1888.] 185 



Terias BetTiesha and Iceta. — I am now able to bring positive proof of the 

 identity of these two supposed species much, sooner than I had lioped for. I yester- 

 day received a letter from Mr. Nawa, dated Gifu, 26th September, to say that he 

 had bred a number of Terias lata, which were seven days in the pupa state, but no 

 Bethesha, from the larvae he supposed to be from eggs laid by Bethesla. Mr. Nawa 

 adds, that notwithstanding this, he cannot believe Iceta and Bethesha are the same 

 species, but thinks the ova he obtained from female Bethesha all perished, and the 

 larvae of leeta were unnoticed on the plants he gathered, and placed in his breeding 

 cage. This is pi'ecisely the same idea I entertained when I first bred Hecahe from 

 mandarina, and would certainly be probable, but for the fact that we both, working 

 independently, 200 miles apart, obtained exactly similar results, and that I am quite 

 certain, for my part, that neither eggs nor larvae were accidentally introduced into 

 my breeding cage. Mr. Nawa also points out that I am in error in stating, in the 

 " Ehopalocera Nihonica," that loBta appears from March to November. I think the 

 mistake is easily explained, as I find, on reference to my diaries, that Iceta is last 

 seen in the year in November, and again first in the year in March. At the time I 

 wrote the note in the Ehop. Nihonica I had no idea of the important signification 

 of this fact, and I think no one would, from its appearance, entertain a doubt but 

 that Iceta, more so even than any other Terias, was a perfectly distinct species. 



I am, however, now perfectly convinced that Terias lata and Bethesha are forms 

 of the same species, and therefore propose uniting them under the name of Terias 

 hiformis. I enclose an outline sketch of the wings of both forms. 



The most important question, however, is still unsolved. We have no clue to 

 the reason why the hibernating form should be large with pointed wings, and the 

 summer form small with rounded wings ; the former, which is for a long period in 

 the perfect state, is not in any way, as far as I can see, protected by this change of 

 form ; it is natm-ally a very conspicuous object, whether on the wing or at rest, and 

 both forms have a feeble, slow flight. — H. Peyee, Yokohama : October 1st, 1887. 



[The rule in cases where two supposed species are found to be only forms of 

 one is, that the earlier existing name be adopted, not a new one coined. It seems 

 to us a salutary rule. — Eds.] 



Parnassius Deliiis in Wales. — I am not surprised at such cases as P. Delius 

 occurring in Wales. When I was last in Switzerland every one, to my wrath and 

 disgust, seemed to be sending flowers by the post, until even the E.iffel looked almost 

 bare ! Now Saxifraga aizoides is lovely and common, and doubtless many plants 

 with plenty of eggs of Delius were sent to England. In Wales, where Saxifrages 

 are common, one or two eggs might reach maturity. — E. C. R. Joedan, 105, Har- 

 borne Eoad, Edgbastou, Eirmingham : November 12th, 1887. 



Setina irrorella on Banisey Island. — I have long promised to send you an 

 account of the taking of S. irrorella on Eamsey. I will now give you the particu- 

 lars. The Eev. Murray Mathew had seen it there a few years before, and we were 

 glad to have an opportunity for taking it. It was on the occasion of our Field Club 

 meeting at St. David's. The weather had been bright and warm up to the time of 

 our aiTival there on the evening of June 10th, so we expected to find it out in full 



Q 



