110 



more than five ; neither, indeed, had Coverdale's specimens 

 (probably from Staudinger himself) more than five. 



In the openings of the larch woods near Courmayeur, where 

 Zygcena carnioHca, Z. achillece, Z. iransalpina and Z. pilosellce 

 abounded, a species occurred, the males of which appeared to be 

 almost identical with our large British form of lonicerce, whilst the 

 large females were somewhat like medicagitiis {diibia). But there 

 was one distinct and constant character in these specimens, and 

 that was the presence of a small sixth spot (the lower of the out- 

 side pair) which, sometimes indistinct, was, nevertheless, always 

 present. Now, it is certain that whoever closely worked over any 

 of these Alpine valleys would be almost sure to come across these 

 two, in some respects, similar species, the one on the open ground, 

 the other in the openings of the larch woods, and if the two were 

 sent to an entomologist mixed up (as they probably would be) it is 

 more than probable that he would, judging from the superficial 

 resemblance of both sexes, and the females in particular, consider 

 them as one species. In no other way can I suppose how Stau- 

 dinger considered dubia to have sometimes six spots. 



This preconceived notion of mine was further strengthened by an 

 examination of the British Museum material. There, mirabile dictu, 

 and probably owing to the incorporation of Zeller's well-named 

 insects, these two insects were correctly separated in spite of the 

 fact that a number of this peculiar six-spotted species had been 

 labelled dubia by various collectors through whose hands they had 

 passed into the British Museum. So far as I am able to judge, on 

 the large amount of material that I have examined, I consider 

 medicaglnis a purely five-spotted species and quite distinct speci- 

 fically from our irijolii. 



I may mention here that I received from Mr. Warburg some 

 specimens of a Burnet captured at Cannes, bearing a very close 

 resemblance to niedicaginis. It is, however, a much more metallic 

 insect, has a distinctly deeper coloration on both wings, an ex- 

 ceedingly broad black band to the hind-wings, but has, in addition, 

 a sixth spot on the under surface of the fore-wings, the spot being 

 only just visible on the upper surface. This sixth spot, as I have 

 pointed out, is not present at all in medicaginis. In spite, however, 

 of its very distinct facies, I find a specimen, caught by Homeyer 

 at Cannes in 1878, has been placed at the bottom of the series of 

 diibia, and evidently considered as such, in the British Museum 

 collection. This is, of course, an error, the two species being very 

 easily distinguishable. 



Now, if my view be the correct one, and I have no doubt that it 

 is, we must inquire into the proper name for this species. It would 

 appear to be Boisduval's charon and Herrich-Schaeffer's stcechadis, 

 but both of these names are pre-occupied by other species of 

 Zygcana. It is Lederer's medicaginis, and Boisduval also called it 

 by this name in his Essai sur une Monographie des Zygenides, 



