89 



the fact that a so-called 'type' of quino in the Strecker Collection 

 bears out this theory as well as a specimen we have recently received 

 from Prof. Owen which was identified by Behr himself as quino for 

 Prof. Rivers. On the other hand there are several points that un- 

 fortunately lead in a different direction. (1) The original descrip- 

 tion distinctly states that in the difference of wing shape between the 

 $ 's and 9 's the species closely approaches chalcedona; this is not 

 very clearly borne out by the San Diego series of augusta before us ; 

 there is of course a difference but not nearly so marked as in chalce- 

 dona and in fact several $ 's have almost as rounded an apical area as 

 the 9 's. 



(2) The underside of the primaries is said to closely resemble 

 that of chalcedona in showing little indication of the markings of the 

 upper side, being almost entirely of a reddish-brown color; this also 

 does not apply at all well to our S. Diego specimens which generally 

 have distinct yellow quadrate patches in and beyond the cell whereas 

 in chalcedona the cell is practically unicolorous with the rest of the 

 wing. 



(3) Behr's description is largely comparative with anicia Dbldy. 

 but we do not know definitely what species Behr had identified as 

 anicia; he certainly had not the true anicia before him which was de- 

 scribed from material taken in the Canadian Rockies by Lord Derby, 

 notwithstanding Grinnell's statement that California is the type local- 

 ity of the species (1. c. p. 382). Behr claimed to have anicia from 

 Mariposa and we suspect that what he calls anicia^ is the rubicunda of 

 Hy. Edwards. 



In the first two points mentioned quino would be much more 

 closely duplicated by sierra Wright than by augusta and if it were not 

 for the fact that sierra is a form of the High Sierras whereas quino 

 is stated to have been collected near San Diego, we would almost advise 

 this reference. Is it possible that the locality is erroneous and that Dr. 

 Cooper, who evidently, judging by Grinnell's statement, travelled in 

 various regions of California, got his labels mixed? 



For the present, however, we accept Grinnell's synonymy but we 

 imagine the last word in connection with quino has yet to be spoken. 



E. nubigena Behr. (PI. X, Figs. 8-10). 



The correct identity of this species is very puzzling. It was de- 

 scribed from the head waters of the Tuolumne River and the descrip- 

 tion is largely comparative with what Behr called M. anicia but which 



