8 THE entomologist's record. 



here. Rctuniino- to Sanijevo, we made another excursion up Trebevic 

 on July 21th. We saw many buttertiies, but nothing new excepting 

 7'.'. iiianto (type). July 25th we tried Igman, a wooded mountain 

 4,000ft. high, behind Illidze, and took a variety of connnon "Blues," 

 L. aUiijlla and T. w-albion (2). We then went south to Konjica, and 

 made an interesting excursion into the Prenj mountains, up the 

 Narenta, and across the Prenj via Euiste to Mostar, but we took no 

 butterflies of interest except K. mclas. When we came down into the 

 hot valley by Mostar, we again took M. larhm var. hcrtha, though it 

 was quite the end of July, and the Mostar country was too much 

 burnt up for insects. A day at Blagaj produced very little, M. 

 diihpiia var. nrcra, Sati/rKa t^tatilhuin var. alhmia, and K. (Jri/as being 

 our best catches. So I went back to Sarajevo, on my way home, and 

 captured several nice specimens of ('. tJicrscniKin and ('. (Jisjiar \aY. 

 rt(tili(s, close to the town. They were in good order, second brood, 

 and the (•'. disjiar not more than half as large as the ones we took in 

 the Save valley. So ended an interesting tour in a beautiful and little- 

 known corner of Europe. Sarajevo is 26 hours from Vienna by rail. 



The systematic position of Pseudopontia. " 



By Professor ENZIO EEUTER, Ph.D., F.E.S. 



In T]tr Kntom(il<i;ii>it's FiccorJ, vol. x., nos. 2-4, I published an 

 article on a " New Classification of the Rhopalocera," giving a brief 

 summary of the principal phylogenetic results arrived at in my book 

 On the Palpi of the IlJiojiahiccra.^ In no. 7, pp. 180-181, of the same 

 magazine Mr. Harry Moore asks me to explain why I consider the 

 Pi^eudopontiinac a subfamily of the Picrididae. He holds PHintdopnntia 

 parado.va, the only known species of the genus, not to be a butterfly at 

 all, and wishes to knoAV whether I have been guided in my conclusions 

 by a study of its basal-fleck alone or, as I state in my article, " taken 

 into consideration other characters, affording a test of relationship with 

 the Rhopalocera." 



If Mr. Moore had read my book this query would have been super- 

 fluous, and there would have been no need to doubt the accuracy of 

 my statement quoted above. He would then have found (pp. 228-280), 

 first, that I have really taken into consideration not the palpi and the 

 basal-fieck alone, but also other characters, among which the wing- 

 neuration and the form and structure of the antenna? have been 

 chiefly kept in view ; secondly, that it is well known to me that 

 Psnidojiimtia is considered by some authors a moth, or that at least the 

 fact of its being a butterfly is questioned ; and thirdly, for what 

 reasons I consider Pt^cudnpontia a butterfly and the group Pi^ciidapon- 

 tiinae, constituted by this single genus, a subfamily of the I'irn'didac. 



PHcudopontia is, indeed, a very curious genus, and much about it is 

 abnormal. I cannot, however, find that the genus exhilnts any 

 specific Hcterocerous character, or any character which contradicts its 

 position among the butterflies. It is true that its antennae are quite 

 unclubbed, but among exotic butterflies are several forms, whose 



* On account of certain circumstances the writing of this article has been delayed. 



1 E. Renter, " Uber die Palpen dor Ilhopaloceren. Ein Beidrag ziw Erkenntnis 

 der verwandtschaftlichen Beziehungen unter den Tagfaltern." Helsingfors, 181)6. 



