1G4 THK entomologist's record. 



between epijyJiron and cassiope, but Treitschke, in vol. x. of the same 

 work (1834), expresses the decided opinion that they are specifically 

 identical. 



Freyer, in 1831 (Neu. Beitrilge, Bd. i., p. 37, pi. 20, fig. 1-2), adds 

 that the band of the upper surface of the fore-wings is much fainter in 

 the male than in the female, and that whilst in the male there is little 

 trace of any eyes on the under surface of the hind-wings, in the female, 

 the three eyes of the upper surface appear through and are black- 

 kernelled. 



We may, I think, define this Alj^ine form, as possessed of the 

 following distinguishing characteristics : — Ocelli never white-pupilled 

 on the upper surface ; band entire on the fore-wings, but broken up 

 on the hind- wings into three or four orange spots with black centres ; 

 on the under surface of the hind- wings the black dots very small, and 

 either not at all or only very obscurely encircled with orange. 



y. Var. ninemon, Haw. — In that rare volume of Transactions of the 

 Entomological Societij of London (i., p. 332), Ha worth, in 1812, described 

 under this name a butterfly that he had seen in Francillon's cabinet, 

 and that had been captured in Scotland, by Stoddart. In this, the band 

 of the fore-wings was broken up into four saffron rings, of which the 

 third was the least and slightly exterior to the others ; on the hind- 

 wings were only two rings. Beneath, the wings were coppery-brown ; 

 the fore-wings had three brown points which were very indistinct, and 

 obscurely surrounded with fulvous ; the hind-wings were almost entirely 

 unspotted. This comes very near to var. melampus, Esj)., but there, the 

 band of the fore-wings was not broken up. 



8, Var. nelamus, Boisd. — Boisduval, in 1840 (Gen. et. Index Meth., 

 p. 26, No. 195), establishes this form with only two words " Snb-coeca 

 (Alp. Delph.)." Meyer-Diir thought it might be the same as his feebly- 

 marked specimens from high altitudes in the Bernese Alps ; and Frey, 

 in 1880 (Die Lepid. Schweiz, p. 35), accepts this opinion. Lederer, in 

 1852 (Verhandl. zool.-bot. Vereins in Wien, p. 40), gives its habitat as 

 Mont Dore, in Auvergne, and says that it " has above very little, on 

 the hind wings sometimes no red ; on the underside the eyes are want- 

 ing, or very obsolete. Lang (Tlhop. Enro-p., p. 241) says: "An alpine 

 form in Switzerland. It has the black spots absent from the fulvous 

 bands on all the wings." As already stated, it is quite possible that 

 this form may be identical with that called melampus, by Esper. 



€. YsiV. pyrenaica, H.-S. — Whether this form, Avhich Herrich-Schiiffer 

 (Syst. Bearheit., i., fig. 535-8, vi., p. 11) received from the Pyrenees, 

 but which Lederer says also occurs in the Styrian mountains, is worthy 

 of a distinct varietal name, is perhaps doubtful. The red band of the 

 fore wings has become a series of longitudinal blotches, and on the 

 tmder surface of the hind wings, are four hardly -perceptible black dots 

 without irides. Lang (I.e.) says of it : " Larger than cassiope, with large 

 ocelli on all the fulvous bands." This, however, is hardly in accord 

 with Herrich-Schaffer's figures. 



One or two other names must be glanced at. Hiibner (Samml. 

 Europ., vol. i., figs. 202) figures what he calls Pap. ianthe, which he 

 supposes to be identical with epipliron, Kn., melampus, Fuessl. and eyea, 

 Bork. It is very diflicult to determine whether this is the type or var. 

 cassiope ; our two groat synonymists differ on the point, Staudinger 

 inclining to the former view, Kirby to the latter. Newman in 1844 



