STUDY OF VARIATION IN THE RACES OF ZYGAENA FILIPENDULAE, L. 



123 



Zytj., pi. IV., fig. 5. It seems to me that dubia, Stdgr., can in 

 these circumstances only be considered a synonym of this name 

 and in consequence of medicaginis, Hiibner, with which Boisduval's 

 figure agrees very tolerably (see below). Staudinger himself 

 publishes, in the 1871 and 1901 editions of his Catalogue, the much 

 older name of medicaginis as a synonym of his own name dubia 

 quoting both Hiibner and Boisduval. He makes things still worse by 

 adding a very short and most indefinite description and giving 

 in 1871 the following localities : " southern Alpine valleys, Pyrenees 

 and ? Greece." All this is very confused. Evidently Staudinger 

 intended to include. the very dark medicaginis amongst the variations 

 of his dubia, but in that case he should not have given the Pyrenees as 

 one of its localities, beause Oberthur informs us that no such form is 

 ever found there. In those days there was great lack of knowledge 

 concerning the distribution of the different forms of stoechadis. More 

 correct are the new localities of " Illyria, Istria and Italy," added on 

 in the 1901 edition of the Catalog, for in these regions there really 

 exist races approaching the nymotypical one of stoechadis and 

 producing dark forms. Had the name dubia been introduced in 

 literature for the first time in 1871, together with the descriptions, we 

 would have been rather puzzled to know exactly how to employ this 

 very unfortunate name, which has lent itself to such a variety of 

 interpretations and which has done so much mischief by satisfying 

 •collectors and authors too easily and stopping further inquiry. I 

 think we can be thankful that an end is put to its use by the observa- 

 tion I have made above that it is- only a sjnonvm of medicaginis, 

 Boisd. (1829). On the same grounds I propose the new name of 

 pyrenes for the race of Vernet-les-Bains (Pyr.-Orient.), to which 

 Oberthur had restricted it, but to which it could not be applied for the 

 reasons given. To finish dealing with Hiibner's and Boisduval's 

 medicaginis I will remark that in the figure of the first there are six 

 red spots on forewing (sixth very small), that the band of hindwing is 

 so broad as nearly to reach the end of the cell and that its inner 

 outline is rather straighter than in most individuals. Oberthiir notes 

 at p. 531 that '■ in Nature it is rarely so regularly parallel to the 

 terminal margin in all its length." This I quite agree with, but I 

 oannot follow him where he says one cannot be fully sure that 

 Hubuer's figure is referable to stoechadis. Staudinger seems to have 

 had the same doubt, because he placed a mark of interrogation before 

 the reference to this figure as a synonym of his dubia. I have before 

 me the copy of Hubner's book which belonged to the Grand Dukes of 

 Tuscany, and I find the figure in question excellent and unmistakable. 

 I can only presume that all the copies have not been coloured as 

 accurately and that in some the marginal band is represented by a 

 sweep of the brush only, which makes its inner outline parallel to the 

 outer one. Even in the figure I have here I notice that it is straighter 

 on the left wing than on the right one. Hiibner's description reads 

 as follows : " Glossy green-black ; anterior wings with six small 

 carmine spots ; posterior wings red only halfway. Habitat, Piedmont." 

 J have seen specimens from Piedmont from which that figure might 

 have been drawn, so exactly alike were they, and I possess Tuscan 

 specimens which are as similar to it, although that form is certainly 

 less frequent. Boisduval's figure better represents the usual form, in 

 that the outline of the band is strongly sinuate on account of a deep 



