( :m ) 



X. On (I, new form of sr.d.sonat {<md heterofjoncnlir) di- 

 morjfhisni, in Af^riiides tluu'Hite.s, Canl. I>y T. A. 



CilAI'MAN, M.I). 



[\ivw\ Mardi IKMi, l!tl l.| 



Platk MV. 



'I'iiK Jact.s rcporlcd in Uiis slioil, coninmiiiciiiioti (uinio to 

 light in my invcstigationH of A(/riade.s thcr.sites, and might 

 (juito niuHoniihly liavc found (,li<^ir place, in my |))i,|)(',r on 

 that ijiHcct. 



It oc(;urr(Ml to me, however, that tlie few who woidd 

 care to be informed of thcwc observations, would probably 

 regard my notes on that species as matter rather to be 

 avoided, and possibly vice versd. 



In my first pap<!r on Afjriadcfi fJicr.siles communicated 

 to the Soei(!ty on June 12, 11)12, amongst oth(U' (hitails by 

 which A. ihcfHilm might b(! distinguished from /■*. icarus, 

 I described and figured the andro(;onia (battledc^re scales) 

 of th(i two speci(;s, as well as those of A. escheri, the species 

 to which ihersiles, d(ispit(; its resemblance to P. icarus, 

 seemed to b(5 most lu^iuly allied. This spring, liow(!ver, 

 I received a letter from IVIi'. ^'rancis I. I>a,ll, from the 

 lioyal Museum of Natural History at I'russcsls, telling me 

 that he had been examining th(; Lycaenids in the Museum; 

 he found some South European A. Ihersiles, which agreed 

 at all points with my diiignosis of the species, but also 

 some JJelgian specimens which did not, but which y(!t 

 seemed to Ix; Ihersiles. 



T}i(i first j)oint of interest was whether A. ihersiles was 

 a B(;lgian insect, if so, its range to the North was further 

 than the information I had colhicted two years ago, 

 pointed to. 



Tlu! y)oiiit to which Mr. Ball calhid most att(!ntion, and 

 which interest(!d mc; greatly, n^fernid to th(! androconia. 



'I'ltANS. lONT. SOC. [.OND. 11)1 1. I'AIl'I'll. (oCT.) X 



