia. I find also on careful examination of my series of 

 (javarniensis taken in this locality (17 males, 5 females) that in the 

 male the rust-coloured spot near the apex of the forewings on the upper 

 side is seldom present. But, in the case of the females, while I have 

 one with three large lemon-coloured spots on the underside of the hind- 

 wings, in each case on the forewings there is an indistinct rust- 

 coloured mark near the apex, and this contains two well-marked black 

 spots. Mr. Warren says " no eye-spots " in his diagnosis of the 

 species, with which otherwise my examples more or less agree. 



Protective Resemblance. 



{Continued from page 250.) 

 ^ By C. W. COLTHRUP. 



Of what use is it to the Blackbird to be black ? It certainly is no 

 handicap in the struggle for existence, yet its near relative the Song 



