179 



Apatura Codes, Lintncr, described (Papilio, IV, p. 141, 1884) 

 from I 9 , the type of which has kindly been loaned by Mr. Lintner, 

 is undoubtedly a 9 of typical Leilia- 



Apatura Clyton, Boisd-Lec 

 \;u-. OcELLATA, Edw. Rare. 



Apatuia Flora, Edw. Moderately common. 



Anaea Andria, Scud. Common. 



Our specimens agree with Mr. Edwards' figures of Gly cerium (But. 

 N. Am. I, pi. 46*. This species it has been pointed out by Mr. Scud- 

 der is not Glycerium as figured by Doubl.-Hew., and he proposes the 

 name Andria for the species common to the United States. Mr. Ed- 

 wards, in his latest Catalogue, places his Gfyceriuvi and Scudder's 

 Andria as synonyms of Troglodyta, Fabr. ; he has also determined our 

 specimens for us as that species. But Troglodyta, however, is known 

 to be synonymous with Astinax, Cram., and Astina, Hiib.; unfortu- 

 nately the description of Troglodyta and the figure of Astinax are too 

 imperfect to be of any use, hence we have had to depend on the ex- 

 cellent figures oi Astina, in Hiibner's Sammlung. From these figures 

 our specimens differ in a marked degree, and we therefore have no 

 hesitation in adopting Mr. Scudder's name. 



Mr. Scudder in his Historical sketch has pointed out the fact that 

 the generic name Paphia must be abandoned to the useNDf the Mol- 

 lusc A, where it was first used. 



Neonympha Gemma, Hiib. Three s])ecimens. 



Neonympha Sosybius, Fabr. Common. San Antonio River 

 and northward. 



Libythea Bachmani, Kirtl. i $ . 



Libythea Larvata, Strecker. Very common. 



Our specimens agree thoroughly with Mr. Strecker' s most excellent 

 description. Cramer's figures are usually worthless for purposes of 

 identification, but in this case they are sufficiently accurate to enable 

 us to separate this species trom his Carinenta. 



Charis Caenius, Linn. Very common. 



Thecla Halesus, Cram. i 9 . Nueces River. 



Thecla Melinus, Hiib. Common. 



Thecla Huinuii, Harr. 



A very careful examination of a large series from all parts of the 

 United States fails to show any difference by which Melimis and Hmnuli 

 can be separated even as varieties. 



Thecla Blenina, Hew. Common. 

 Thecla Siva, Edw. 



Our specimens agree with Hewitson's figures and descrij^tions and 

 with specimens of Siva from Arizona, determined by Mr. Edwards, 

 and also with his description. They were returned by Mr. Edwards 

 as his Castalis, but the absence of the white spot at the Inise of secon- 

 daries beneath separates them therefrom. 



