THE GENUS HESPERIA. A CORRECTION. 41 



The Genus Hesperia. — A Correction. 



(With Plate I.) 

 By B. C. S. WARREN, F.E.S. 



In the volumes of the Kntojiiolonist's Ilecord for 1917, 1918, and 

 1919, there appeared a series of articles on the genus Hesperia, by the 

 late Dr. T. A. Chapman, accompanied by several plates. In vol. xxix. 

 (1917), on plate 8, the armature of three species is shown ; fig. 2 being 

 named androniedae. In looking over this article some months ago, and 

 coming to this plate, I was at once struck by the obvious fact that fig. 

 2 did not represent the armature of androniedae, or, on closer inspec- 

 tion, that of any known Paljearctic species. I wrote to Dr. Chapman, 

 and called his attention to the fact that by some accident a wrong 

 photograph had got published for andromedae. What had actually 

 happened was this. When Dr. Chapman was selecting examples of 

 his microscopic mounts for photographing, he took the best prepara- 

 tion marked andromedae, without looking to see whether it was typical 

 or not, and sent it to be photographed, and subsequently published the 

 photograph without further thought. 



The great interest about this photograph is, as already noted, that 

 it does not represent the genital armature of any known species. The 

 actual specimen from which the dissection photographed was made, had 

 been captured in 1907, in Witim, N.E. of Lake Baikal, by Max Bartel, 

 from whom Dr. Chapman received it, labelled andromedae. At the 

 same time he got several specimens of H. sihirica, and must have 

 passed the specimen over as that latter species when he had it under the 

 microscope ; and afterwards relying on the number of the mount, and 

 Bartel's label on the specimen, he marked the mount andromedae. I 

 was corresponding with him about the matter until the day of his 

 death, and he was endeavouring to obtain further specimens so as to 

 be able to determine what it reallj^ was, before correcting the oversight. 

 He was not, however, able to do so, and I have since heard that Bartel 

 died quite ten years ago ; so the chances of getting further specimens 

 are very slight. 



It is a noteworth}" fact that the photograph has stood as andromedae 

 for the past five years ; and goes to emphasize the complete confidence 

 that entomologists both at home and abroad, placed in any statement 

 vouched for by the name T. A. Chapman. Had anyone thought of 

 comparing the illustration with a specimen, the difference must instantly 

 have been remarked. I do not suppose I would have ever noticed it 

 myself, only some time before I had, at the request of Prof. Reverdin, 

 agreed to undertake a book on the Hesperiids ; and was consequently 

 going over any thing recently published on the subject very critically. 



Thanks to the kindness of the Misses Chapman, I was able to 

 examine the specimen we have been considering, and which for clear- 

 ness sake I will refer to in this article as X. 



Superficially, it is indistinguishable from sibirica ; while, anatomi- 

 cally, the differences are such, that had one a series of the insect it 

 must undoubtedly be considered a distinct species. Since then, another 

 specimen has been found. Having permission to take any specimens 

 which would be of value to me from the Hesperiids in Dr. Chapman's 

 :!ollection, except those corresponding to mounted preparations of tl^e 

 genitalia (for all Dr. Chapman's anatomical preparations and the speci- ■ 



March 15th, 1922. 



