SOME SPRING AND AUTUMN BUTTERFLIES OF CANNES. 75 
Methodicus’ (1829), p. 26, under Genus Hesperia, Lat., Och., 
includes “‘ Tessellum, H., Och. . . . Galloprov,” but, as 
Duponchel points out, both Godart and Ochsenheimer had 
confused tessellum with carthami, and applied the name of 
a South Russian species to the not uncommon Hesperiid 
of the ‘‘ Galloprov.’’ Ochsenheimer repaired this error (tom. iv. 
suppl. p. 157, no. 3. 1816), but though Cantener, usually 
‘very accurate (‘Lépids. Rhopal. des Haut-Rhin., etc.’, p. 149, 
1834), accepts tessellum as a French insect, and describes carthame 
separately, neither Boisduval nor Milliére (loc. cit. Suppl.) noticed 
the duplication, and as neither mentions carthami in their lists, 
it is a natural deduction that they continued, at their respective 
epochs, to regard the French carthami as properly named 
tessellum. Meanwhile, Duponchel unconsciously contributed to 
the perpetuation of the mistake by announcing that he had 
received from the Comte de Saporta a Hesperiid, described in his 
“ Supplément’ (tom. 1., 1832) under alveus, “ which might very 
well have been the true tessellwm (la quelle pourrait bien étre le 
véritable tessellum),” although it did not conform entirely to 
Ochsenheimer’s description, still less to Hubner’s figures (469, 
470) of the latter. This tessellum-like alveus M. Oberthur 
identifies with his Hesperia foulquieri—at all events, Duponchel’s 
description closely tallies with it. We have, therefore, no evidence 
that H. tessellum ever occurred in France, and it need scarcely be 
added that M. Oberthur, in ‘ Lépid. Comparée,’ fasc. iv., where 
he enumerates the French Hesperiids, ignores altogether the 
tessellum of the Alpes-Maritimes, and of the Var (de Boormans). 
Mr. Bromilow merely repeats Milliére’s error.*] 
P. proto does not apparently come as far east along the 
Riviera as Cannes. 
[P. orbifer.—Writing in the ‘ Entomologist,’ vol. xxii., p. 257, 
Mr. Warburg says: ‘I do not think we take it’ at Cannes. | 
I should not have reverted to this remark, unless Dr. Siepi, 
a recognised authority on the Lepidoptera of Marseilles and the 
Bouche-du-Rhone, had given a circumstantial account of the 
capture of this central and east Huropean Hesperiid in his 
careful work on the Lepidoptera of the Department (‘ Ann. Mus. 
Hist. Nat., Marseille,’ 1904-5, p. 43). He states that P. orbifer_ 
* Another entomological legend of the Family which has been handed 
down through a century or more of writers is that which locates Cyclo- 
pides silvius Knoch, in Piedmont. As late as Kane’s ‘ European 
Butterflies’ (1885) the Fenestrella Mountains are cited as a haunt of this 
essentially northern butterfly—being the locality originally recorded for 
his Papilio silvius: by de Prunner (‘ Lepid. Pedemontana,’ p. 67. 1798), 
though Ghiliani, who completely mastered Rambiir’s lucid diagnosis of 
the Hesperiids, is silent on the subject (‘ Klenco dei Lepid. degli State 
Sardi’). De Prunner’s silviws reads not unlike an aberration of C. 
palaemon in which the yellow ground-colour predominates to the exclusion of 
the black.—? Tutt’s ab. No. 5 = lutea-excessa (‘ Brit. Butterflies,’ vol. i., 
p. 195). 
