103 
abounded ; but the gay-coloured A. Eupheno (or Southern orange-tip) was exceedingly 
rare and local. Towards the end of April, Papilio Machaon appeared, and also 
Hesperia Althee and H. Lavatere. Coleuptera were in profusion everywhere, chiefly 
Cicindelide and Chrysomelide ; Chrysomela Banksii and C. cerealis were, however, 
_ rather rare. Numerous Orthoptera appeared, but none of any rarity. In the beginning 
of May the lovely Limenitis Camilla appeared on the Ile S Marguérite; its flight is, 
if possible, more graceful (though much more rapid) than that of its northern congener, 
L, Sybilla. In company with this species flew Zygena Lavenduli, in woody glades 
where no lavender grew, though it was totally absent from the mainland, where there 
are miles of wild lavender! The pretty moth, Acontia luctuosa, now appeared; also 
Epbyra omicronaria and various other Geometre. During the first week in May 
I explored the mountains behind Grasse: I would advise every collector who happens 
to be within reach to do the same, for these mountains contain a perfect treasury of 
entomological wealth. During a few hours’ collecting I took seven species of diurnals 
quite unknown to me, though I am pretty well acquainted with the French Fauna, 
besides Anthocharis Eupheno and the cosmopolitan Oreina Adrasta, which I have 
found in various parts of France, Switzerland and Italy. Sugaring is of no use in this 
‘waste of sweets,’ where the air is literally loaded with perfume from acres of orange 
trees and miles of full-blown roses, and the hills are covered with wild thyme and 
lavender. Early in May I took Polyommatus Salmacis, which is certainly not a species 
one wonld expect to meet with in the South, but the Fauna of Cannes is, as I have 
mentioned before, very peculiar, comprising northern as well as southern species— 
e.g. Anthocharis Cardamines and Eupheno, Gonepteryx Rhamni and Cleopatra, &c.: 
I have no doubt whatever but that G. Cleopatra is a distinct species; Buisduval’s 
statement to the contrary has been questioned, and the differences of the larva and of 
the female (which, though very like G. Rhamni, is yet clearly distinct) seem to 
establish the specific claim of G. Cleopatra sufficiently. I trust soon to be able to 
communicate a monograph of the small but little-known genus Thais, based on per- 
sonal observations of the species composing it in their various stages. Few as are the 
species, their synonymy is completely confused. It seems to me that recent authors, 
and especially Mr. Kirby, in his work on European Butterflies, have rather hastily 
sunk several to the rank of varieties which a careful personal study would have led 
them to retain as species. But it is only by observing the /iving insects that we can 
arrive at the truth in matters of this kind; and if those who have the opportunity 
would carefully study a single genus each in all the stages of the insects composing 
it, much of the confusion which exists among the European Lepidoptera might be 
cleared up. I have myself endeavoured to do this with the genera Thais and Zygena, 
and hope soon to submit the results of my labours to the Society.” 
Mr. W. F. Kirby remarked that, in the work referred to, he had in almost all cases 
followed Staudinger as an authority. 
Dr. Armitage (who was present as a visitor) exhibited the case of a female Oiketicns, 
into the open end of which were simultaneously thrust the bodies of three males, 
manifestly with a view to copulation with the single female within. The specimens had 
been killed and were shown in situ; they were from Monte Video, and had been deter- 
mined by Mr. F. Walker to be Oiketicus Kirbyi. 
Prof. Westwood doubted whether the insect was O. Kirbyi, the case of which was, 
according to his recollection, very different in structure; he believed that it was the 
