= 
LEPIDOPTEROLOGY.—-TWO NEW EUROPEAN LYCAENIDS. 5 
detected between argus and ligurica, though occasionally specimens occur 
that are not too typical. The differences are more decided in the males 
than in the females. 
The chevron marks of the marginal ocelli, are arrowhead shaped in 
argus, and invade the orange portions of the ocelli, making really dis- 
tinct ocelli, whereas in liyurica the orange portions are free to unite 
into a band along which a nearly straight line could be drawn, the 
chevrons being crescent-shaped. The outer element of the ocelli, cor- 
responding to the orange on the inner side, is white in liqurica, in argus 
is of the same colour ag the general ground colour of the wing, and 
therefore white only in var. nivea and allied varieties: 
Ligurica, sareptensis, and micrargus differ from argus in the marginal 
ocelli, the black basal element beine arrow-shaped in argus, crescent- 
shaped in the other three, in which also the outer pale element is white, 
whatever the general colour of the wing, in arqus it is the same as the 
general colour, and therefore only white in var. nivea. Of micrargus 
and sareptensis I have very few specimens, so that my diagnosis of these 
may be open to great correction ; so far as it goes, it depends on the 
post-discal row of spots. 
In micrargus and liqurica they tend to be small and rather near the 
hind margin. In sareptensis they are larger, the fifth spot comes almost 
under the discal spot, forming an angle with the other spots, that is 
usual in ‘‘ Blues,’ but is not. very evident in micrargus and ligurica. 
The sixth (double) spot is very oblique in sareptensis, pointing, through 
or close to the fifth, to the discal spot. This spot is much more up- 
right in micraryus and ligurica, and points outside the discal spot. 
In the hindwing a line through the first and sixth spots passes through 
the discal spot, or very nearly so, in all three species. In ligurica the 
seventh spot is basal to this line. In sareptensis it is on the line, and 
in micrargus the seventh spot is distal to this line. This character is 
not constant in micrargus, but I do not find it in any examples of the 
other species. 
In giving these points in gonaiaon. of the several species, I only 
suggest them as approximate and in some degree useful, but in many 
specimens not sufficiently pronounced to be depended on. The true 
distinctions are to be found in the appendages, in which the variations 
in each species do not extend far enough to lead to its being confused . 
_ with any other. The same may almost be said of the androconia, 
though here the variations are greater. 
Dr. Courvoisier’s paper refers almost entirely to the androconia, and 
on their characters he says that argus, armoricana, belliert, liqgurica, and 
nivea are all species distinct from each other. My own statement was 
“the evidence of the androconia is strongly in favour of Plebeius aegus 
(ligurica) being one species and all the other Huropean forms of argus 
being another. It is perhaps not quite decisive, for this reason, that 
in both aeyus and argus there is considerable variation.” Studying 
them with the advantage of Dr. Courvoisier’s paper and the figures he 
gives, I do not find sufficient reason for altering my opinion. Dr. 
Courvoisier’s figures and the notes on them suggest that he did not 
examine many specimens. For example he says the scales on argus 
have 10-11 lines. I find that seven specimens from one locality, 
present—1 specimen chiefly 8 lines; 2, chiefly 8 to 10; 1,9 to 13; 
1,10 to 12; and 2, chiefly 11. To belliert he accords 18 to 14, one of 
