2 THE ENTOMOLOGIST S RECORD. 
armoricana, but it was evident that he must extend the examination 
to all the forms that he could obtain. From his own collection and by 
aid of various friends he obtained specimens from various parts of 
France, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, Austria, and Asia. He mounted 
the armature of 198 examples, a large number being necessary because 
many of the preparations are more or less unreliable from the difficulty 
of getting the structures so spread as to be easily observed and com- 
pared. He does not consider that he has examined a sufficiency of 
specimens to give his conclusions with confidence except in regard to 
argus, armoricana, and ligurica. He is of opinion that these three are 
distinct species, but with a good many provisoes, ligurica he so regards 
with some, but not complete, confidence, armoricana is, he thinks, 
decidedly more doubtful. The view he says is founded entirely on ~ 
anatomical grounds, and he cannot always distinguish them in any ~ 
other way, and he questions whether possibly anatomical differences 
without others quite suffice. He reminds us that bellicri (from Corsica) 
cannot be separated anatomically from argus, yet its general facies is 
so different, that no confusion with typical argus is possible. 
My observations agree exactly in detail with those of Dr. Reverdin, 
but the confidence with which I formulate conclusions is in some 
instances greater, in some less than Dr. Reverdin’s. 
The number of preparations 1 made was not quite so great as did 
Dr. Reverdin, but my technique must be rather better, as very few of 
them failed to be perfect, if not artistically, at least for all practical — 
purposes of detailed examination. 
The conclusions I reached are that there are the following distinct 
species :— 
argus (argyrognomon), Europe. 
ligurica, Europe (aegus mihi). 
micrargus, China and Japan. 
melissa, North America. 
(scudderi, North America, no authentic specimens obtained for 
examination, those obtained, too few to depend on, were only 
melissa.) Loe 
sareptensis, n. Sp., Sarepta (Volga valley ?). 
The one error into which I fell in my paper, for want of first hand 
evidence, is corrected by Dr. Reverdin. This refers to the new species 
ligurica. I find I was in error in taking Dr. Courvoisier’s ligurica as 
the type of that form. He calls attention to the circumstance that 
though he suggested the name, its publication by him, in Jris, did not 
take place till 1911, and in the meantime it appeared in the Htudes de 
Lépidoptérologie comparée in 1910, in Fasc. iv. M. Oberthir describes — 
it on p. 200, noting the orange band extending to the extremities of 
the wings and the white outer borders of the ocelli. The type is the 
form from Cernobbio figured pl. xli., fig. 298, which does not, however, 
show the white border very distinctly, and knowing M. Culot’s accuracy 
made me doubt its being the same as the insect from Versoix and 
Veyrier. M. Oberthtr associates with it, as the same species, the 
Chinese micrargus. He also, however, says the Swiss insect is ligurica, 
though Dr. Courvoisier’s species is only noted as “analogue.” The 
type, therefore, of ligurica is not Dr. Couryoisier’s insett, but M. 
Oberthir’s from Cernobbio. The question, then, as to the correct 
name of the new species obviously turns on the Cernobbio insect. The 
