98 
greatly, in that the rows and bands of spots are all pale yellow without 
any silver except a faint trace at times on the marginal lunules; the 
ground color is however deep cinnamon-brown and not yellowish as 
in aphirape. We would propose the name APHIRAPE ALTICOLA subsp. 
nov. for this Colorado form and have made types and cotypes of 5 4’s 
and 2 @’s from Hall Valley, Colo., (June 21-30) (Barnes) contained 
in Coll. Barnes. 
CHLORIPPE MONTIS Edw. 
Dr. Skinner in his paper on the Boreal Am. Species of the genus 
Chlorippe says of this form “Montis is only slightly different from the 
Texan antonia and is found in Colorado. It is lighter in color in some 
specimens and is only a mountain mutation.” If Dr. Skinner had con- 
sulted the original description (Pap. III, 7) he would have discovered 
that the race was described in a paper entitled ‘Notes on the collection 
of butterflies made by Mr. H. K. Morrison in Arizona, 1882” and that, 
although a single ¢ taken by Mr. Dodge at Boulder, Colo., is men- 
tioned as belonging to this variety, the description of the species was 
drawn up from 3 ¢,3 2 from Mt. Graham, Arizona, which must be 
regarded as the type locality. 
On a recent visit to the Edwards Collection we were unable to 
find any of these types; a series labelled v. montis by Edwards (appar- 
ently erroneously ) consisted of Colorado specimens which scarcely dif- 
fered from antonia, and certainly not sufficiently to warrant a name; 
one specimen was found labelled “Antonia $, Dodge, type of mon- 
tana’ which is evidently the specimen referred to by Edwards in the 
course of his description. 
The original description calls for an entirely different insect to 
the Colorado form; Edwards states “The Arizona examples are fulvous 
above, bluish gray beneath but in other points they agree with antonia”. 
Later in the description he calls attention to the lack of white on the 
underside of secondaries. 
We have a long series of both sexes from Arizona which agree 
exactly with this description and the racial name appears to us very 
well grounded. The form is at once separated from antonia by the 
bright fulvous appearance of the upper side; in coloration it approaches 
very closely /eilia but is separated from this form by the fact that there 
are two spots in the cell of primaries towards base of wing super- 
imposed but not coalescing to form a bar as in /eilia; the white bar in 
