130 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 
British example I find in the British Museum is unlocalised, ex 
Smith coll., presented by Mrs. Farren White. Thomson (‘ Opuse. 
Ent.’ xx, p. 2206) discovered the species near Lund and elsewhere 
in Sweden; Gaulle records it, in his 1908 Catalogue, from 
France. In the British Museum is a series of ten German 
examples, one captured on August 30th, 1857, ex. coll. Ruthe. 
On July 15th, 1912, a good many males were found together 
—just as though they were ‘‘ assembled’’ by some unseen female 
—on plants growing in brackish water in the marshes of the Buss 
Creek, a couple of hundred yards from the sea coast, at South- 
wold, in Suffolk ; on the 17th of the following September a fine 
female, with the coxe and prothorax entirely rufescent, occurred 
a mile or so inland from this spot, at Reydon; on September 
16th, 1914, the species was again common in the Buss marshes 
and several females were taken. I have collected at the same 
spot annually for the past nineteen years, but seen it upon no 
other occasion. 
NOTES ON SOME SPRING AND AUTUMN BUTTERFLIES 
OF CANNES AND THE NEIGHBOURHOOD. 
By H. Rownanp-Browy, M.A., F.E.S. 
(Continued from p. 106.)* 
LycHNIDz (continued). * 
[C. lorquinntt, H.-S.—M. Oberthur (loc. cit. supra, 303-4) 
continues to regard this species as a form of C. minimus, but I 
think it has been established that lorquini, as he writes it, is 
separate and distinct, and, so far as Europe is concerned, 
peculiar to the Spanish peninsula. This is corroborated by his 
statement that a fine example thereof was taken by Coulet at 
Digne in 1896, ‘‘ perhaps, it was an accidental occurrence, 
and this is the only authentic French specimen I have seen.” 
Occasional purplish-blue-shot males of minimus turn up in the 
Riviera with the type, and these, it may be assumed, are the 
French lorquinnit of the authors. The question of identity is 
considered by Dr. Chapman (Tutt’s ‘ British Butterflies,’ vol. iii, 
p. 118), and he gives valid reasons for disagreeing with Rambur, 
* Hrratum.—Thestor ballus.—In my note on this species (antea, p. 104) 
for ‘‘a certain M. de Cerisy,” read ‘‘ M. Lefebvre, of Cerisy.” M. Oberthiir 
(‘Lépid Comparée,’ fase. ili, p. 98), whose reference to Boisduval’s Icones I 
adopted, makes the same omission. Lefebvre is, of course, the distinguished 
French entomologist, born 1797, died 1867; commemorated by Boisduval 
in the Pyrenean Hrebia lefebvret. The usually correct Hagen has made a 
mess of his name. 
