Erehia lefehvrei and Lycse,na pyrenaica. 313 



in the two species. If the ocelli occupy, always (say in 

 the genus Erehia), precisely the same place, morphologic- 

 ally, on the wing, as seems very probably the case, then 

 the apparently changed positions must be due to a 

 variation in the relative proportions of the wing areas 

 internal and external to the ocelli, a very important 

 change of wing form, although the actual outline may be 

 unaltered. 



There is another difference between lefebvrei on the one 

 hand and melas and ncrine on the other, in the colouring 

 of the antennae. In some genera a difference in the 

 colouring of the antennsi forms a very good specific 

 character. In Erehia I think this is not so and has little 

 more value than the colour of the wings. Still, such as it 

 is, it is very decided in the present case. In melas a 

 glance at a long series gives the impression that the 

 under-side of the antenna is whfte, and similarly in the 

 case of le.febvrei, that it is dark, whilst in nerinc the same 

 area looks pale, not so white as in melas, but the difference 

 is more from contrast with the paler insect than in actual 

 colour of the antenuaB. In both the colour is creamy, 

 tending to white in melas, to terra-cotta in neo'ine. 



A closer examinatiaa shows the tinting to be much 

 alike in nerine and 7nelas and to consist of a broad stripe 

 of nearly three-fourths the circumference of the shaft of 

 the antenna, narrower on the club and almost reaching 

 the tip, it is paler on the club. The breadth of the pale 

 portion is such that it is almost always visible from above ; 

 in an ordinary set specimen it is obvious without moving 

 the insect. 



In lefebvrei the antennas from above look uniformly 

 black, the pale band is very narrow (or wanting in some) 

 and of a darker colour, and is interrupted at the neck of 

 the club, a feature that exists in some degree in melas. 

 In short the pale side in melas obtrudes itself, in lefehvrei 

 requires looking for, hence the conclusion derived from a 

 first glance at a series. 



These differences are found not only in selected examples, 

 but in all specimens examined. I have examined probably 

 nearly 200 specimens of each of the three forms, nearly 

 half this number in my own boxes and Mr. Tutt's. They 

 seem abundantly adequate to prove lefehvrei and melas to 

 be distinct from each other, even if the evidence from the 

 appendages did not exist. They also prove that melas 



