136 THE ENTOMOLOGIST’S RECORD. 
which extends up to the hind margin, on which are seven white, almost 
round blotches, the anal one is the smallest.” 
‘“« ® as males, but yellow parts of underwing greenish.” 
He said of the forms ‘sis and arsilache that they are so remark- 
able that he does not know why Htibner did not make species of them. 
On plate ix. are figured an upper and underside of pales. The 
markings are correct enough, but the colour of the underside is a bit 
off; the markings seem a very good representation and not so stiff as 
so many of the figures in this work are. 
Meigen in 1829, in his “ Sys. Besch. Eur. Schm.,’ vol. 1., p. 53, 
treated of arsilache, Eisp., as synonymous with pales, W.V., etc. He 
did not mention the underside of the forewings being black-spotted. 
In 1829 Boisduval, ‘‘ Ind. Meth.,” p. 15, gave arsilache of Esp. as 
synonymous with pales, F. (!!!) He included arsilache, H., isis, H., and 
napaea, H., as varieties. He did not recognise either Esper’s arsilache 
or Hoffmansege’s napaea (dirphya). 
In 1880 Freyer, vol. 1ii., ‘‘ Beit. Gesch. eur. Schm.,” p. 69, treated 
of pales, and considers arsilache as quite distinct, adducing Ochsen- 
heimer’s suggestion of ‘‘ not proven” to the same effect. He said pales 
is the smaller, has more pointed forewings, and gives every appearance 
of being distinct. He has a specimen of pales quite as big as arsilache 
however. He then emphasised upon the difference in the underside of 
the forewing as well as the shape. He gave Hubner’s description of 
the caterpillar of pales, but says it may possibly have been taken from 
a larva of arsilache. On plate 115, fig. 1, there is a good recognisable 
figure, underside of very deep red, perhaps too emphasised for average. 
On p. 72 Freyer treated of arsilache. He said that the black 
markings on the underside of the forewing are independent markings 
showing through. The underside of the hindwing is more vivid and 
more variegated than in pales. In criticism of Esper he said, plt. 50, 
cont. 6, fig. 4 is not good, but that fig. 5 of arsilache is distinctly 
recognisably figured. He considered isis as a true species. On plate 
115, fig. 2 is an upper- and underside of arsilache, a very good figure, 
but the underside of hindwing is only fair (v. difficult to reproduce). 
Freyer gave two other figures to this species. 
On page 89 and plate 121, fig. 1, he gave the 2 of pales upper- and 
underside, and pointed out that the female has much thinner markings 
than the female of arsilache, and that the general shape of the wing is 
different. 
On page 90 and plate 121, fig. 2, he gave the female of arsilache 
upper- and underside. The figures are quite good and cannot be 
mistaken, and the colour is practically correct. The submarginal eye- 
spots on the underside of hindwings are somewhat large. 
In 1882, Duponchel in his ‘“ Sup.” to Godart’s “ Hist. Nat. Lep. 
Fr.,” p. 308, etc., gave descriptions of napoea (!!) Hb., and isis, Hb., 
and figs. them on plt. 48, figs. 5 and 6, 7 and 8, respectively. These 
figures are pretty good as to shape, markings, and colour, except that 
the underside of isis is too formal and of doubtful colour and arrange- 
ment of markings on the underside (possibly an aberration). 
Duponchel says that “‘ napoea”’ always flies in the plains, while 
typical pales is only met with in very elevated places. 
Geyer in his continuation of Hibner’s ‘‘ Samm.,” plate 195 (1838), 
fies. 968-965, gave illustrations of two extreme forms of pales. 
