176 



is small and white without a ring, the fringe of upper side is yellow. 

 In my volume r, I will allowthat this species has had less than justice. 

 'I'he sexes are both too small, and the upper side of wing of the female 

 is crooked in the printing. One of my copies of this volume, the ori- 

 ginal edition, has yellow fringes, the other a later imprint of H. M., 

 & Co., by mistake of the colorist, has roseate, which is wrong. It is 

 an oversight I much regret, and I would willingly have the plate re- 

 drawn and re-colored at my own expense, and call in defective copies, 

 if that were possible. But the species is now so well known, and so 

 common in collections, that the defects of this plate are of less impor- 

 tance than otherwise they would be. The description should in this 

 case be followed where the figure varies from it. 



The typical Echvardsii has an orange discal spot on hind v ings of 

 female. In both sexes this spot below is in a rosy ring; there is a 

 small rosy patch at base; a much more decided border to upper fore- 

 wing, and more extended, than appears in Alexandra. I never have seen 

 an example of either sex of either of these species in'which there was a 

 trace of submarginal spots on under side. It is a point in both species 

 that they do not have these. Now, Dr. Hagen tells us that 7 of these 129 

 Edwardsii have more or less of these submarginal spots. The dis- 

 tinctive marks of that species are well shown in the Plate, but the 

 fringes of the male should be yellow as the text declares; those of the 

 female are correct, being rosy. It is possible, as before said, that 

 these species may prove to be seasonally dimorphic. But nothing can 

 determine that before one or both are bred from eggs laid by females 

 in confinement. And till that happens, I shall regard them as distinct. 



I doubt exceedingly whether my puzzled friend is really talking 

 about Edwardsii. From his insisting that Alexandra is Edwardsii, 

 and Emilia is Edwardsii, and Astrcea is both Alexandra and Ed- 

 wardsii, and female Christina is EcTivardsii, and probably the male 

 also is Edwardsii, and HarforjiH is Edwardsii, and Laurejitina is Ed- 

 wardsii, I say after this mixing up of species, how can one have any as- 

 surance to how many species these 83 ^ and 44 ? put down as Edward- 

 sii belong! In this obscurity I see one ray which affords a little light; 

 " of the six couples collected in copulation, of one the male is Philo- 

 dice, the female Edwardsii^' p. 155. Now, there never was an example 

 of Philodice seen in Oregon or within a thousand miles of it. On p. 170, 

 we read of Chrysomelas, which belongs to a sub-group with Occidentalis, 

 which last the Doctor puts down as one of the protean phases oilnterior, 

 " the species must be considered as Philodice till more sufficient infor- 

 mation is at hand." On p. 174 under Philodice, we have as synony- 

 mns, " Northwestern forms Eriphyle and Chrysomelas." So that I am 

 forced to conclude that the doctor found a <^ ? Chrysomelas in cop. as 

 was right and proper. 



Colias Christina is so peculiar a species that no trained lepidopterist 

 can look at it without seeing that as a whole it is unlike any other 

 American speci'es. Its male is yellow, but with great patches of 

 bright orange, not over the surface as in Eurytheme, but on the disks 

 of each wing. The female is described and figured in B. N. A., as 



