162 .THE ENTOMOLOGIST’S RECORD. 
figure is unmistakably what we (I, at least) have called cirsii, large, 
with large spots on black colouring, and discal spot square, underside 
warm red-brown. 
This would give the name to’ cirsii, which in. fact Dr. Reverdin does, 
but on the authority of Hiibner’s figure (464-465). 
Whatever Hiibner’s fritillum may be, the name is pre-occupied by 
Schiffermiller for cirsii, Rbr. 
As to what species the name fritillum of Hiibner belongs has been 
variously answered. I cannot myself see any reason to doubt that his 
figure is one of malvae (or malvoides). The only point to the contrary 
is that the size is unusual; Htibner’s figure expands 2mm. more than 
my largest specimen of the species, but this further two millimetres is 
not beyond what we know in unusually large specimens of many 
species. ‘T’o take the markings in detail, the white dashes above the 
discal spot on the forewing are precisely as in malvae, and unlike the 
bold wedge-shaped mark on cirsii. The underside is even more 
characteristic. The colour and tone of the underwing is the brown 
and yellow of malvae, not the warm pink tone of cirsiz, the outlining of 
the veins is precisely as in malvae, some outlining of veins can be 
detected in cirstt, but 1t wants looking for and is not of so different a 
colour to the rest of the wing as in malvae. . The ochreous margin 
shown does not occur in either species, but it brings out strongly the 
general colour effect of malvae, in which it differs so markedly from 
cirsui. ‘Then again the white spot near the apex of the wing is, as in 
Hubner’s figure, always conspicuous in malvae, but is almost always 
minute or even wanting in cirsit. 
Hubner’s alveolus, 466-467, has the wing form and upperside mark- 
ings of sao, but the underside is difficult to assign to anything but 
malvae. 471-472. Sao is no doubt sao as we accept it. 
There can be little doubt that Rambur’s fritillum is malvoides. He 
calls it fritillwm, Htibner, thus my determination of that figure agrees 
with his. It is very interesting’ to note that Rambur, and possibly 
Hubner, thus discriminated between malvae and malvoides, so long 
before the re-discovery was made by Elwes and Edwards. The name 
fritillum would of course have stood for malvoides but for being already 
preoccupied for cirsiz, Rbr., by Schiffermiiller. 
Dr. Reverdin accepts fritillwn, Rbr., as the name of malvoides in 
his valuable monograph on that species and malvae in the Bulletin de 
la Société lépidoptérologique de Genéve, vol. 11., p. 59. 
Fritillum and carlinae being species whose distinctness from each 
other is perhaps more open to doubt than in some other cases, it may 
_ be useful to refer more in detail to them. I have already mentioned 
the difference in the appendages, whith point to specific distinctness 
with some approach to certainty. I must admit, however, that I still 
entertain a little doubt about them. I have something over 300 speci- 
mens of the two species, and have mounted in the last ten years the 
appendages of about 60. Of these 300 I have separated about 80 that 
are certainly fritillwmn according to the criteria given by Dr. Reverdin. 
The fritillum are large, up to 88mm, have very large conspicuous 
white spots above, which impresses one with the idea that the black 
is blacker than in the carlinae series, and perhaps on the whole this is 
so, as a good. many carlinae are not so black. They have the square 
discal spot, called by Dr. Reverdin the ‘‘ Signe de Delahaye.” Beneath 
