THE ATHALIA GROUP OF THE GENUS MELIT55A. 213 



written, as might appear, as an implied refusal to accept that ex- 

 planation. At the same time, I adhere to the general principles 

 which I have expressed ; and with regard to the particular case in 

 point. Dr. Chapman must indeed be hard to convince if he does not 

 consider the evidence sufficient for the double-broodedness of what I 

 must continue to call britomartis at Eeazzino. Nothing could be 

 more misleading (unintentionally, I am sure) than the statement that 

 I " took it in June and in July in different seasons, and considered the 

 June season a late one, and that these were the first and second 

 broods," especially with the implication that this was my sole reason. 

 This might mean that I took it one year at the end of June and 

 another year at the beginning of July, and considered that sufficient 

 evidence of the insect being double-brooded ! a madly rash conclusion, 

 even though my entries of dates with regard to other insects show 

 that the season ^vas a late one. The facts, however, are very different. 

 I first found this Melitcea at Eeazzino on July 25th, 1904, in fair 

 numbers on ground which I had hunted thoroughly on the 22nd 

 without seeing a single specimen of this insect, though there was no 

 lack of others. This would imply that in all probability the species, 

 all the specimens of which were very fresh, had come out between 

 the 22nd and the 25th. I had no opportunity of visiting the same 

 ground till July, 1906, when britomartis did not become really common 

 till the 2J:th, though both sexes were taken the previous day, and one 

 or two males as much as nine days before. So far I had no idea of 

 its being double-brooded, but finding myself at Eeazzino at the end 

 of June, 1907, I unexpectedly came across a few worn specimens of 

 a Melitcea, the under side of which showed at once that it was the 

 same species, whilst the condition and date combined, when com- 

 pared with the late July specimens of 1904 and 1906, made it obvious 

 that they could not belong to the same brood. But this is by no 

 means all. The two broods, though so much alike on the under side, 

 differ greatly in the appearance of the upper side, especially in the 

 males ; whilst in the matter of size the very great difference has 

 already been remarked upon (' Entomologist,' xli. pp. 181, 269). 

 Indeed, with the exception of one or two unusually large females of 

 the second brood, it would be impossible to mistake the specimens 

 of one brood for those of the other. I should add that the specimens 

 taken in June last year by Mr. Lowe on the same ground were like 

 those I took at the same time in 1907, and, hke mine, were by no 

 means freshly emerged. I think also that Dr. Chapman has over- 

 looked the fact that all the June females which I kept for ova proved 

 to have already laid their eggs, whilst I was able to obtain eggs 

 by dissection from the July females, which died without laying, 

 probably through my ignorance of their food-plant. I still cannot 

 help thinking that this evidence for the double-broodedness of this 

 Melitcea is, as I previously called it, not merely sufficient but over- 

 whelming. 



I certainly used the expressions to which Dr. Chapman refers 

 with regard to the palpi and antennae quite intentionally, and can 

 only express surprise at his regarding them as identical in this insect 

 and dictynna. But this is nothing to the surprise I felt at the 

 opinion attributed to me, as taken from my reported observations to 



