NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS. 17 



publishes a notice (Entom. xxvi. 318) of some additional localities I 

 bave omitted. May I explain that when I refer to Arr/ynnis paphia, for 

 instance, as " existing in almost all the wooded districts," a few locali- 

 ties only are added to illustrate the universal nature of its distribution. 

 hpinephilehijperanthes, Ccenonympha tijphon, Macroulussa stellatariim, and 

 tluerocampa elpenor are also cases in which it is wholly impossible 

 md quite unnecessary to specify more than a few locahties where, for 

 nstance, the insect in question is especially common, or to show 

 aorthern or southern range, or for other analogous reason. I am 

 ^ery glad to hear of Smerinthiis ocellatus at Armagh. Trochilium 

 ■rabroniformis at Armagh I am responsible for, and not Mr. Johnson, 

 IS he states. In Mr. Harcourt Bath's notice of Vanessa c-alhum (Entom. 

 cxyi. 338) a remark occurs which illustrates some of the difficulties 

 vhich attend a task of expurgation. It commences with the assertion 

 hat "lu Ireland this butterfly is also very rarely observed." This of 

 sourse implies that it has been taken here at least twice. Can Mr. 

 larcourt Bath supply me with any authentic records ? The ' Supple- 

 nentary List' of Birchall contained the one referred to by Newman, 

 lamely, of a specimen, thought to be of this species, seen flying at 

 owerscourt by Mr. Crewe, when in the company of Mr. A. Gr. More, 

 hen Curator of the Royal Dublin Society's Museum, who is a most 

 ompetent entomologist. Mr. More, many years ago, assured me that 

 he distance was too great for identification, and that he himself took 

 lie insect for a very tattered specimen of Vanessa urticai, and I made a 

 lemorandum of his statement accordingly. Sijrkhthus malvce is 

 nother error in the same Supplement, which crept into it on the 

 uthority of Mr. W. F. Kirby, then of the Dublin Museum, who, 

 ndmg subsequently that the specimen (contained in a collection now 

 1 my possession) was almost certainly English, published a coutra- 

 ictiou and withdrawal. I hoped that it would not have been necessary 

 )r me to explain seriatim the grounds on which I have omitted many 

 Decies from the Irish Catalogue. They are set forth generally in the 

 reface (Entom. xxvi. 73), but if any can be reinstated by any author 

 ritmg on the Irish fauna, it would be always satisfactory to have a 

 3rification of the record supplied.— W. F. de V. Kane ; Drumreaske 

 -ouse, Monaghan, Dec. 4th, 1893. 



Aberkation of Thecla rubi.— Mr. R. E. Dillon, of Clonbrock, 

 hascragh, Ireland, has kindly sent me for examination a very 

 markable example of T. ruhi. The specimen, which was taken in the 

 ^ginning of June last, is in rather poor condition, and the fore wings 

 )pear to be rather narrower than in typical specimens. The upper 

 irface of all the wings is fuliginous brown, and the under surface 

 entirely without the usual green coloration ; the white macular line 

 band (in normal specimens rarely well defined, and frequently only 

 presented by one or two spots) is very distinct and regular. The 

 xual mark is hardly paler than the ground colour, and very obscure. 

 )metimes in this species the green colour of under surface gives place 

 a bronzy brown, but this is the only instance I am aware of in which 

 I trace of green is absent.— Richard South ; 12, Abbey Gardens; 

 . John's Wood, N.W. 



ENTOM.— JAN., 1894. Q 



