76 THlt; ENTOMOLOGIST. 



" lapponica, Gerli. (L. a. (egidion, Auct.)." " Since," he writes,, 

 "it seems that cegidion, Meissner, is an alpine form of Lyceena 

 argils, L., our northern race of L. argyrognomon, Bergst., must 

 bear the name stated above." 



The question then arises how far we are justified in restoring 

 Gerhard's varietal name lapponica for the northern argus 

 (cegidion, Auct.),* figured plate 34, 3 a, h, c. M. Oberthiir 

 (' L6pid. Comparee,' fasc. iv., p. 184), discussing this plate and 

 the other forms of argus and cogon represented by Gerhard, says 

 that, without being absolutely bad, the coloration of tbe figures 

 lacks refinement, and for this, and for want of precise indications 

 of locality, he considers them valueless for accurate identification. 

 But the text supplies one deficiency at all events, in so far that 

 Gerhard states (p. 19) that the figured examples of his lapponica, 

 which he describes as a form of cegon, came from Lapland ; and 

 though the female shows no trace of blue on the upper side, the 

 male is an unmistakable arctic argus. 



On the other hand, the butterfly figured on plate 23 as 

 (egidion, Meissner, is certainly not argus lapponica ; the text again 

 compels (p. 13) this conclusion, the figures 4fl, 6, c beuig drawn 

 and coloured from South European models. As idas was 

 first given by Linneus to the female argus, L. (= cegon, Schiff. ?), 

 it was none the less a nomen prceoccupatum when Zetterstedt 

 tacked it on to the arctic argus for both sexes, evidently not 

 meaning to indicate any particular form of argus or cego7i, but 

 adopting a name which in the tenth edition of the ' Systema 

 Naturae' (1758) had already been transposed to "P. B. idas . . . 

 habitat in Indiis.'' Intermediate authors have perpetuated the 

 name cegidion, Meissner, in error; but, by the laws of priority, 

 Gerhard's name lajjponica prevails. Now I see Dr. Courvoisier, 

 of Bale, applies idasf to argus as the specific name, which seems 

 again contrary to the law of priority, irrespective of Eambur 

 having given the name in 1838-39 to an entirely different 

 species, and confusion is worse confounded. 



The typical lapponica is shortly described by Aurivillius 

 (Nordens Fjarilar, pp. 12-13) as distinguished from the type 

 by the smaller size ; the male, upper side, light blue ; under side 

 lighter with smaller eye-spots. Approaches argus {= cegon) in 

 appearance but the S niay be immediately distinguished by 

 the male scales (androconia),]: and the ? by the feebler white 

 markings on the under side. 



* ' Versuch einer Monographie cler eur. Schmetts. arten Thecla, Polyommatus, 

 etc.,' 1853, where it is curious to observe that while lapponica is spelt thus in the 

 text, in the legend to the plate it is laponica. 



] E.g. ' Lepid. Comparee,' xiv, p. 33, etc., 1917. 



\ The distinction of the androconia is evident from the many excellent figures 

 published by various authors; and is clearly demonstrated by Dr. Courvorsier 

 (' L6pid. Comparee,' fasc. xiv, p. 39) who publishes in the same work comparative 

 drawings of the scales in iX(ion and idas (= argus), and aimoricana, bellieri, aegus 

 (= ligurica, Courv.), Chpmn., and iiivea, Courv., all of which four last mentioned 

 have been separated from argus in the last few years. 



