IB 



(he says,) uot so Avell preser\ ed as another specimen from 

 the same formation and locality, described by Boisduval 

 thirty years ago, it presents nevertheless many features 

 of interest. It is a natural imprint of a butterfly, lyiag 

 on its side, with the wings elevated one against the other, 

 and legs spread out as if it were suspended, the spiral 

 proboscis unroUed, and the antennae lowered in the same 

 direction as the legs. The first wing on the right, which 

 is found underneath, is slightly turned up and disturbed 

 along its margin, which shews that the specimen had 

 undergone gi-eat maceration in quiet water before being 

 covered up by the stratum which preserved it most. It 

 seems to have been carried away by a feeble current. 

 The body is badly preserved, but the essential parts of 

 the wings are perfectly retained. It cannot be referred 

 to any known genus of Satyrides, the recent butterflies 

 ■which approach nearest to these fossil Lepidoptera of 

 Provence are natives of India.' . INIr. Butler describes 

 and figures a well preserved Buttei-fly shewing the wings, 

 traces of the colouring, and a portion of the head, 

 which by a mistake he states to have been obtained from 

 the Cretaceous formation of Aix la Chapelle, but Mr. 

 Scudder informs me that it was procured from the Eocene 

 Marls at Aix in Provence. Another fairly preserved 

 butterfly is described by Mr. Butler, from the Miocene 

 Marls of Radaboj, in Croatia, named by Heer, Vanessa 

 Pluto, and by the fonner Junonia ? Pluto. A doubtful 

 Lepidopterous Insect is given in the list below, from the 

 Coal Measures in Germany, as a species of Tinea, but 

 being uncertain, it is perhaps better not to include it 

 in the order ; if correct, it is of course the oldest yet 

 recorded in a fossil state. 



