x1] @ 40 4) 
that M. Boisduval had informed him ‘that he had reared 
G. rhamni and G'. cleopatra from eggs deposited by the female 
of the former.’ He adds a reference to Boisduval’s Hist. 
Nat. Lepid., vol. i, p. 602, where, however, I find no 
statement about synepigony, though the author points out that 
the difference in shape which usually characterises G. cleopatra 
as compared with G. rhamni is not of constant occurrence. 
Specimens of G. cleopatra occasionally observed in Great 
Britain have doubtless been introduced ; but Curtis’s figure 
of G. rhamni with slight orange markings may probably 
represent a really British individual. On this part of the 
question, however, it will be allowed that Boisduval’s alleged 
experience requires confirmation. As to syngamy, we have 
the interesting testimony of Mr. Bagwell-Purefoy (‘ Entomolo- 
gist,’ 1902, p. 304), who found that home-reared G. rhamni 2, 
emerging in August, were persistently courted by G. cleopatra 
3, ‘though whether any results were obtained is more than 
doubtful.’ I would suggest that the reluctance of the female 
G. rhamni which Mr. Bagwell-Purefoy speaks of may have 
been due to the fact that this form, at any rate in the British 
Islands, does not pair until after hibernation. 
“In favour of the view that G. rhamni and G@. cleopatra are 
entirely distinct, we have the fact, explicitly stated by the 
last-named observer, that his G. cleopatra reared in Ireland 
under natural conditions were double-brooded, whereas G. 
rhamni is well known to be single-brooded, at least in a large 
part of its range. There is also the difference in contour, 
G. rhamni being much more acuminate than G'. cleopatra. 
The food-plant, again, is said to be different. It would seem, 
however, that not one of these points is absolutely free from 
doubt. It is positively stated that G. cleopatra is single- 
brooded in some localities; and if it should turn out that, as 
has been asserted, G'. farinosa is a second brood of G. rhamni 
in the eastern Mediterranean subregion, the supposed dis- 
tinction would break down on both sides. Then with regard 
to contour, though the difference is usually well marked, it is 
possible, as Boisduval pointed out, to find specimens of 
G. rhamnt which are less acuminate than some specimens of G. 
cleopatra. We often find females which belong unmistakably 
