’ 
2954 Tue ZooLocist—FEBRUARY, 1872. 
insect intended by Linneus is the female of Papilio Croceus, Fourer. 
— Colias Edusa, auct. The Linnean description is as follows (Fn. Suec. 
p. 272):—* Pap. Hyale alis integerrimis rotundatis flavis; posticis macula 
fulva; subtus puncto sesquialtero argenteo. . . . . Simillimis Palanoni, 
sed ale magis flave. Ale primores flave, apice nigre, nigredine fascia 
quasi Jutea in duas partes dissecta. Secundarie supra in medio puncto s. 
macula ferruginea, cui subtus opposita. Puncta duo argentea approximata, 
annulo ferrugineo cincta; altero puncto valde parvo. Antenne et margo 
ciliaris alarum rubra ut in sequente [P. Palno].’ In favour of the species 
intended being the modern Hyale, it may be contended, (1) that the ground 
colour is called flavis; (2) that the Linnean type agrees with this species. 
I can only reply to the second point from hearsay; but I believe I am 
correct in asserting that the Linnean types of Colias are very doubtful. 
(Compare Prof. Westwood’s remarks in his ‘ British Butterflies.’) C. Paleno 
is by far the commonest species in Sweden, and there has never been any 
doubt about this species, except that some of the older authors who were | 
unacquainted with it gave Hyale, auct., under this name. Both C. Edusa 
and ©. Hyale, auct., are of doubtful occurrence in Sweden; and it is very 
unlikely that Linneus was acquainted with either of the high northern 
species, C. Nastes and ©. Hecla. C. Electra was subsequently described 
by Johanssen and Linneus as ‘fulvus,’ which has helped to obscure the 
other descriptions. The Linnean description states that Hyale is ‘magis 
flavis’ than Paleno. This will not apply to Hyale, auct.; which if any- 
thing is less yellow. Then the fascia dividing the dark hind margin is’ 
called ‘lutea,’ which indicates a decided difference in that tint from the 
ground colour. This cannot apply to Hyale, auct., but applies very well to 
Croceus, female. All the other points in the description would apply equally 
well to both species. Hight references are quoted by Linneus in his 
different works for his Hyale. I have consulted six of these, and all refer 
to C. Croceus, and every figure quoted represents the female. In one or 
two cases (e.g. by Scopoli and Geoffroy) Hyale, auct., is casually noticed as 
a var. or as the other sex; but the two species were never properly 
separated till Denis and Schiffermiller, in the ‘ Wiener Verzeichniss ’ (1775), 
gave Hyale, auct., as Paleno, L. (certainly an error) and Croceus as 
Hyale, L.; another reason why the name Hyale should be applied, as it was 
by nearly all the old authors, to the latter species. The only name which 
I can find for Hyale (except Palwno, which is inapplicable) is Sareptensis, 
applied by Staudinger, in his ‘ Catalog’ (1871), p. 5, toa variety. It isa 
very inappropriate name for an insect of so extensive a range; but unless 
all the misnomers in Entomology are to be rejected, I do not think we can 
avoid adopting it.” 
