290 THE BUTTERFLIES OF NEW ENGLAND. 



I many years ago saw a specimen taken in the Catskills, probably the same as that 

 fignred by Edwards in his ilhistrated work, in which the upper wing is altogether as in 

 arthemis, excepting that the outer limit of the white belt is powdery and the band 

 somewhat narrower than usual ; Avhile on the hind wing only the inner border of the 

 band is marked, as a narrow powdery stripe of bluish scales. Another from the same 

 district, according to Mr. Edwards, has the belt narrow and macular on the upper 

 surface and generally pure white, but on the upper lialf of the fore wing crocked and 

 indistinct ; while on the hind wings the belt is very narrow and does not cross the 

 entire wing. Another specimen sent to me by the late Mr. F. G. Sanborn, has a very 

 pronounced whitish belt on the under surface of the front wings and no whitish mark- 

 ings whatever on the hind wings. A similar specimen appears to have been recorded 

 by Mr. Lyman of Montreal in the Canadian Entomologist. 



Relations to other forms. When proserpina was first described, 

 there was no doubt in the mind of the describer, nor of any one else, that 

 its specific virtue Avas irreproachable. When, however, five years after- 

 ward, I came to study the presumed species for this work, for which I had 

 seen a considerable number of specimens, I came to the conclusion that it 

 was only to be considered a variety of B. astyanax, and I embodied 

 this conclusion in the Systematic Revision I published in 1872. This view 

 was at once criticized by Mr. Grote and others, and at the close of 1873, 

 Mr. Edwards (Can. ent., v: 232), expressed the opinion that it would 

 probably prove a dimorphic form of B. arthemis. It w^as not until four 

 years later that he reached success in breeding experiments, which proved 

 that from eggs laid by a female proserpina there resulted both proserpina 

 and arthemis ; a definite relation to arthemis was thus fully proved. 

 Meanwhile the discovery of other varieties of proserpina, especially one I 

 saw in Mr. Mead's collection, the counterpart, if not the original, of figure 

 6 in Edwards's last plate, convinced me that my earliest conclusion was 

 incorrect, and I accordingly placed it as a dimorphic form of arthemis in 

 the Buflfalo Bulletin in 1875, but with the remark that it was "very 

 probably a hybrid of arthemis and astyanax." 



That suggestion the breeding experiments of Messrs. Mead and Edwards 

 in no way disprove, and I am disposed still to support it. In the single 

 instance where proserpina and arthemis were produced from eggs laid by 

 one individual, tlie mother was known to be proserpina, but the father was 

 probably arthemis, as the latter flies in the region of the experiment in the 

 greatest abundance. 



My reasons for maintaining the hybrid theory, are the following : — 



1 . Several instances of undoubted hybridism are known in the genus 

 Basilarchia. It seems to lend itself with exceptional readiness to this 

 peculiarity. 



2. Proserpina partakes of the characters of the two species mentioned, 

 but most nearly resembles astyanax, while its intimate relation to arthemis 

 has been proved by experiment ; it possesses, in fact, just the characters 

 we should expect of a hybrid between these speci'js. It varies most toward 



