196 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 
Frionnet’s ‘Premiers Etats des Lépids. Francais’ we find 
(p. 187) Isére with a double ??, Vosges; the interrogation 
is reversed by Goossens (Ann. Leval.-Pierret, 1900, p. 11), 
where the ? is placed after Vosges, and Isére stands unques- 
tioned. The brothers Speyer (1858) are responsible for 
“N. France” on the authority of de Selys Longchamps; 
possibly an allusion to the occurrence of the butterfly in that 
curious “‘ islet’ of alpine flora and fauna, Baraque-Michel in the 
Belgian Ardennes, treated passim in a very interesting paper by 
M. Léon Fredericq (‘ Ann. Roy. Acad. Belge, Bull. Classe des 
Sciences,’ No. 12, 1904). The ‘“‘ Vosges” may refer to the 
present German part of the range. However, though the Isére 
records must be treated with suspicion pending confirmation, 
aphirape does affect French soil, for I recall M. Oberthur telling 
me in conversation that he knew of a locality for it on the 
Franco-Swiss frontier in the department of the Doubs. At all 
events it is a butterfly of Baden, the northern marshes, and 
Arctic mountains, and remains to be identified in the Alpes- 
Maritimes and other similar regions of the South-Huropean 
system. | 
b. hecate.-—"* Very local, but occurs in one locality not far 
from Cannes, where it is restricted to a single wood.’’ On the 
wing from June 10th onward, it is recorded by Milliere in his 
first Catalogue as rare; and this is expanded in the second 
Supplement (p. 4) to ‘‘ environs of Vence and Mougins, where in 
some years it appears commonly among Dorycnium.”’ 
B. daphne.—Coincides in time of appearance with B. hecate ; 
a fine form, very local. 
Melitea aurinia, var. provincialis—Common, and variable. 
‘‘T have taken a very pretty pale-coloured female like the pale. 
form of cinzia’”’ (letter dated May 5th, 1916). Mr. Morris sug- 
gests the name ab. chlorina. 
M. phebe.—Under this denomination it may be that two 
species are included. M. René Oberthur long since pointed out 
to me that certain marked distinctions existed between so-called 
M. phebe larve, as well as differences of habit, pointing to the. 
possibility of a hitherto undetected Melitzid in the group, on the 
analogy of the Lycenid ‘‘ portmanteau species’ separated by 
Dr. Chapman and Dr. Verity. 
M. cinzia.—In some years in amazing profusion in the larval 
state at Le Cannet and district. I have already noted the inter- 
mittent scarcity and abundance of this butterfly in my short 
paper in the current volume of the ‘ Entomologist’ (pp. 12-18). 
There is a charming pale male aberration, of which I took 
examples at Hyéres in April, 1898. The black network tracery 
of the forewings has almost entirely disappeared, disclosing a 
clear ochreous, almost clay-coloured ground on the upper side. 
I expect this aberration has been named, but cannot recall the 
