278 [December, 



On the recent records of alien hutterflies in Eiu/lmul. — Witli reference to 

 Mr. Meyrick's note on " An Alien at laro^e " (on p. 2o8 of the November 

 number of this Magazine), I would draw attention to Mr. Cecil Floersheim's 

 articles that a]ipeared in three successive numbers (Oct., Nov., and Dec, 1915) 

 of " The Entomologist." In these articles the author describes his interesting 

 experiments in the breeding of various exotic Papilionidae, of two species 

 of which (the * North American Laertias ^jMeraor and the Japanese 

 Papilio binnor) he remarks that he has " released .... several hundreds each 

 season " (see loc. cit., Oct, 1915, p. 226). Commenting upon Mr. Meyrick's 

 note, the editors refer to a suggestion by Mr. Bedford that an example of 

 i'. bianor, captured at Lewes, may have been an escape from the Insect House in 

 the Zoological Gardens, London. I think it more probable, however, that the 

 several examples, including the one seen by Mr. Meyrick, that have been noted 

 during the past few years, originated in Mr. Floersheim's breeding-cages at 

 liagshot. It may seem a far cry from Bagshot to Marlborough, but it is 

 actually only 45 miles, " as the crow flies," which would entail no great feat 

 of endurance to a butterfly of this size. The distance from London would be 

 75 miles. Of the other localities mentioned, both Southampton and Lewes 

 are exactly the same distance (45 miles) from Bagshot ; while Royston would 

 appear to be 10 miles farther.* There is also to be considered the possibility 

 tliat the insects may be gradually establishing themselves in this coimtry. I 

 know that P. bianor has bred naturally, on Skinimia, in nursery-gardens around 

 Bagshot, and Mr. Floersheim has assured me that L. philenor oviposits freely and 

 matures its larvae in the open, on Aristolochia sipho in his garden, and that 

 F. bidnor does the same on Dictamnus fraxinella. Should these two butterflies 

 actually gain a footing in the south of England, it will be a matter for con- 

 gratulation. Their food-plants are of no economic importance, and few owners 

 of flower-gardens would grudge the small injury that might be done to the 

 plants in question, in return for the pleasure of seeing such beautiful insects 

 frequenting their premises. — E. Ernest Grken, Camberley : Nov. lOth, 1917. 



A further note on Aphelochirus. — In his note on Aj)helochirns aestivalis 

 Fabr. in the November number of this Magazine, Dr. Bergroth, while appa- 

 rently not demurring to my identification of the form we possess in this 

 country, disputes the specific validity of A. mo)Uandoni Ilorv. I had, imfor- 

 tuuately, overlooked Renter's remarks, to which Dr. Bergroth refers, although 

 his papers were on my bookshelves all the time. Renter considers that the 

 differences in outline and in the genital plates of the $ may {vermutlivh) be 

 due to the state of repletion or otherwise of the bug at the time of capture, or 

 to a certain amount of distortion produced in drying, .and th.it the colour varia- 

 tions may (wahrscheinlich, vielleicht) depend upon the age of the specimens and 

 the kind of waters, and the general physical environment in which they are 

 found, and his conclusion is that very 2)>'obahly (he does not go farther than 

 that) A. montandoni is a colour variety oi A. aestivalis. Horvath, in Ann.Mus. 

 Hung. X, p. 609, accepts the identity of A. montatidoni and A. aestivalis with- 

 out any comment. The fact that intermediate specimens have occurred on the 

 Continent certainly lends colour to this conclusion, though I submit that 

 the most irrefutable evidence, viz. that gained by breeding the species on a 



* \Vc have also hearil of a cai'ture at tmsworth, Hants. — Eds. 



