119 



XIX, 477, 482). Scudder has shown (C. Ent. VIII, 234) that Ed- 

 wards later misidentified his own species and this is borne out by the 

 specimens in the Edwards' Collection under behri, the $ 's of which 

 are distinctly referable to icarioides (mark op a) ; Scudder however has 

 identified a Southern California race as behri not having seen any 

 specimens from the middle section of the state; in view of the fact 

 that Behr was residing in S. Francisco we believe there is more prob- 

 ability of typical behri having been captured around this city than in 

 Southern California. 



Lycaena pardalis Behr. (PI. XI, Fig. 7). 



We have already referred erymus Bdv. to this species (Ent. Rec. 

 1914, p. 199). A study of the $ genitalia shows it referable to the 

 genus Lycaena which contains the arion group of European blues; 

 Behr's original comparison of the species with the arion group was 

 therefore extremely well founded. This species has apparently been 

 confused with icarioides as several specimens have come to us bear- 

 ing this label. The species is local; the type locality is the Contra 

 Costa Coast range and we have specimens from Sonoma Co. and Mill 

 Valley, Marin Co. before us. We figure the underside of a 9 show- 

 ing the heavy black spotting on a deep brown ground color. 



Lycaenopsis pseudargiolus Bdv. 



Tutt has shown (Brit. Butt. II, p. 405) that Butler's citation of 

 ladon Cram, as referring to our N. Am. species is entirely ungrounded 

 and that the name pseudargiolus must be retained. We cannot follow 

 Edwards' reasoning at all, however, in restricting the name to the 

 large, sparsely marked summer form of the Southern Atlantic States. 

 He says (1866, Proc. Ent. Soc. Phil. VI, 205), following a redescrip- 

 tion of pseudargiolus (according to his idea), that Boisduval's descrip- 

 tion might apply to either 'this species or to neglecta or to violacea and 

 the figure of the male is not pseudargiolus but nearer violacea, being 

 same size, very like it beneath but not well colored on the upper side,' 

 and then strangely goes on to attempt to prove that pseudargiolus 

 should be applied to the large form figured by Smith & Abbot as 

 argiolus (PI. 15). Later (Butt. N. Am. I, Lye. II, text) he rejects 

 Boisduval's figure of $ pseudargiolus as not coinciding with the text, 

 apparently on the sole ground that Boisduval's description states that 

 the fringes are checkered and his figure shows only those of the pri- 

 maries to be so. If we turn to Boisduval's description which is com- 



