CffiNOKYMPHA TYPHON, ETC. 105 



coloration to pamphilm on both sides ; it had one or two indistinct 

 ocelli on the iipper surface of the fore-wings, and from none to two 

 on the same surface of the hind-wings. On the underside it is noted 

 that the ocelli are very distinct ; on the fore-wings there are from one 

 to three, and on the hind-wings five or six. This agrees well with our 

 Middle form, although Kottemburg evidently obtained a form much 

 paler than the bulk of our male specimens ; still, I have a specimen 

 from West Argyleshire that agrees with ilottemburg's coloiTr-word. 

 Possibly the specimen from which the description was made was a 

 female. We may then conclude that our Middle form, the I'aj). poly- 

 dama of Haworth, is the typical CDenanipnpJia tijphoii ; this trivial name, 

 however, never obtained a very wide currency. 



We next come to the familiar darns, which owes its origin to 

 Fabricius z' (rf'/i. Ins., p. 259), and dates from 1777. There is con- 

 siderable difierence of opinion as to which form it was that Fabricius 

 had. As already stated, our own earlier authors applied his name to 

 our Southern form ; Btaudinger makes it a synonym of the type. It 

 is not easy to decide with certainty to which of these forms it rightly 

 applies, but there can be no doubt that it is wrongly applied to the 

 imperfectly ocellated Northern form. The colour of the upper sur- 

 face is described as fulvous, the hind-wings being darker ; on the upper 

 surface there were two ocellated spots on the fore-wing, and on the hind- 

 wing five or six. So far it might be identified as the Southern form, inas- 

 much as I have seen no specimen of the type with six ocellated spots on 

 the upper surface of the hind-wing. Fulvous, however, is hardly the 

 colour-word which would describe this form as we see it, and the 

 description of the underside of the hind-wings as grey applies more 

 aptly to our Middle than to our Southern form. Herbst's dams (as 

 also Ochsenheimer's and Godart's") are undoubtedly the type to which, 

 on the Continent, the name seems to have been pretty generally 

 applied. 



The next name we must consider is Esper's philo.ccima. In his 

 first use of this name [Die Schmett. in Ahhild., Th. i., Bd. 2, p. 25, 

 pi. 54, tig. 8) he undoubtedly applies it to the type, as is shown by the 

 colour-word yellow, Avhich could never be applied to our Southern 

 form, and by the figure. Two years later, however, under the same 

 name, he describes and figures {ih., p. 132, pi. 78, fig. 8) what he sup- 

 poses to be the male of the same species, but what is undoubtedly our 

 Southern form. That the tAvo figures bear the interpretation I have 

 here put upon them is clear from the fact that in the earlier one there 

 are, on the underside of the hind-wings, six distinct but small ocellated 

 spots with ochreous rings ; in the later, six large ones with yellow rings. 

 I submit, therefore, that Esper mixed two forms together under this 

 name ; that the earlier form is the already-named type, but that the 

 name phihixcnus is undoubtedly the earliest given to the dark Southern 

 form,*^' and may be legitimately adopted as the varietal name of that 

 form, as is done by Staudinger and those who follow him. The name 

 that is more usually applied to this form in this country is rot/dicbii, 

 which is generally supposed to have first seen the light in the first edition 

 of Staudinger's (.'atalai/uc (1861), but which was used by Herrich- 

 Schaffer ten years earlier, and by him attributed to Gerhard. I have 

 not been able to discover where (if anywhere) Gerhard piiblished the 

 * Unless davus, Fab., be admitted to have been applied to this form. 



