182 DE. E. VEEITY : EEVISION OF THE 



*Aeaschnia LEYAXA [1758]. As in last species. 



Aeaschnia peoesa [1758]. Linn?eu3 describes this brood as a species- 

 distinct from levana, but evidently did not possess it. 



*Melit^A matuena [1758]. A male and a female, unmistakably of 

 Linnean origin. In the former bands of a fine red stand out on the lighter 

 ground-colour of the wings. 



*Melitj^a cixxia [1758]. The type is a small, but brightly coloured^. 

 ? of the Scandinavian race, and presumably comes from the Botanical 

 Garden of Uppsala, which Linnpeus, in ' Fauna Suecica,' gives as the habitat 

 of this species. 



*Aegynnis eupheosyne [1758]. One small example from the collection' 

 of Linnseus. 



Argynnis dia [1767]. Described from an Austrian specimen, but not 

 possessed by its author. 



*Aegynnis niobe [1758]. There exist two Linnean specimens, one of 

 which bears a label in his handwriting. They are two males, exactly alike, 

 and belonoinff to the form with no silver markinos on the underside of the 

 hind wings, except some minute specks in the pupils of the rusty spots which 

 stretch across the wing within the light-coloured space. 



If one refers to the original description we find that it exactly answers 

 to these specimens, so that this should be considered the nimotypical form,, 

 and the name eris, which has so long been used for it, should be sunk in 

 synonymy. 



*Aegynnis cydtppe [1761] =adippe [1767]. The specimen which bears 

 this name in Linnpeus's handwriting, and which in every respect is unmis- 

 takably of Linnean origin, is a female of ..i. niohe and belongs to the so-called 

 nimotypical form of this species with silver spots on the underside developed 

 to the highest degree. 



This startling observation enables me to point out a gross mistake made 

 by Esper in 1777, which has been continued for nearly a century and a half. 

 Linnpeus^s description agrees in every respect with the specimen labelled by 

 him '•' cydippe'^ (a name w^hich he changed in 1767 into adipjye), but as he 

 described this female as a species distinct from niohe, owing to the variability 

 of the underside, and as his description was not accurate enough to convey 

 exactly what he meant it for^ Esper did not hesitate to attribute it to the 

 only similar European species without a name. The result is that down to- 

 this day the latter has remained without one. 



