LEPIDOPTEROLOGY. —TWO NEW BUROPEAN LYCAENIDS. 27 
tember, others remain over to pass the winter with those laid by the 
September emergence. The July eggs that do not hatch appear to be 
more numerous than those that do. It would seem that it cannot be 
called sin¢le-brooded, as it is further north, and at higher elevations, 
nor truly double-brooded, as it is further south. When I say, it, I 
mean aryus, not specially the var. armoricana, which has of course, 
only this restricted habitat. 
Mr. Powell had no difficulty in rearing the larve, but though he 
could find on the Ulea nanus larve of Hveres argiades and of Celastrina 
argiolus, he never could find, either on the Ulea or elsewhere, larvee of 
armoricana at large. They were there, of course, but where? One 
gathers that the larvae were hunted by searching, but we are not told 
whether beating or sweeping was tried, one would expect this to pro- 
duce one or two. Still, one seems forced to conclude that the larvee 
were elsewhere than on the Ulew. One is inclined to suspect, looking 
to my experiences in the Val Véni (Hnt. Mo. Mag., 1914), that the 
larvee were not far off, almost underground and possibly covered with 
rubbish by ants. The larve fed on the green bark of the Ulew at the 
bases of the young spines, this of course in captivity, possibly those at 
large got more delicate material in young shoots close to the ground. 
There are a good many observations on the relations of ants to 
various “ blues,” but perhaps more curious, because more novel, is that 
of a symbiotic relationship between the larva of C. argiolus and a small 
spider which was observed during the search for larve of armoricana, 
“‘ We were quite astonished to see frequently a caterpillar on flowers 
enclosed in the web of a little spider that often settled itself on the 
flower shoots of the Ulew. The larva of argiolus seemed in no way in- 
commoded by the spider and its web, and the spider took no notice of 
the caterpillar ” (p. 430). 
Mr. Powell gives careful notes of the progress of a specially 
observed larva and of others, with very full descriptions of the larva at 
each stage. In the last stage the few larve reared seem to have been 
very uniformly green, not unlike the palest form figured, Hnt. Mo. 
Mag., 1914, pl. i., and with no indication of the great rang® of varia- 
tion in colouring noted in the larve of argus found in the Val Veni 
(Courmayeur). 
Another point that seems clear is that these larve had only four 
instars; as five is the typical number, it will be desirable to determine 
whether this is characteristic of this race of argus, whether it is aber- 
rant, or whether perchance the spring and summer broods of larvee 
differ on this point. A strong suspicion is expressed that the young 
larvee are cannibalistic, but the proof is not complete. 
M. Oberthtir sums up on the question as to how many species we 
have been placing together as argus (argyrognomon) in some nine pages. 
It is impossible to summarise briefly a summary, and space forbids 
quoting itin full. We must, therefore, be satisfied with an extract. 
“No one would dream of disputing the necessity of indicating by 
special names, Lycaena nivea, armoricana, and belliert. Livery ento- 
mologist can easily distinguish nivea, armoricana, and belliert, and no 
one could confuse these Species or Forms with each other. Hence, 
being specialised, we must have a special name to indicate each of 
them. Then are these Species or merely Forms of a single species ? 
That is the enigmatic question.” 
