THE ATHALIA GROUP OF THE GENUS MELIT@MA. 113 
Petiver’s ‘Icones’ (mentioned above), pl. iii., figs. 11, 12.* 
This figure is in a wholly different style from Stephens’ own 
plates, and is evidently faithfully copied, as he says, in the 
rough colouring of the original; the colouring must, however, 
have altered materially in the course of years, as there is a great 
discrepancy between its present appearance and Stephens’ 
description. 
Petiver’s original description (without name) is: ‘‘ Papilio 
fritillaria tessellata serotina subtus straminea,” whilst Stephens’ 
runs: ‘“‘Alis supra fulvis nigro tessellatis, posticis subtus 
stramineis fasciis tribus flavidis lunulisque nigris.” As_ it 
appears at present, the fuscous and fulvous of the up. s. are 
merely two shades of reddish brown (a form which I have met 
with more than once in nature) ; the un. s. f. w. has the lunules 
and a partial second row of spots within the outer subterminal 
yellow, and the rest of the wing normal.in pattern and red-brown 
in colour; the un. s. h. w. has the outer and inner bands 
blackish grey, the terminal, central, and basal bands bright 
yellow; the light spot breaks into the basal band. Stephens’ 
description of it runs, however, as follows: ‘‘ Similar in size 
and shape to M. athalia, but evidently distinct: the wings are 
rather paler above: the anterior more fulvous beneath: the 
posterior are very dissimilar to those of the above insect (athalia), 
being entirely straw-coloured, with black nervures: at the base 
are three large square yellowish spots surrounded by black: an 
arcuated band in the middle composed of yellowish somewhat 
quadrate spots, which are nearly confluent and placed in a double 
row, and edged with black: there is then a streak of black 
lunules pointing outwards: then a marginal band composed of 
yellowish spots encircled with black, each yellow spot being 
(2? bearing) a black lunule: the cilia are white intersected with 
black.” This form was said by Petiver to have been fairly 
common in Cain Wood in his time! 
There remains a named form, difficult to place with certainty, 
but which may possibly belong to athalia, viz., veronice, Dorf- 
meister. We first find this name in the ‘ Verhandlung des 
zoologischen-botanischen Vereins in Wien,’ vol. 1ii., p. 186 (1858), 
where Dorfmeister merely says that this form is near to dictynna, 
but gives no further account of the imago, which he was evidently 
exhibiting and left to speak for itself. He gives a short des- 
cription of the larva and pupa, and for comparison an equally 
short description of those of athalia and parthenie, the total out- 
come of which seems to be that he was quite unacquainted 
* There is a reference in the ‘Illustrations’ to the same author’s 
‘ Catalogue’ which was not published till 1829, which is somewhat puzzling. 
I can only conjecture that Stephens was occupied on both at once, and that 
the earlier part of the Catalogue was written at this time, though not 
published. 
