NEORESTOPIS SKPULTA. 27 



gentleman considered it to be a Sutyride allied to Satyrus rohria, caumas, etc., 1 

 "which it somewhat resembles in the form of the wings. 



In the French "Annales" (for 1851) M. Lefebvre published a note upon the 

 species, in which he criticised Dr. Boisduval's paper, and stated that the fossil 

 species, instead of being allied to roJiria, was evidently a Vanessa that the 

 strong, tail-like projection belonged to the front, and not to the hind wings, and 

 represented the angular projection which occurs in all true Vanessidso, as an ex- 

 ample of which he instanced Vanessa (Jtmonia) Archesia of Cramer. This re- 

 markable note was, moreover, accompanied by figures of the species, representing 

 the tail both upon the front and hind wings. 



In the same volume of the "Annales" Dr. Boisduval gives an excellent answer- 

 to M. Lefebvre's observations, in which he well remarks, "Nous n'avons jamais 

 vn vine seule espece avec les ailes [190] supeVieures anguleuses et appendiculees, 

 et les ailes infericures arrondies comme avec tin compas;" and certainly, did such 

 an insect ever exist, its wings would be utterly useless as organs of flight, for 

 they would invariably carry it downwards. In all insects which have small and 

 rounded hind wings, the costa of the front wings always far exceeds the inner 

 margin in length and strength, 2 whereas in M. Lefebvre's insect the reverse would 

 be the case. 



It should be borne in mind, however, that there are two distinct criticisms 

 by Lefebvre, to the second of which Boisduval only alludes in the most general 

 way, and does not meet, while Butler makes no reference to it at all. As far as 

 regards the position of the tail, Lefebvre is unquestionably wrong (see PI. I, fig. 

 10), although his fault is primarily due to the inaccuracy of the engraving given 

 by Boisduval, an inaccuracy which is slightly accentuated in our copy of it (PI. I, 

 fig. 17). But by far the larger part of his paper is made up of a detailed argu- 

 ment, drawn from the position and character of the markings and from the 

 direction of the nervures, in which he endeavors to prove, and in most cases 

 really does prove (though he errs in some of his statements concerning the neura- 

 tion), that these markings belong to the front and not to the hind wing. He 

 argues, for instance, that the two oval dark spots are plainly traversed by the 

 nervures of the hind wing, and therefore cannot belong to that wing; that the 

 minute white spot apparently on the outer border of the hind wing is only half 

 a spot and must belong to the fore wing, and that the markings on and near the 



1 Spccicu of Lethe. 2 As, for Instance, in the Sphingidie, IJeliconidre, etc. 



