( xviii ) 



sec. Stand.), and there is a note to that effect in the 

 Catalogue : Mr. Elwes thinks that I am wrong ; perhaps so, 

 but as the specimen corresponds far more closely with the 

 male of E. lefehvrei than with that sex of E. glacialis, I 

 prefer to use my private judgment, which has had twenty-five 

 years of close study to mature it : typical E. glacialis shows 

 no ocellus on upper surface of primaries, but does show a 

 rufous transverse band ; in E. melas = lefebvrei there is an 

 ocellus, but no rufous band ; typical E. alecto, which is not 

 an aberration if it is a variety of E. glacialis, has both 

 ocellus and rufous band, and was labelled '" E. scipio " : 

 Hiibner's typical figure gives four ocelli in both primaries 

 and secondaries, whereas Zeller's E. alecto show none in any 

 of the wings. 



4. Erehia scipio, Bdv., is, in my opinion, nothing more 

 than E. alecto with two instead of four ocelli in the male ; 

 the female has four ocelli, as in that species ; one of 

 Boisduval's figures shows three spots on the upper and two 

 on the under surface : Zeller and Staudinger considered E. 

 alecto as a variety of an insect utterly unlike it and E. scipio, 

 which is a variable species (as shown even in the typical 

 figures), but differing from E. alecto only in the absence of 

 one or two ocelli, as a distinct species : I cannot but question 

 whether they ever compared the typical figures, as I did, both 

 when writing my Catalogue and arranging the collection 

 subsequently. 



5. Erehia mthiops, Esper, should, according to Staudinger, 

 take priority of E, medea, but Zeller labelled his specimens 

 " Erehia viedea, S. V.," which, according to Staudinger, is a 

 double error : he says that the '^ medea, S.V. and F. S.E., 

 was another butterfly." I admit that Hiibner, by figuring 

 E. (Bthiops as E. medea, S. V., led me into the same error. 



6. Erebia eiirg ale, 'EsTp. One of the specimens, corresponding 

 exactly with Esper's figure, was labelled by Zeller as " v. 

 adyte," whereas, according to Staudinger, the latter is a 

 variety of E. ligea : in my Catalogue I have regarded it as a 

 variety of E. euryale, so close as to be unworthy of separate 

 record : if then, as Mr. Elwes says, Zeller's collection is 

 accurately named, I must also be accurate and Staudinger 



