104 THE entomologist's record. 



and fuscous or greenish ; this area is bounded by an abbreviated 

 whitish streak or fasciola ; beyond this is a grey area with two obsolete 

 ocelli, followed by a whitish marginal fascia. The female is much 

 paler ; the upper surface is unspotted, but, in common with the under 

 surface, often shows large pale blotches." This description accords so 

 well with the specimens which we now-a-days receive from Aberdeen, 

 that one is tempted to think that Haworth's information as to the 

 locality from which his specimen came was at fault. Subsequent 

 authors made no clear differentiation between the Middle and Northern 

 forms, Newman's figures of darns are decidedly of the Northern 

 form, but in his description he does not difi'erentiate the two. 



Stephens f Illust. Hand., vol. i.,p. 64, pi. 7, fig. 1-2) describes a Hip- 

 parchia ijiJiis, the exact identification of which is not easy. It was of 

 a deep rusty tawny on the upper surface, and without spots, thus 

 inclining to the Northern form. On the under surface of the hind- 

 wings, however, the basal area was deep greenish brown, the outer 

 area in the male was uniform with the basal, but in the female was 

 cloudily fulvous, and there were usually five whitish circles with black 

 dots in most of them, and a sixth ocellus is mentioned between the 

 costa and the white interrupted transverse band. Stephens indicates 

 nine varieties of the ocellation, and gives as localities for the species 

 Beverley, Cottingham, Scotland, Wales and Cumberland. In the 

 appendix, published a few months later, Stephens states that he had 

 then become convinced that his H. iphia and Haworth's Paji. jiohjilama 

 were identical, and that the chief distinction between them was that 

 the Avhite fascia was uninterrupted in pdhjdania, interrupted in iplns. 

 It is probable, therefore, that iphu, Steph., is strictly synonymous with 

 poly llama, Haworth. 



We arrive, then, at the conclusions : — 



(rt) That the Southern Form, at first supposed to be Pap. hero, 

 Linn., was for a long time known as (htrm, and in later years as var. 

 rothliehii. 



(h) That the Middle Form is the Pap. pali/daina oiHnwovth imd 

 other authors, the //. ijiliis of Stephens, and the II. jmlytucda of 

 Jermyn, but that in recent years it has not been differentiated from the 

 Northern form. 



{c) That the Northern form may be the Fap. tiiphon of 

 Haworth, and has from the time of Newman generally been considered 

 the typical C. dams. 



We now reach the third part of our subject — the attempt to bring 

 these British names into line with those given on the Continent. 

 Linnaeus undoubtedly knew the insect, for he gives a recognisable 

 description of it in the first edition of the Fauna Siiecica (p. 2-iO, No. 790), 

 without, however, assigning to it any trivial name. In the second 

 edition of this work he confuses it with the species which he there names 

 P. hero, and places the diagnosis of the first edition as a second string 

 to /'. hero, from which, however, a comparison of the diagnoses shows 

 it to be essentially different. This fact it undoubtedly was, that led 

 some of the earliest authors (De Geer on the Continent, Turton, 

 Lewin and Donovan in this country) to apply the name hero to it. 



The earliest name which we find rightly assigned to the species is 

 Pap. ti/phon, which was given by Rottemburg {Der Natur/orscher, 

 St. vi., p. 15) in 1775. Eottemburg's type is described as of a similar 



