82 THE ENTOMOLOGIST’S RECORD. 
The figures, which are very fair, are as follows :— 
21a. (bis) is of a somewhat pale ground, and in marking and shape 
about like the insect we are now accustomed to call a typical pales 3. 
21b. (bis) is an underside of a female with the spots of the upperside 
faintly visible through, but not marked out in black. 
21c. (bis) is a larger g with larger spotting, with the marginal 
‘markings of all wings more coalesced and deeper in colour. 
21d. (bis) isan undersidein which the black markings of the upper- 
side show very strongly through to the underside where they are 
marked out in black. The markings of the hindwings are also stronger 
and brighter. 
These four figures Ernst names pales the “ grande species.” 
21a. (tert) a strongly marked g which is much clouded with a dark 
suffusion and is much darker than the ¢. 
21b. (tert) a clouded underside with the spotting not too deeply 
marked on the forewing. 
21c. (tert) a ? of a duller ground less distinctly marked; the 
markings of unsatisfactory definition giving the appearance of wear. 
21d. (tert) an underside with a clouded appearance similar to the 
last. These four figures are termed the “ petite species,’ and are 
named arsilache as representing Esper’s species. : 
Hrnst and Engramelle apparently did not understand the species. 
The “grande species’ which they call pales includes both the forms of 
Esper, while the “petite species’ which they call the arsilache of 
Esper, is no such thing, but possibly represent a form one could place 
under the much later name napaea, and an intermediate form. 
In 1780 Bergstrasser, ‘“‘Nomencl. Beschr. Ins. Graff. Hanan- 
Miinz.,” vol. iv., p. 81, considered Engramelle’s ‘dia major” as 
euphrosyne. He said that pales is distinct from euphrosyne and can be 
no other than pales. 
An examination of Bergstrasser’s figures 1 and 2 on pl. 42 in the 
British Museum (8. Kensington) copy of the above work shows an 
apparent male of pale general coloration, with ill-developed and sparse 
spotting on all wings. The underside is generally pale, on the fore- 
wings the markings are ill-developed and sparse. The underside of the 
hindwings is about that of normal pales of poor intensity. The 
hindwings are not angled. There are appended in the Museum copy 
the M.S. names euphrosyne and selene, both are certainly wrong. 
References are sometimes made to plate 84, fies. 6 and 7 of Bere- 
strasser, but this is no other than exphrosyne. In Wernebure’s “ Beitr. 
Sch.-kund.,” there is another reference, to plate 132 of Bergstrasser, 
but as these later plates, 97-144 (?) are not included in the Brit. Mus. 
copy of the work, nor did any one there know of their existences, no 
examination of this reference could be made. 
In 1781 Knoch, “ Beitr-Insekt.,” vol. i., p. 73, plt. 5, figs. 8-4, are 
a description and figures of ‘“arsilache, Esp. (H.8.).” This is aecord- 
ing to Werneburg, ‘“‘ Beitr. Sch.-kund.,” vol. i., p. 127, but as I have 
been unable to see a copy of Knoch’s work I can offer no opinion on the 
figure as to whether it is the form with non-spotted underside of fore- 
wing (Lsp.). 
Schneider, in 1787, in his “Sys. Beschr. Eur. Schm.,” p. 187, 
treated of P. arsilache and compared it to selene, but says it is smaller. 
_The ground of the underside is paler and the spots are duller. He 
