VARIATION OF A. LEVANA. 163 



anj'one should feel disposed to question this statement, the 

 proofs are to be found in almost all writings on the subject ; as 

 an instance — let us hope an extreme instance — I would mention 

 my friend Dr. Chapman's notice in the Ent. Record of the 

 current year, p. 71, where the Melitceas that I brought from 

 Reazzino, and believe to be britomartis, Assmann, are definitely 

 pronounced to be dictt/nna on this character alone, and in total 

 disregard of the many dili'erences which I have already enume- 

 rated. To this, however, it will be necessary to recur. 



It seems also necessary to remark that this means of dis- 

 tinction, in common with all others, is of far greater value in 

 some groups than in others. In a group, for instance, where 

 there is close resemblance between the members with regard to 

 the appendages, a slighter difference will be of importance than 

 in a group where the divergences are generally considerable, and 

 in the same way these characters are of much greater vakie for 

 specific distinction where little or no variation occurs in the un- 

 doubted specimens of a single species, than in a case where their 

 characteristics are by no means so constant. 



(To be continued.) 



VARIATION OF A. LEVANA, L. : COMPARATIVE 

 DESCRIPTION AND POSSIBLE SIGNIFICANCE OF 

 THE WING MARKINGS IN LEVANA. 



By T. Reuss. 



(Continued from p. 141.) 



The above figures give a comparative view of some of the 

 facial details in the different species to which I have referred. 

 Fig. 1 is a form of V. io a,h.Jisc]teri, and discloses the normal io- 

 form shape of the third (apical) costal blotch. A similar develop- 

 ment of the marking is shown in the aberration of V. urticce, 



