18 Mr. H. J. Elwes' additional notes 



farther and unite all the American forms with the 

 European Palcsno. I should certainly have hesitated to 

 do this if it was not for the very able and well-reasoned 

 remarks on the subject by Herr J. Schilde, in the Stett. 

 Ent. Zeit., 1873, p. 169, which will well repay a close 

 study, as bearing not only on this case, but on many 

 similar ones. 



My own collection does not allow me to follow all Herr 

 Schilde's points exactly, but, having seen his own 

 collection at Bautzen, and also that of Herr Moeschler, 

 which between them contain the ample materials on 

 which Schilde's arguments are based, I am quite pre- 

 pared to assent to the proposition that, though in its 

 typical alpine and North German form Palceno is a very 

 distinct-looking species from the Labradorian Pelidne, 

 yet on the comparison of a large series, including many 

 varieties from Lapland and Finland, the supposed diffe- 

 rences become sensibly weakened. 



Dr. Hagen at present does not seem to see his way to 

 uniting interior with Palceno, and perhaps he is right to 

 hesitate, for, when we consider how few specimens 

 have hitherto been collected from widely distant points 

 over the immense territory of British North America, 

 and how little we know about them, it is clear that 

 the time has not yet come when the question can be 

 decided. 



I have but little doubt that Palceno, in some form 

 or other, does occur over the greater part of this region, 

 and, considering that there are only differences of colour 

 and size between it and interior, and, as far as we know, 

 no structural difference, I fully expect to see them treated 

 as one species before long. 



The question which occurs to me is whether, having 

 gone so far, he might not have gone a little farther 

 and treated the whole of these forms as the descendants 

 of Pelidne, which, indeed, has already been suggested by 

 Moeschler, Stett. Ent. Zeit., vol. 31, p. 114, as regards 

 interior and Labrador ensis, the latter of which Dr. Hagen 

 considers to be Palceno. 



As he goes on to say that Pelidne and Palceno are 

 probably not distinct species in America, we seem to 

 arrive at the conclusion that Palceno, with its form 

 Chippewa, from Hudson's Bay, and Pelidne, are, together 

 with all the above-named forms or varieties, to be con- 

 sidered as representing one and the same species. 



