EREBIA EPIPHRON, KNOCII. 195 



JMelampus, and he omits Epiphron altogether — a conckision 

 irresistible when we turn up his reference to Esper's Tab. ciii, 

 Cont. Iviii, fig. 1, which again leaves no doubt in our minds 

 that Huebner finally regarded Knoch's Epipliroit and Esper's 

 (Fuessly's) Melampus as identical. 



However, in Meigen's ' Syst. Beschreibuug der Europ. 

 Schmette.' (b. 1, pp. 137-138), published at Aachen and Leipzig 

 in 1829, we find the separate identity maintained. The " species " 

 are still some way from one another in the " omnibus " genus 

 Maniolti whicb is made to contain Sdtijrits, Hipparchia, (Eneis, 

 Epinephele, Cd'nonympJia, Erehia, and Tn'physa, and numbers 

 altogether eighty-two members. " Bands on either wings with 

 three to four white-pupilled eye-spots." But in the detailed 

 account of Epiphron the white pupillation is assigned to the 

 female only, thougb the illustration, which is poor (tab. xxxvi, 

 fig. 2), looks as if it had been copied from (lodart ; that is to say 

 the band on the fore wings is unbroken with four spots on the 

 apical termination; the hind wings with six rings all white- 

 pupilled. As for the figure of Cassiope (tab. xxxvii, figs. 1 a, 1 h), 

 it is about as unlike any known form of that butterfly as possible, 

 the blotcbes on the fore wings being lemon-yellow dusted with 

 rusty red. The synonyms published refer back to the tenth 

 edition of the ' Systema Naturae,' 1, 5, 2297, 53(3, edited by 

 J. F. Gmelin (Leipzig, 1788-1793). I have searched this work, 

 but though the figures 1, 5, appear to refer to Part I, Order 5, 

 the numbers 2297, 636, do not exist, and I suppose that is the 

 reason why the reference is discarded by subsequent authors. 



Four years after Meigen comes C. F. Freyer's ' Neuere 

 Beitrage zur Schmetterlingskunde ' (Augsburg, 1833 ?) ; and 

 here once more there is no mention of Epxpliron. Cassiope is 

 the insect described (p. 37), and figured (tab. 20, fig. 1, male ; 

 2 female), without the least trace of white pupillation in either 

 sex ; and as Epiphron is neither recorded in the text, nor figured 

 on the plate, it is likely, too. that Freyer had come to the con- 

 clusion that the two were of one and the same species ; though, of 

 course, then, as to-day, the name Cassiope, as I contend, should 

 have been employed for the blind-spotted female of Epiphron. 

 Of Cassiope he says the native land is Switzerland, Hungary and 

 Styria. 



To sum up, then, the German authorities, from Enoch to 

 Freyer, have gradually shifted their ground, though none of 

 them vouchsafe a reason for the momentary elimination of 

 Epiphron as a species from their works. 



In the meantime, as the ardour of the German naturalist for 

 the Macro-Lepidoptera begins perceptibly to diminish, and, if I 

 may say so, the golden age of German lepidopterology draws to 

 ■ a close, the parable is taken up by a brilliant group of French- 

 men, while in England we have the first and best notice of 



