86 _ THE ENTOMOLOGIST’S RECORD. 
(1 and 8), except that in fig. 1 the spotting is somewhat more 
pronounced and coalesced than in fig, 8, while there is less black 
suffusion towards the base of the hindwings in fig. 1. The undersides 
of the two, however, differ more; in fig. 2 there is only one small 
white spot on the underwing, while in 4 there are many such spots ; 
the amount of silver markings is just the opposite in the two 
specimens. There are very definite black markings in the dise of the 
forewing underside in both specimens, somewhat more pronounced in 
pales (2) than in pales var. (4). Itis noteworthy that fig. 1 has a deep 
marked, chequered fringe, while fig. 8 has a very uniform fringe. 
This is possibly an error, as there is no difference in the upperside 
fringe appearance. In the text arsilache is given as a synonym of 
pales. 
The above notes on the figures were made from the copy in the 
library of the Entomological Society of London. In my own copy of 
the plates of this work the white mark on the underside fig. 2 is 
wholly wanting, while in fig. 3 the fringe is chequered as in fig. 1. 
However, in fig. 4 the fringe is practically uniformly brownish. 
On the same plate (272).are two figures, an upper and an 
underside, figs. 5 and 6, named chariclea. They are certainly a form 
of pales, deeper in colour, with more intense black markings, with the 
same distribution of spotting, and comparable in sizeand shape. The 
markings on the underside forewing are very strongly pronounced, 
and the form is quite that which we at the present time consider to be 
arstlache, Hub. This was the confirmed opinion of Ochsenheimer in 
1806, ‘“ Schm. Hur.,”’ vol. i., p. 66, who saw no distinction whatever 
between these figures and an example of Hiibner’s arsilache from 
Russia, which he had before him as he wrote. At the same time, 
Ochsenheimer says that he cannot express an opinion on Thunberg’s 
var. y as he does not know it in nature. 
In 1804 (8), on pl. 110, Hubner gave other figures, 563, 564, of 
the upper and undersides ofa pales form, to which he applied the name 
isis, used previously by him for figs. 88 and 89 on pl. 7. In these, the 
fulvous ground colour is deep and rich, the black markings are 
intensified in size and depth of colour, both on fore- and hindwings, 
and on the latter there is more basal suffusion. There is a tendency 
for the black markings to run together, or, at least, they touch in most 
points of approach and the veins are emphasised. The insect is larger 
than either of the previous figures and is apparently a female. The 
underside forewing has the same rich fulvous ground as the hindwing, 
and the black markings are very sparse in number. There appears to 
be a suffusion of a green tinge over the whole of the underside of 
the hindwings. 
Comparison of these figures 5638 and 564, with the previous figures 
38 and 39, will show that the forms represented are quite distinct, and 
that, therefore, the more recent figures do not represent the form 
originally named ists. This was pointed out by Hoffmansegg, who in 
1804, in ‘“ Illiger’s Mag.,” vol. iii., p. 181, etc., contributed an article 
on Hibner’s figures. On p. 186 he says, plt. 7, figs. 86, 37, pales 
var.=arstlache. On p. 196 he calls the fig. 568, 564, on plt. 110, by 
the name napaea. He accepts figs. 38, 39 on plt. 7, as isis. He 
states that figs. 834 and 35 on plate 7, pales are the pales of Fabricius 
and Schiffermiiller, but the arsilache of Esper, Borkhausen, and Herbst. 
