282 THE entomologist's record. 



that she took it there. Dr. Chapman and I were most anxious to get 

 information on this point, when at Digne, and we questioned 

 Monsieur Coulet, Senr., of Les Dourbes, most particularly as to this 

 reported second brood. He insisted most strongly that the species 

 only occurred once, and that there was not even an occasional odd 

 specimen to represent a second brood. It will be interesting to learn 

 how this species winters. From the information to be obtained, one 

 might suppose this insect first appeared in April. Nicholson I E.M.M., 

 xxviii., p. 272) mentions the "middle of April," but although worn 

 specimens may be then found, the last fortnight of March is the 

 correct time, even at 2,000 or 3,000 feet elevation. Chapman tells me 

 that " E. cpiMiiiine appeared very little earlier at Cannes than at Digne, 

 and at about the same elevation, 1,800-2,500 feet, so that the strong 

 testimony against a second brood at Digne is probably also applicable 

 to Cannes. I captured a specimen close to St. Auban railway station 

 on April 30th." 



N.B. — I observe that a note by Dr. Chapman states that CaUojihri/s 

 rubi, Pieris nnpi and P. braasicae were first captured in February, not 

 March. 



The Genus Oporabia. 



[Cdntimu'd from p. 249). 

 By LOUIS B. PEOUT, F.E.S. 



2. — FiLiGRAMMARiA, H.S. — There is abundant proof that this 

 interesting insect is a perfectly valid species. Dr. Staudinger suggests 

 that it may be a " Darwinian species " — whatever that convenient but 

 mysterious term may really signify. The following notes on its 

 specific right may possess some interest. (1) The male genitalia, as 

 pointed out by Dr. F. Buchanan White in Scot. Nat., iv., pp. 113-114, 

 show an important structural difference, lacking a distinct hook on 

 the harpes, which is prominent in nclndata (dilntata) . This has been 

 verified for me by my kind friend Mr. Pierce, who has taken immense 

 pains with the genus, at great personal inconvenience, and to whom 

 my warmest thanks are due. (2) The shape of the wings in both 

 sexes (though not very reliable) generally shows considerable difference 

 from nebulata, being narrower in all the wings, fore- wings more 

 pointed, their hind margin more concave near anal angle, etc. (3) 

 The average size is smaller, the females often exceedingly small. 

 (4) Even the wing markings, though very similar, have some charac- 

 teristic peculiarities. On the fore-wings, the central area is narrower 

 on the average, the second line nearly always strongly angulated near 

 the costa, and the subterminal generally more broadly dark shaded in- 

 ternally. On the hind-wings, the dark margin is generally more sharply 

 defined, and its inner boundary cuts across the wing instead of runnmg 

 parallel with the cilia, as in nebulata. The under surface has a 

 tendency to be more strongly marked, the dark band near the margin 

 being generally prominent on both pairs of wings. Moreover, there is a 

 strong gloss (often quite purplish) on the wings, which gives them a 

 very different tone from nchnlata. (5) Speyer [Stett. Knt. Zeit., 1867, 

 p. 126) discovered in his single specimen of filif/ramviaria (a S 

 received from Doubleday) so strong a distinction in the antennae as to 

 be even visible to the naked eye, and wondered that it had remained 

 unnoticed by previous writers. This consisted in that they were much 



