152 Mr. W. F. Kirby on Linnean Butterflies. 



284. P. BLvce. Typ. refs. * Pet. Gaz. t. 32, f. 5 ; *Mer. 

 Ins. Sur, t. 44; later ref. CI. t. 42, f. 4. There is inuch 

 confusion about this species also. Petiver's figure does 

 not agree with the description, and Linnseus ceased to 

 regard it as typical in his later works. Merian's figure 

 looks over-coloured, and perhaps represents an Eudatnus 

 or a Pyrrhopiiga. Clerck has figured an African species 

 as Bixce, which resembles Merian's species on the under 

 surface ; but the name must be restored to Merian's in- 

 sect, as soon as it has been properly identified. 



285. P. Polycletus (Hypochrysops) . Ref. CI. t. 17, f. 2. 



286. P. Bitho (PoLYOMMATUs) . The ? of P. Thespis 

 (n. 254, above) . 



287. P. malvm (Pyrgus) . Typ. refs. * Pet. Gaz. t. 

 36, f. 6 ; Mer. Ins. Eur. i. t. 38; Heaum. i. t. 11, f. 6, 7; 

 * Roes. i. 2, t. 10 ; Wilkes, t. 2, c. 1 ; later refs. Huttn. 

 4, t. 2, f. ult. ; Schffiff. Elem. t. 94, f. 9. There is no doubt 

 that this species is the same as alveolus, Hiibn. Petiver's 

 figure represents this species; Rcesel figures two dif- 

 ferent species, apparently malvariim and alueus, at the 

 page cited. Not only does alveolus agree with the 

 Linnean description, but it stands so named in the Lin- 

 nean collection. (See Westw. and Humphr. Brit. Butt, 

 p. 121). Wallengren (Lep. Rhop. Scand. pp. 275, 276) 

 regards the question as settled, and makes special refer- 

 ence to all the allied Swedish species. 



288. P. Tages (Nisoniades). 



289. P. Oilcus (Pyrgus) . I have no reason to doubt 

 that this insect is, as Linnaeus states, an Algerian species; 

 and I hope soon to have an opportunity of verifying this 

 and the other doubtful species described by Linnaeus 

 from Algeria, as I am expecting a collection from that 

 country. 



290. P. Niso (NiSONIADES) . 



291. P. Spio (Pyrgus). 



292. P. Phaleros (Thecla) . 



293. P. Ccenens (Nymphidium) . 



294. P. Idas. S. N. 1760, p. 488. The description 

 is very poor, and I cannot discover that the species is 

 taken up in Linnaeus' subsequent works. Possibly 

 Eudavbus Brino, Cram., but unrecognizable from the 

 description. 



