22 



Colias edusa in Britain. 



By Robert Adkin, F.E.S. Head March 26///, 1914. 



The butterfly that we know as (Julias ednaa received its specific 

 name at the hands of Fabricius in 1787.^ More than a century and 

 a half before this the species was known in Britain ; the first definite 

 record being, so far as I am aware, that by Moufet (1G34), who 

 gives fairly good black and white figures of both upper- and under- 

 sides, together with an intelligible, although somewhat fantastic, 

 description in Latin.' Ray (1710), who in his short diagnosis refers 

 to it as " I'a/iilio croceim, a/iicibiis ni(in'ca)itibii^ = the saffron-coloured 

 butterfly with black tips," tells us that he found it in Essex, not far 

 from the town of Bocking, and that a Mr. Vernon also captured it 

 in a field at Cambridge.'^ Petiver (1717) gives coloured figures of 

 both male and female ; of the former he says " Papilio crnreiis, liitibo 

 ni;irica7ite = the saftron-coloured butterfly with black borders"; and 

 he tells us that it was seen about iJeptford, Peckham, etc., from 

 June to September. Of the female he says I'a/iilio crocea, limbo 

 niiiricante, macidato, or to put it briefly the spotted saft'ron butterfl}', 

 and tells us that it was " found with the last, and differs from it in 

 having a spotted edge."^ 



It will be noticed that though Moufet did not apply a name to 

 his insect, simply relying upon his figures for identification, both 

 Ray and Petiver speak of theirs as i'apilio cmceiis, and although 

 these words may have been used by them in a descriptive sense, 

 they were nevertheless sufficient for identification purposes. In 

 1758 Linnaeus published the tenth edition of his " Systeiua Natura?," 

 and in it he described a butterfly under the name of In/alc.^ Although 

 the word used to describe its colour is fiavis, the same as that used 

 in reference to his Fa/iiiio rhanini, he unfortunately referred to 

 Roesel's figures 4 and 5 of plate xlvi.," which are undoubted edusa, 

 as identical with his species, possibly in the belief that his insect 

 and Roesel's were but forms of one species. This led to endless 

 confusion among the British authors of the latter part of the 

 eighteenth century. Thus Moses Harris (1766) gives very good 



1 F. Mant. T. ii., p. 23. 



2 Moufet. " Insectorum sive Minimorum Animalium Theatrum," p. 100. 



3 Ray. " Historia Insectorum," p. 112. 



* Petiver. "Papilionum BritannisB Icones," d1. ii., figs. 3 and 4. 



3 "L. S. N.," ed. X., p. 469. 



fi Roesel. " Insecten-Belustigung," Tl. III., pi. xlvi., figs. 4 and 5. 



