424 Mr. T. H. Briggs on 
“Mr. Stephens refers the Z. Loti, of Haworth, to the pre- 
ceding species (Loti, H. & W., Lonicere, Hiib.), but 
having received, however, from Mr. Haworth specimens 
of his L. Loti, | am enabled to state that they are iden- 
tical with the Trifolii of Stephens.” 
Hibner figures— 
On p. 2, fig. 7, Lonicere, 9; pl. 5-32, Loti, 9, a six- 
spotted species; pl. 17-79, Trifolu, 9; pl. 82, Loti, g,a 
small 5-spotted species, apparently V'rifolw of the present 
day ; pl. 29-133, Orobi, Trifolii with central spots disunited ; 
pl. 184 and 135, Trifolu, males of Prifolii with central 
spots more or less confluent; pl. 35-160, Lonicere, 8. 
His figure of the caterpillar of Lonicerw, together with 
those of the moths, are very good representations of the 
Lonicere of the present day. His caterpillar of Loti is 
unlike any I have ever seen, perhaps it is the larva of the 
6-spotted species. 
Boisduval, in 1829, published a most elaborate and 
valuable monograph of the genus, and in his section of 
the genus with ‘‘ cing taches plus ou moins arrondies,” 
the following species are included. 
A. Ailes un peu transparentes. 
Corsica, Meliloti, Exulans, Cynare, Achillez, 
Janthina, Concinna. 
B. Ailes d’un bleu foncé. 
Lonicere, Trifolii. 
I need only mention two insects in the first section, 
Achillece with the fifth spot securiform (because Loti, Fab., 
is given as a Synonym) and Meliloti, the origin of further 
confusion. 
Meuiwot1, Z. Meliloti, Ochs. 
Sphine Loti (mas.), Hiibner. 
Meliloti, Esper. 
This insect has the wings most decidedly semi-trans- 
parent, nearly as much so as Z. Minos, and has not yet 
occurred here. 
