BRENTHIS PALES, ITS HISTORY AND ITS NAMED FORMS. 137 
Fig. 963 has a curious ground colour, a very dull shade of the 
ordinary pales, the markings are re-distributed and coalesced more or 
less. There is a double blotch of black in the middle area towards the 
base, and a band more or less wide across the disc nearer to the hind- 
margins, the submarginal spots are well expressed. The hindwings 
have an imperfect dark suffusion at the base, a narrow transverse line 
of connected spots, and well emphasised submarginal spots. 
Fig. 964 is an extremely dark suffused specimen with much sheen 
on it, and the veins being all deeply marked in black with deep 
suffusion around the edges of all markings. A very fine aberration. 
(cf. Heuthal specimens). 
Fig. 965 is an underside, presumably of 964. The colour is much 
intensified in depth of shade, only a few of the yellow markings being 
unsuppressed in brightness. 
Treitschke in “ Schm. v. Eur.,” vol. x., pt. 1, p. 1) (1884), said 
concerning pales, ‘‘ My reason for the separation of this species and its 
undoubted variety isis from arsilache, for a long time united to it, is 
found in what comes below, and they are thus more fully proved to be 
separated.”” He then gave a new diagnosis of pales. ‘Arg. alis 
subdentatis fulvis, basi maculisque nigris, anticis angulo externo aucto ; 
posticis subtus rubenti brunneis, flavi argenteoque variis, macula 
conica flava in medio.” 
He then goes on to say that the larva figured by Hubner, “ Lary. 
Lep.,” vol. i., pap. I, Nymph. B. 6, fig. ¢., which he (Hiibner) considered 
to be that of selene, but with a query, might belong here (i.e., to pales), 
or to arsilache with much probability, since the larve of all the more 
closely allied species were already known. 
Freyer had already, ‘“‘ Beitr. Ges. Hur. Schm.,” vol. iil., pt. 20, p. 
70, expressed his opinion that the description was of a larva of pales. 
Treitschke further says, ‘‘ Contrary to the opinion of Ochsenheimer, 
but in accord with that of most recent entomologists, I have separated 
the three butterflies united by him, pales, arsilache, and isis, into two 
species.” He then points out how small and unimportant is the differ- 
ence between pales and isis, which latter he says differs from pales in the 
paler colour of the females on the upperside, and on both sides of the 
hindwings in both sexes, the underside being of a yellowish-green tone 
whereas it is found to be red in the stem form (type), i.e., pales. This 
he considers strong evidence for their union as one species, and he goes 
on to the statement that isis and arsilache never fly together, and hence 
isis cannot be a form of arsilache. His subsequent remarks (see below) 
all go to strengthen his opinion. 
In “Schm. Eur-,” vol. x., pt. 1, p. 12, etc., 1634, he says of 
arsilache, “ Arsilache is mostly larger than pales. The wings are more 
round and broader, the black marking of the upperside is bolder, and 
the surface is largely suffused with black powdering. This powdering 
almost unites the inner margin of the forewings from the base up to 
the middle into a toothed line, the black itself extending out across 
beyond the middle. Further, both species have on the underside of 
the hindwings in the middle of the outer margin, a deep ochre-yellow 
spot or blotch ; this appears in pales as in ists, from the margin, lying 
before the silver hemispheres quite through the red-brown transverse 
band, and covers the discoidal spot which lies here and which only 
faintly shows through; in arsilache this never overpowers the discoidal 
