EVERES ALCETAS. 235 



■distinct species been noted. Hence up to the time of publication of 

 Staudinger's Catalog, 2nd ed., p. 9, there appears to have been no 

 general suspicion that it was anything except what he called it, viz., 

 " ab. rort'tas, subtus maculis rufis nullis." Mabille, however, in 1877, 

 challenged the general opuiion {Bull. Ent. Snc. Fr., 1877, pp. 64, 70-71), 

 stated that the insect he captured at St. Jean de Luz, was absolutely- 

 identical with Hiibner's tiresias, tigs. 319-321, that the name pulij- 

 sperchon was erroneously applied to it in France, and that the larva, 

 which w\as undescribed, lived he believed, in " les gousses de Tajonc." 

 It is remarkable that this statement did not attract Staudinger's 

 notice, and that he persisted in the erroneous synonymy of the various 

 forms of this species in his Catahxj, 3rd ed., p. 77. In the meantime, 

 however, in 1886, Staudinger had himself described a colour aberra- 

 tion of this coretas (rect. alcetaa) form as decolurata, from south-eastern 

 Europe — Hungary, Roumania, and Bulgaria — several specimens of 

 which are in the British Museum collection, under the name coretas. 



In 1904, Jachontov raised the question of the specific distinctness 

 of coretas (rect. alcetas). This paper {Ber. Ent. Rtisse. iv., p. 96) is in 

 Russian, but he gives, in Latin, the following gist of his argument : 

 " A L. arf/iade, Pall., difi'ert non solum alls subtus maculis rufis nullis 

 (quod insigne apud Staudinger et Rebel afi'ertur) vel subnullis, sed 

 etiam, magnitudine paulo majore, codicula alarum postiearum duple 

 breviore, pagina superiore 3' Ifetius cferulea, tenerius nigro-marginata, 

 punctorum seriei extern^e dispositione, qua L. coretas cum L. jischeri 

 •congruit. Patria — Germania, Russia centr. orient et merid., Caucasus, 

 Pontus. In Austro-Hungaria, Rumania, et Bulgaria habitat var. (non L. 

 arijiadaeoh.) decolorata, Staud., pagina superiore $ viridi-cferulea. Volat 

 Junio." Here it will be remarked he notes two important items, viz., that 

 alcetas (1) need not be ahsolateiij without fulvous on the underside of 

 the hindwings, (2) that the submarginal row of dots on the underside 

 •of the hindwings is different from that of typical art/iades. Both 

 these items are important as agreeing with characteristic details of 

 Hiibner's tiresias, fig. 321, and also as agreeing with the undersides of 

 all the examples of this form in the British Museum collection. 

 Jachontov's note was followed by others, viz. (1) Brown (Bidl Soc. 

 Ent. Fr., 1905, p. 11), Avho claims that the Bordeaux coretas are dis- 

 tinct, (2) Oberthiir (La Feuille des Jeunes Xaturalistes, 4th ser., 

 p. 149, 1906), who claims that the coretas of Digne, and the Eastern 

 Pyrenees, are specifically distinct from amj/ntas{ — ar(fiades) , both species 

 occurring at Digne, (3) Grund {Int. Entom. Zeit., xxi., 1907, p. 125), etc. 

 As the original specimens of alcetas, Hb., and coretas, Ochs., were 

 captured by the Vienna collectors of 125 years ago, it was well that 

 Rebel should examine the question. This he does {Verh. zool.-bot. 

 GeselL, Iviiii., pp. 32 et seq.), reiterating the specific identity of the two 

 forms. He bases his argument on the facts that (1) coretas occurs 

 throughout the Vienna district and the Balkan district t-enerally, with 

 {a) the spring brood pohjsperchon, and {h) the summer brood amyntas, 

 of Everes artjiades. (2) Coretas presents, in neither brood, no dis- 

 tinguishable seasonal dimorphism from that exhibited by E. ar;/iades. 

 (3) The occurrence of intermediate forms between ari/iades and coretas 

 in the difi'erential characters — the orange-red crescents, and the silver 

 kernels to the caudal spots on the underside of hindwing. (4) The 

 similarity of the <? genitalia, as determined by Schlereth, in poly- 



