﻿dimorjjhism 
  and 
  iJolymor]}}iism. 
  499 
  

  

  forms 
  of 
  a 
  species 
  ■which 
  fly 
  together, 
  and 
  which 
  are, 
  

   accordingly, 
  considered 
  as 
  distinct 
  species, 
  do 
  sometimes 
  

   become 
  constant 
  and 
  monomorphic 
  representatives 
  of 
  the 
  

   species 
  in 
  some 
  other 
  locaUty. 
  

  

  Lederer 
  is 
  one 
  of 
  the 
  first 
  who 
  speaks 
  of 
  such 
  a 
  case 
  

   in 
  the 
  ' 
  Horse 
  Soc. 
  Ent. 
  Ross.,' 
  vol. 
  vi., 
  pp. 
  79, 
  80. 
  This 
  

   sagacious 
  entomologist 
  says 
  there, 
  that 
  he 
  considers 
  both 
  

   Lyccena 
  Eurypiliis, 
  Err., 
  and 
  L. 
  Zephyrus, 
  Eriv., 
  as 
  

   varieties 
  of 
  L. 
  Argus, 
  L. 
  Although 
  I 
  cannot 
  agree 
  with 
  

   Lederer 
  in 
  this 
  last 
  point, 
  I 
  am 
  well 
  convinced 
  that 
  he 
  

   is 
  right 
  as 
  regards 
  the 
  specific 
  identity 
  of 
  Zepliyras 
  and 
  

   Eurypilus, 
  these 
  two 
  Lycmics 
  being 
  dimorphic 
  forms 
  of 
  

   one 
  species. 
  

  

  I 
  had 
  forgotten 
  what 
  Lederer 
  had 
  written 
  on 
  the 
  

   subject 
  till 
  quite 
  recently, 
  when, 
  having 
  had 
  to 
  separate 
  

   females 
  of 
  Eurypilus 
  and 
  Zephyrus 
  from 
  different 
  

   localities 
  that 
  were 
  intermingled, 
  I 
  was 
  in 
  some 
  cases 
  

   greatly 
  puzzled, 
  and 
  could 
  not 
  with 
  certainty 
  decide 
  to 
  

   w^hich 
  of 
  the 
  two 
  species 
  the 
  females 
  belonged. 
  

  

  In 
  looking 
  over 
  the 
  works 
  of 
  those 
  authors 
  who 
  were 
  

   most 
  likely 
  to 
  speak 
  of 
  these 
  Lyccence, 
  I 
  was 
  glad 
  to 
  find 
  in 
  

   the 
  above-mentioned 
  paper 
  Lederer's 
  opinion 
  in 
  accord- 
  

   ance 
  with 
  the 
  conclusion 
  I 
  had 
  arrived 
  at 
  myself, 
  i. 
  e., 
  

   that 
  Zephyrus 
  and 
  Eurypilus 
  are 
  forms 
  of 
  one 
  species, 
  the 
  

   only 
  really 
  characteristic 
  distinction 
  being 
  in 
  the 
  blue 
  

   and 
  brown 
  colouring 
  of 
  the 
  respective 
  males, 
  whilst 
  the 
  

   females 
  are 
  alike 
  — 
  monomorphic. 
  

  

  This 
  case 
  is 
  very 
  instructive 
  in 
  many 
  respects. 
  In 
  

   some 
  countries, 
  as, 
  for 
  example, 
  in 
  the 
  North-east 
  of 
  

   Asia 
  Minor 
  (Pontus), 
  and 
  in 
  Armenia, 
  both 
  forms 
  — 
  

   Zephyrus 
  and 
  Eurypilus 
  — 
  fly 
  together 
  ; 
  whereas 
  they 
  fly 
  

   separately, 
  as 
  monomorphic 
  forms, 
  in 
  other 
  localities. 
  

   So 
  Eurypilus 
  flies 
  alone 
  in 
  some 
  parts 
  of 
  Persia 
  and 
  in 
  

   the 
  North-western 
  part 
  of 
  Asia 
  Minor, 
  whilst 
  the 
  blue- 
  

   male 
  form 
  Zepltyrus 
  has 
  not 
  been 
  found 
  in 
  some 
  parts 
  of 
  

   Persia* 
  and 
  in 
  the 
  North-western 
  part 
  of 
  Asia 
  Minor, 
  in 
  

   the 
  so-called 
  Bithynia. 
  

  

  * 
  I 
  have 
  seen 
  a 
  good 
  number 
  of 
  Eurypilus, 
  but 
  no 
  Zephyrus 
  

   from 
  Persia 
  ; 
  and 
  Mr. 
  Herz, 
  who 
  has 
  collected 
  a 
  great 
  number 
  

   of 
  LyccencB 
  in 
  Persia, 
  has 
  not 
  met 
  Zephyrus 
  there, 
  but 
  only 
  

   Eurypilus. 
  Lederer 
  says, 
  I.e., 
  that 
  he 
  has 
  only 
  received 
  Etiry- 
  

   pilus 
  trom 
  Astrabad, 
  and 
  Dr. 
  Staudinger 
  alone 
  speaks 
  of 
  Persian 
  

   Zephyrus 
  in 
  the 
  ' 
  Horae 
  Soc. 
  Ent. 
  Eoss.,' 
  vol. 
  xiv., 
  p. 
  235. 
  Zephyrus 
  

   must 
  therefore 
  be 
  very 
  local 
  in 
  Persia. 
  

  

  