6 THE ENTOMOLOGIST S§ RECORD. 
my specimens shows 10 to 11, and equally the number of dots in a line 
is 10, and not 12 to 18 as Courvoisier finds. Iam therefore confirmed 
in my statement, that different individuals of the same race, and to 
some extent different scales on one individual differ so much, that only 
by very general definition can ligurica be distinguished from argus, and 
the various forms of the latter are hardly at all different, certainly not 
to a specific amount. I may add perhaps that he gives 13 to 14 rows. 
to var. nivea from Pfynwald, with 10 to 11 dots, my Pfynwald speci- 
mens show 8 to 18 rows and 8 to 9 dots, whilst one from Lago di 
Garda shows 8 to 9 rows with 8 to 9 dots, again showing, accepting 
Dr. Courvoisier’s figures, that this race, like the others, has great 
variation in these details. Taking the outlines of Dr. Courvoisier’s 
figures, he gives for argus very much the form that more or less 
characterises the whole species ; my nivea have a similar form, but Dr. 
Courvoisier’s figure shows them much more circular. Belliert he shows 
quite circular, some scales approach this, butin this form, as in others, 
the mass of the androconia are of the usual argus quadrilateral out- 
line. Ligurica is more nearly circular on the average than argus, and 
Dr. Courvoisier’s figures may be taken as fairly representative. It 
results that, as I stated, arvgus has a more or less quadrilateral outline, 
that is, it has somewhat straight sides, diverging a little with rounded 
ends, whilst liqurica (aegus) is more nearly rounded. This distinction 
applies to the majority of the scales, but each varies very much, so 
that specimens are easily found that differ very little. In sareptensis 
the outline is also quadrilateral as in argus, but the two sides are 
parallel. In micraryus the end of the scale is much less rounded, so 
that there is a definite angle where the side meets the end. Melissa 
has a similar outline to micrargus as to the squareness of the end with 
an angle, but the scale is proportionally much shorter and so appears 
to be broader. 
All these distinctions are founded, except as to argus and ligurica, 
on too few specimens to enable me to say how far they are constant, 
but they are sufficiently marked to be characteristic, and would require 
a much wider variation than occurs in argus to prevent their being dis- 
tinctive. In Plate V. (XIX. of Etudes) are photographs of fairly 
characteristic androconia of argus and of ligurica (aegus). They show 
a difference that I have so far omitted to call attention to, namely, 
that in ligurica these scales not only differ in form from those of argus 
but also in size, being obviously smaller. Argus is 0:058mm. long, 
inzluding the shafts, 0:08lmm. broad, ligurica 0:052mm. long and 
0:026mm. broad, but in addition to the total length, the larger pro- 
portion of the total length is in the scale and less in the shaft in argus 
than in ligurica, the shafts are similar in length, the scale longer in 
ATGus. 
I ought perhaps to conclude that I consider the structure of the 
appendages establishes the species I have referred to, and gives no eup- 
port to other forms of argus found in Europe being distinct. At the 
- same time, other evidence, as of early stages, ete., might show some of 
them, as armoricana, nivea, and belliert, to be nevertheless specifically 
distinct, though of this I am very doubtful. 
