68 



SATYRIDAE 



Genus Oeneis. 



Our grouping of the species of this genus in our Check List 

 was more or less tentative, especially in the oeno-semidea group; in 

 general we adhered to W. H. Edwards' arrangement as expressed in 

 J. B. Smith's list of 1903, but we felt that considerable study was 

 necessary before arriving at any definite conclusion. Recently we have 

 worked over the S genitalia of the above mentioned group, in con- 

 nection with a careful study of Elwes and Edwards' most excellent 

 revision of the genus (1893, Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. IV, 457) and 

 are glad to be able to state that our own dissections fully agree with 

 the figures of the $ claspers given in the above work. 



The species which has caused the most trouble to identify cor- 

 rectly is oeno Bdv., described apparently from Russian Lapland in the 

 Icones (1833, p. 196, PI. 39, Figs. 4-6) although specimens from Siberia 

 and Labrador are also mentioned ; Moeschler, ( 1863, Wien, Ent. Mon. 

 VII, 201), Scudder (1865, Proc. Ent. Soc. Phil. V, 13) and Edwards 

 (Butt. N. Am. Ill, Chionobas, VII) have all treated this species in great 

 detail and all have expressed different opinions as to its identity ; Elwes 

 has omitted the species in his paper as unknown to him as he states 

 later (1894, Can. Ent. XXVI, 133). After a careful study of Bois- 

 duval's figures and text we have concluded that Scudder's determina- 

 tion satisfies the requirements best and propose adopting it until an 

 examination of Boisduval's type specimens (which should be in the 

 Oberthur collection) is possible; according to this identification ocno 

 Bdv. takes priority over crambis Freyer. Elwes, after a study of the 

 type specimens and their genital structure makes subhyalina Curt, and 

 assimiiis Butl. also synonymous with crambis which very unjustly calls 

 down the wrath of W. H. Edwards (1894, C. Ent. XXVI, 55) who 

 refuses to accept the evidence of the genitalia as of any value and 

 casts doubts on the authenticity of the type specimen of subhyalina 

 ex Coll. Oberthur. In both this paper and in Volume III of his But- 

 terflies of N. Am. (Chionobas VII) Edwards very emphatically asso- 

 ciates oeno and assimiiis with a Colorado form which Elwes had al- 

 ready shown to be quite distinct in genitalia from the types of assimiiis 

 and subhyalina and very closely approached to seniidea. We can see 



