82 



THE ENTOMOLOGIST S RECORD. 



group is most in contrast with that of the alveus group (restricted), in 

 which the large development of the spoon [cuiller) gives this margin a 

 concave curvature. To the well-known three species of this group, 

 Dr. Reverdin adds a fourth, a novelty that surprised him ; it is founded 

 on two specimens from Asia Minor. He could not clearly decide 

 whether these were malvae or nialvoides, but on examining the 

 appendages found they were completely different from both of these 

 and from his figure of the appendages it seems to be nearer to melntis. 

 The three species malvae, nudroides, and jjontica (the new species) are 

 therefore hardly distinguishable from each other on naked eye 

 characters, yet the appendages are very different. Melotis is easily 

 separable. 



I have no specimens of pontica, so cannot illustrate it. Malvae has 

 the remarkable peculiarity that the uncus consists of two pieces, a 

 right and left, but further they both seem to be movably articulated to 

 the tegmen. No other Hesperia -has this character, but in malvoides 

 the uncus consists of a right and left portion soldered together, along 

 an obvious median suture, and usually there is near the apex an actual 

 space or opening between the two sides, where the soldering is not 

 complete. I have also seen an approach to this median suture of the 

 uncus in alveus. The most notable differences, apart from this of the 

 uncus, are in the lateral apophyses of the 10th segment. All these are 

 quite evident in the photographs. 



Malvoiden was first distinguished by Rambur and named fritillnm, 

 a preoccupied name, then it was re-discovered by Elwes and Edwards 

 and named nialvoides ; nevertheless for a full account of the species as 

 compared with malvae, we had to wait for Dr. Eeverdin's monograph 

 in the Bulletin of the Geneva Society for 1911, p. 59. In that 

 monograph he called nialvoides, fritillnm ; fritillum, Rbr. He has since 

 sunk this fritillum in favour of fritillum, Hb., which he accepts as 

 being the cirsii, Rbr. 



I have already said that I agree with Rambur that the fritillum of 

 Hiibner is nialvoides, so far as one can be certain about a rather 

 enigmatical figure. Malroides would therefore be fritillniii, had that 

 name not previously been given to ciisii, Rbr., with the remarkable 

 certitude given by the reference to Roesel's excellent figure. 



Dr. Reverdin points out that we are very much in want of a life 

 history of nialvoides "for comparison with that of malvae but this does 

 not seem to have been yet supplied. He gives some facts to suggest 

 that nialvoides is attached to damp places, but this is the only life- 

 history item so far brought forward. He gives various minute points 

 of form of wing, colour, and markings, by which vialvae and malvoides 

 differ from each other, still it remains almost impossible for any one 

 except such a savant as Prof. Reverdin to say certainly to which species 

 any particular specimen belongs. The safest criterion, if the appendages 

 are not to be examined, is the habitat, for the most remarkable and 

 interesting fact brought out in Dr. Reverdin's essay is that both species 

 nowhere occur together, and according to the instructive map he gives, 

 malvae is clearly northern and eastern, malvoides southern and western, 

 in its distribution. In the alpine region, which has afforded moat 

 facts, the map shows one or two localities with malvae south of 

 malvoides, due probably to local climatic variations ; everywhere else 



