Revision of the Genus Erebia. 199 
Erebia dabanensis and £. tundra. 
When I last wrote on Hrebia I had not seen either of 
these species, but owing to the kindness of M. Alphéraky, 
who sent me a series of the former from the Grand Duke’s 
collection for examination, and to that of Dr. Staudinger, 
who lent me the ¢ type of tundra, I am better able 
to speak of them. They are both from the same region ; 
dabanensis having been taken in the mountains of the 
Irkut river, by Lederer, and tundra, in the Chamar Daban 
range south of Lake Baikal. They are easily distin- 
guished from any other Siberian species by the distinct 
band on the underside, and have a band normally com- 
posed of four chocolate or fulvous spots pupilled with 
black nearly in a straight line across the forewing above, 
and three similar spots on the hindwing, M. Alphéraky 
believes that the two species are identical, and I think he 
is right, as I can find no difference but a slight one in the 
form of the clasp; but the only known male of twadra 
is in too bad condition to be of much value. Dr. Stau- 
dinger sent me a ~ of what he calls dabanensis, from 
“ Ost Sajan ” (see under /. erinna), which may not be the 
same as those taken by Lederer, and among those sent by 
‘ M. Alphéraky was a female which may belong to another 
species. But whether these differences are simply due, as 
I believe, to variation or not, cannot be decided until more 
specimens are taken. I believe that the correct position 
of these species is not near ielampus, as Staudinger 
thought, but near meta and lappona. 
Evrebia embla and LE. disa. 
Though these two have been regarded by most recent 
authors as good and distinct species, and though I am able 
to distinguish them by what seem to be fairly constant 
characters, yet I am now doubtful whether the opinion 
first expressed by Ménétries in his “Catalogue of the 
Lepidoptera of the Petersburg Museum,” p. 105, afterwards 
questioned by him in his “ Lepidoptera of Eastern Siberia,” 
p. 35, and finally confirmed in a paper published in the 
“Bulletin” of the Academy of St Petersburg, 1859, 
p. 218, to the effect that they could not be separated 
was not correct. The differences which have been pointed 
out by Staudinger (Stett. ent. Zeit. 1861, p. 353), who 
took disw abundantly in Arctic Norway in June, and was 
