the genus Gineis. 469 
fallen log or tree-trunk, with the wings closed, when 
disturbed ; but it also occurs above timber line, as high 
as 13,000 ft., in Colorado, later in the season, and these 
high-level specimens seem smaller and darker than the 
others. It is very variable in size, tint, and ocellation. 
I was inclined to think that @. ivallda was a pale form 
of this, as 1 could not see any distinction but that of 
colour. Prof. Owen, of Madison, Wisconsin, however, who 
has taken both, assures me that the habitat and flight 
of the two differ; and, as the geographical range of 
@. wallda, which, as far as we know, is confined to the 
Sierra Nevada, in Placer County, California, and about 
Lake Tahoe, is quite distinct from that of chryxus, which 
is not known to occur west of the Rockies, in the United 
States; it may probably be looked on as a constantly 
distinct species, though there is nothing in the form of 
the clasp to distinguish between the two forms. 
GE. norna.—This is one of the most variable of all the 
genus, both in size, colour, and ocelli. It is found all 
over Scandinavia, as far south as Jemtland, where I 
have taken it in open marshy forests; it has in all cases 
a distinct sex-mark, which is usually very conspicuous ; 
the ocelli vary from four in the fore wing to more, and 
the variety called hilda, which has but one ocellus on 
each wing, is hardly worth a name. Some of the speci- 
mens taken by Schoyen, on the Porsanger fiord, are 
very small and pale, almost without ocelli, and might be 
mistaken for transition forms from this species to fulla ; 
others from the Altai Mountains, taken by Ruckelberg, 
do not differ much from large Swedish specimens, though 
variable in colour. 
In ‘Canadian Entomologist,’ 1886, p. 16, Mr. W. 
H. Edwards records three females from Northern Alaska, 
one of which, being sent to Dr. Staudinger, was con- 
sidered, ‘‘as far as I can judge from this one bad speci- 
men, to be a dark variety of norna.” There would be 
nothing improbable in this, but the identification is as 
yet hardly satisfactory. 
di. nanna.—This species, described by Ménétries from 
the Amur, had long been confused with urda, but the 
numerous specimens collected by Graeser at Pokrofka, 
on the Upper Amur, have enabled Dr. Staudinger to 
recognise it; and, though I had two specimens for some 
time mixed with wrda, I now see that it is distinct by 
