178 DR. E. VERITY : REVlSIOi^ OF THE 



the summer brood, whose characters are too well known for me to describe 

 them here, which ono-ht to be distinguished by a name ; according to mj 

 views on the subject f, I propose that of ccstivus. 



*PiEEis BRASsic^ [1758]. The only Linn?ean specimen bears his label- 

 It is a cJ of the first brood, with pale grey apical crescent and underside of 

 hind wings suffused with a thick black dusting. 



What has been said of o^apts can be repeated here, and the name cJiariclea,. 

 under which Stephens described the first brood as a distinct species in 1827, 

 falls into synonymy ; however, in this case we have already for the summer 

 brood the name of lepidii, proposed by E,ober in 1907. 



*ErcHLOE CARDAMINES [1758], There exist four Linnaean specimens, two 

 of each sex ; they are alike : large apical ci'escent both on upper and under 

 sides, very widespread and very dark green pattern on the latter side of hind 

 wings, with no traces of yellow. The characters of a northern race are thus- 

 developed to a high degree and fully justify the names given to other races. 



*EucHLO£ BELIA [17G7]. Under this name there exist two specimens,, 

 one of them bearing Linnseus's label ; they are both females of the species 

 which is generally known as eiipJieno, Linn. 



EuCHLOE EUPHENO [1767]. No Specimen, and in fact not marked by 

 Liunseus as being in his possession. 



In the XII. edit, of Syst. Nat. Linnseus describes under the names of belia 

 and of eujjJieno the female and the male respectively of a single species. Cramer 

 overlooked this fact, and having evidently also overlooked the character of 

 " rufous apex^' given in the description of belia, he figured in 1782, under 

 this name, a species which Linnseus had never known. Butler, in 1869,, 

 pointed out this mistake and proposed the name of cramer'i for Cramer's 

 insect. As, however, up to the present date nobody knew what butterfly 

 Linnseus's hel'ia was, entomologists have preferred to consider it as null, and 

 Butler's name has had no success. Now that it is known, it seems obvious 

 that, as it is desirable to come to some definite settlement based on positive 

 facts, the most reasonable view to take is that of re-establishing the name 

 helia for the species it was created for and re-enforcing Butler^s name for 

 Cramer's insect. Let it also be noticed that in Syst. Nat. the name helia 

 stands before eupheno, so that, strictly speaking, according to the International 

 Rules of Nomenclature, it also has the right of priority over the latter, and 

 furthermore that the types of eiqjheno are for the present unknown, so that 

 it is only the habitat " Barberia " which gives a clue as to what species 

 Linnseus meant it for, his brief description fitting euplienoides as welL 

 Staudinger did not accept Butler's and Kirbv^s suggestion of re-establishing 



'oto^ 



See ' Eliopalocera Palfearctica,' p. liv. 



