- POLYOMMATUS ICARUS. 169 



Though Esper's figure of polyphemus [Schmett. Eur., pi. 1. (supp. 

 xxvi.), fig. 2] shows an underside of this form, there is no particular 

 mention of this peculiar character in Esper's description (antea, p. 142), 

 which, as will be seen by reference, relates chiefly to the peculiarities 

 of the upperside markings, and their bearing on it as a possible var. of 

 P. icarus, or as a distinct species. The name, therefore, should, it seems 

 to us, be now used, as was originally intended, for the upperside form. 

 On the other hand, Schneider, later, specially mentions the character 

 in his description of polyphemus. As to the name we use, there appears 

 to be considerable difficulty in tracing the original description*, said 

 to date from 1872, and to have been published in the Giomale di 

 Agricoltura e Pastorizia, and we have given Marott's later description 

 of 1879 (supra). Weymer's name arcuata, dating from 1879, has 

 been in pretty general use of late years, not, however, without 

 a great many exceptions. South could hardly have been conversant 

 with Marott's description when he erroneously distinguished (Ent., 

 xxxvii., p." 115) melanotoxa as having a "bar-like" mark, and arcua, 

 an arched one. This aberration appears to be very generally distributed, 

 although usually not common, in both sexes, in most localities in the 

 British Isles, and in those we have worked on the continent. 

 Occasionally a fair percentage of specimens may be captured among 

 the typical and other common forms. We took several $ s at Deal, 

 Cuxton, etc., in August, 1887. Lovell-Keays notes (Ent. Rec, v., 

 p. 20) the capture of a series of P. icarus, the specimens with confluent 

 spots on the underside of the forewings, chiefly 2 s, all taken in a 

 limited area, and apparently in about the proportion of 1 : 40 of the 

 ordinary form ; he adds that similar specimens, in this case confined 

 to the 2 s, were taken near Weymouth when the proportion of such 

 forms was still higher. Fowler records (Ent., xxii., p. 18) that, in 

 1888, he netted a small colony of this species at Wimborne, consisting 

 of a dozen specimens, the five 2 s all showing more or less confluence 

 in this direction, the $ s being typical. South exhibited (Proc. South 

 Loud. Ent. Soc, 1888-9, p. 65) a specimen of the arcuata form from 

 Bishop Auckland, with an extra basal spot, but lacking one or two of 

 the normal spots of the hindwings. Adkin (op. cit., 1890-1, p. 170) 

 also exhibited examples taken between August 10th-28rd, 1891, at 

 Eastbourne, and Grosvenor (op. cit., 1901, p. 93) others taken on the 

 Surrey downs. Shepherd records the form from the Isle of Man, 

 South, from Ventnor, T. B. Fletcher, from Riddlesdown (June 17th, 

 1895, and September 12th, 1894). Reuss took (Ent. Rec.,xxi., p. 236) 

 a 2 at Munden, Herts, September 1st, 1904, and Wheeler a $ , 

 June 8th, 1910, at Bourton-on-the-Water, in the Cotswolds. Verity's 

 statement (Ent., xxxvii., p. 58) that Marott considered it only 

 a 2 form, appears to have no foundation ; it is quite clear that 

 Marott considered it a distinct species, whilst Verity's further 

 statement that " all other writers also considered it a $ form up to 

 the time he was writing (1904)," when he took two $ s and several 2 s 

 in Tuscany, shows a rare want of knowledge of entomological literature. 

 Verity himself found it on the Lucca coast, and says that it is very rare 

 in the Vallombrosa. We have it in both sexes from Susa (August, 

 1897), Bourg St. Maurice (August lst-7th, 1898, and August lst-5th, 

 1905), Basle (July 23rd, 1904), etc. T. B. Fletcher records (Ent., 



* Beproduced Nat. Sic., no. 1, xviii., p. 3, 1905 (teste Leonhardtj. 



