﻿500 
  Mr. 
  S. 
  Alpberaky 
  ott 
  some 
  cases 
  of 
  

  

  In 
  Greece, 
  in 
  European 
  Turkey, 
  in 
  Switzerland 
  (here 
  

   as 
  a 
  local 
  variety, 
  named 
  L. 
  Lijcidas, 
  Trapp.), 
  and 
  in 
  

   Spain 
  (here 
  as 
  var. 
  Hesjjerica, 
  Ebr.), 
  Zephyrus 
  only 
  flies. 
  

   In 
  the 
  country 
  east 
  of 
  the 
  Caspian 
  Sea, 
  and 
  in 
  Turkistan, 
  

   we 
  find 
  this 
  same 
  Zephyrus 
  with 
  blue 
  males, 
  but 
  slightly 
  

   modified 
  — 
  var. 
  Zephyrinus, 
  Stgr. 
  In 
  all 
  these 
  last- 
  

   named 
  countries 
  the 
  form 
  with 
  the 
  blue 
  male 
  appears 
  to 
  

   fly 
  alone, 
  and 
  its 
  range 
  is 
  perhaps 
  greater 
  still, 
  as 
  it 
  is 
  

   very 
  probable 
  that 
  L. 
  Pylaon, 
  F. 
  v. 
  W., 
  and 
  Cyane, 
  Ev., 
  

   are 
  also 
  but 
  varieties 
  of 
  Zephyrus. 
  In 
  this 
  case, 
  we 
  

   find 
  that 
  the 
  form 
  with 
  the 
  dark 
  brown 
  male 
  has 
  a 
  much 
  

   smaller 
  geographical 
  distribution 
  than 
  the 
  one 
  with 
  the 
  

   blue 
  male. 
  But 
  we 
  shall 
  soon 
  see 
  that 
  in 
  another 
  similar 
  

   case 
  it 
  is 
  the 
  reverse, 
  the 
  brown 
  form 
  being 
  more 
  widely 
  

   distributed 
  than 
  the 
  blue 
  one. 
  

  

  I 
  must 
  here 
  remark 
  that 
  Lederer 
  speaks 
  of 
  inter- 
  

   mediate 
  forms 
  between 
  Zephyrus 
  and 
  Argus 
  as 
  found 
  

   near 
  Amasia, 
  but 
  Dr. 
  Staudinger 
  has 
  not 
  found 
  such 
  

   specimens 
  in 
  Lederer's 
  collection. 
  Mr. 
  Cristoph 
  also 
  

   thinks* 
  that 
  some 
  specimens 
  of 
  Argus 
  in 
  the 
  Caucasus 
  

   show 
  a 
  transition 
  to 
  Zephyrus, 
  but, 
  after 
  a 
  careful 
  exami- 
  

   nation 
  of 
  such 
  specimens, 
  I 
  think 
  that 
  Vn&j 
  all 
  belong 
  to 
  

   Zephyrus, 
  this 
  species 
  being 
  just 
  as 
  inclined 
  to 
  individual 
  

   variation 
  as 
  Argus. 
  

  

  Does 
  not 
  this 
  case 
  of 
  dimorphism 
  indicate 
  that 
  other 
  

   geographical 
  varieties 
  may 
  have 
  originated 
  in 
  the 
  same 
  

   way 
  ? 
  Beginning 
  by 
  getting 
  dimorphic 
  in 
  a 
  certain 
  

   locality, 
  does 
  not 
  the 
  species 
  then 
  spread 
  in 
  various 
  

   directions 
  under 
  the 
  one 
  or 
  the 
  other 
  form, 
  according 
  to 
  

   which 
  of 
  the 
  two 
  is 
  best 
  fitted 
  for 
  the 
  new 
  locality, 
  and 
  

   for 
  the 
  probably 
  modified 
  conditions 
  of 
  existence 
  ? 
  

  

  Against 
  Lederer's 
  opinion 
  as 
  to 
  Eurypilus 
  and 
  Ze- 
  

   phyrus 
  being 
  varieties 
  of 
  Argus, 
  and 
  of 
  Zephyrus 
  and 
  

   Eurypilus 
  being 
  dimorphic 
  forms 
  of 
  one 
  species, 
  we 
  have 
  

   Dr. 
  Staudinger's 
  criticism 
  in 
  vol. 
  xiv. 
  of 
  the 
  ' 
  Horse 
  Soc. 
  

   Ent. 
  Boss.,' 
  p. 
  235, 
  et 
  seq. 
  

  

  Although 
  1 
  am 
  quite 
  of 
  the 
  Doctor's 
  opinion 
  concerning 
  

   the 
  specific 
  distinctness 
  of 
  Argus 
  and 
  Zephyrus-Eurypilus, 
  

   I 
  find 
  his 
  endeavour 
  to 
  prove 
  the 
  distinctness 
  of 
  the 
  two 
  

   last-named 
  forms 
  insufticiently 
  conclusive. 
  One 
  of 
  his 
  

   strongest 
  arguments 
  against 
  the 
  specific 
  identity 
  of 
  these 
  

  

  * 
  ' 
  Msmoires 
  sur 
  les 
  Lepidopt.,' 
  N. 
  M. 
  Romanofif, 
  vol. 
  i., 
  p. 
  51, 
  

  

  