THE ATHALIA GROUP OF THE GENHS MELIT^A. 215 



these cases are britomartis and diciynnoides. If we trusted to 

 the genitalia alone, we should consider the former (as represented 

 by the Eeazzino specimens) to be cospecific with dicti/nna and the 

 latter with aurelia. I state this on the authority of Dr. Chap- 

 man, and on this matter I believe there is no higher. Now it 

 appears to me unthinkable that any person acquainted with this 

 group could see an upper side series of the Eeazzino Melitcea side 

 by side with a similarly set series of dictynna, and suppose on 

 that evidence that they were the- same species, or even believe it 

 without indisputable proof; the same thing being equally true 

 with regard to dictynnoides and aurelia. If only first brood 

 specimens of britomartis were available (the second brood being 

 much more distinctive), it w^ould not be surprising if they were 

 taken for athalia, and dictynnoides on the upper side might 

 equally well in many cases be taken for dictynna, though the 

 under side, especially in the case of britomartis, tends more to 

 support the evidence of the genitalia. Now, if this evidence 

 were final and conclusive, as some specialists would seemingly 

 have us believe, we should be compelled to distrust the evidence 

 of the wing-markings, size, shape, &c. (which, in default of any 

 other facts, we should probably be justified in doing), and to 

 regard the one as a variety of dictynna, and the other as a 

 variety of aurelia. Jndeed, we should probably go one step 

 further, and speak of them as "local races" of these insects. 

 But here facts would at once contradict us. At Eeazzino there 

 is a single brood of dictynna, which is also single-brooded every- 

 where else, and this single brood comes out, as we should 

 expect, between the two broods of britomartis on the same 

 ground. In the same way, both on Mt. Cecina, where Hormuzaki 

 originally discovered dictynnoides, and on the Tatra, where Mr. 

 Sheldon took it last year, specimens of aurelia indistinguishable 

 from Swiss or South German examples are also taken, and 

 though both insects are in this case single-brooded, the time of 

 emergence is not identical for the two. In both these cases 

 these facts appear to me to amount to an overwhelming proof 

 that, the evidence of the genitalia notwithstanding, britomartis, 

 as represented by the Eeazzino specimens, is not a form of 

 dictynna, nor dictynnoides of aurelia. 



Unfortunately, neither of the two species under discussion 

 has so far been bred ab ovo, but even if the earlier stages 

 should be indistinguishable from those of dictynna and aurelia 

 respectively, that fact would not seem to me, in this group, the 

 iarvfe of which are so similar, to outweigh the evidence already 

 adduced for their specific distinctness, while if the earlier stages 

 differed at all materially from those of their nearest relatives, 

 the question would of course be settled to the satisfaction of 

 everyone that they are good species. The only scrap of evidence 

 on this part of the subject which I have been able to acquire 



