i6i 



and the translation of the first by Rev. Morris. Mr. Felder 

 (Wien. F. B. Ger., 1864, p. 361) says: By the shape of the wings 

 easily to be distinguished from P. tiirnus. The female looks 

 — primo intuitu — very similar to P. daunus. Mr, Mead 

 (Wheeler's Exped., 1875, T. V., p. 741, says: Closely allied to P. 

 turnus ; the only constant distinction seems to be that the sub- 

 marginal ray (of yellow spots) on the underside of the primaries 

 {secondaries Edzv., is probably a misprint) is continuous ; in P. 

 turnus it is broken up in distinct spots, S. Utah ; Colorado in 

 June. Mr. Strecker (Lepid. 1877, P- 128) describes dwarfish spec- 

 imens Exp. 70 mm. from Arizona as van or ab. No figure of 

 P. rutulus is known to me. 



Mr. Boisduval says : P. rntuhis differs from P. turnus in that 

 the upperside of the secondaries have not the fulvous crescent 

 on the internal angle, and the underside has not the fulvous 

 crescent in the border, nor the sagittate spots between the border 

 and discoidal cellule of P. turnus (Ann. Soc. Ent. Tr., 1852, p. 

 280, and Morris Lep. N. A., p. 4). Mr. Lucas says: P. rutulus, 

 though very similar to P. tiLruus differs by very marked char- 

 acters. The black margin of all wings is always darker and in- 

 ternally less sinuated ; the five bands of the wings are deeper 

 blackish, broader, principally the basal one, and internally less 

 dentated. The series of marginal spots on the secondaries has 

 only five crescents, sometimes only four, one of them fulvous ; 

 the yellow submarginal spots on the underside of the primaries 

 form a continuous band ; on the secondaries the fulvous marks 

 in the centre of the submarginal spots are wanting.* 



The characters admitted as proving the difference between 

 P. rutulus and P. turnus are : 



I. The submarginal ray of yellow spots on the underside of 

 the primaries forming a continuous band (W. H. Edwards ; 

 Lucas). 



IL The lack of the fulvous crescent on the upperside of the 

 secondaries at the internal angle (Boisduval ; Lucas). 



in. The lack of the fulvous marks and the sagittate fulvous 

 spots on the underside of the secondaries (Boisduval ; Lucas). 



IV. The margin of the wings and the five bands are broader 

 and of a deeper black (Lucas). 



It is very obvious that none of those differences are of de- 

 cided importance. The examination of the constancy of those 

 characters gives the following result : 



Concerning I. and III., all 18 specimens before me agree in 

 showing the characters mentioned here. Concerning IL, lO 

 specimens $ ? have no spot at all on the internal angle of the 

 secondaries; 8 spec. $ $ have a small yellow spot, or only a few 



* Dr. Behr. Stett. Ent Z.,i866, p. 216, says: P. eurymedon^ t w/w/xjand onen.sp. can be perhaps 

 o nly local var. of P. iur/ais but ibid. i863, p. 300, he says : P. rutulus is surely different from P. 

 urnus. 



