230 BRITISH BUTTERFLIES. 



Vade-mec," pp. 26, 59 (1824); 3rd ed., p. 116 (1835). Cramera, Eschh., "Kotz. 

 Keise Siid-See," &c, iii., p. 217, pi. x., figs. 26 a, b (1821). Artaxerces, Bsdv., 

 "Eur.Lep.Ind.," p. 12 (1829) ; Dup. "Pap. Fr.," p. 389 (1832); "Cat. Meth.," p. 

 32(1844). Salmacis, Stphns. " 111. Haust.," iii., p. 235(1831)*; Wood, " Ind. 

 Ent.," p. 9, pi. iii., fig. 73 (1839) ; Humph, and West., " Brit. Butts., p. 115, pi. 

 xxxvii., figs. 1-3 (1841) ; Stphns., " List," 1st ed., p. 2 (1850) ; Westw. and Hew., 

 "Gen. Diurn. Lep.," ii., p. 494 (1852); Stphns., "List.," 2nd ed., p. 19 (1856). 

 Allous, Hiibn., "Eur. Schmett.," i., pi. cc, figs. 988-992 (1834-1841). Salmucis, 

 Gerh., " Mon.," p. 15, pi. xxv., figs. 4a-c (1852). Nazira, Moore, "Proc. Zool. 

 Soc. Lond.," p. 504, pi. xxxi., fig. 4 (1865) ; p. 246 (1882) ; Kirby, " Syn. Cat.," 

 p. 766 (1874); Butl., "Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., p. 368 (1886). (?) Chinensis, 

 Murr., "Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond.," p. 523, pi. x., fig. 5 (1874); Leech, "Butts. 

 China," ii., p. 315 (1894); Staud., "Cat.," 3rd ed., p. 83 (1901). . (?) Mand- 

 schurica, Staud., "Bom. Mem. Lep.," vi., p. 161 (1892); Riihl, "Pal. Gr.- 

 Sehmett.," p. 262 (1893). (?) Myrmecias, Chrstph., " Hor. Soc. Ent. Boss., 

 xii., p. 235, pi. v., fig. 7 (1877); Riihl, " Pal. Gr. Schmett.," p. 248 (1893); 

 Staud., " Cat.," 3rd ed., p. 83 (1901). 



Original description. — Entirely brown above, below very like 

 Argus No. xxix. In flowery fields. July. Third magnitude, and the 

 smallest of all. Scarce (Hufnagel). 



Many entomological writers have hesitated to accept this descrip- 

 tion, but, although meagre, there is no other species to which it 

 can be referred. Hufnagel was writing short descriptions of the 

 Lepidoptera which he had found in the neighbourhood of Berlin, and 

 it must be remembered that his " Argus No. xxix." is icarus. He 

 divides all the butterflies he mentions into three magnitudes, and 

 states thafc this is the smallest among them all. This statement con- 

 fines the possible species to that now under consideration, Cupido 

 minimus and Plebeius argus (aegon), and the colour mentioned at once 

 eliminates minimus. The 2 P- argus is generally brown above, 

 but the underside with its white band and metallic spots would not strike 

 an observer as being " very like " icarus, whereas that description 

 would apply much more nearly to the present species. The date of 

 capture is also correct for the neighbourhood of Berlin, and while the 

 habitat mentioned suits the present species, it would not be generally 

 applicable to P. argus. Hufnagel, moreover, gives no hint that he is 

 describing a ? , and hence implies that both sexes are brown, for he 

 was aware of the difference in colour between the two sexes of icarus. 

 There seems, therefore, to be no reasonable doubt that those of the 

 earlier entomologists who applied the name medon, Hiifn., to the 

 present species were correct. Courvoisier (Ent. Zeits., xxiv., p. 112), 

 while accepting the name medon, refers it to Esper, thus following 

 Borkhausen and some other writers. Staudinger's acceptance of 

 Hiifnagel's name in his first Catalogue (1861) was doubtless the cause 

 of its general use during the following decade, whilst his very un- 

 necessary abandonment of the name in his 2nd edition (1871) w r as, 

 probably, equally responsible for the common recrudescence of 

 " astrarche" in later times. Oberthur (Etudes de Lep. Com.p.," iv., 

 p. 244) gives ample reason for the precedence of agestis over the latter 

 name, the fact that Ochsenheimer had seen Schifiernriiller's collection, 

 and recognized the species from the actual insect, being decisive, 



* The date given in Stephens' vol. iii. is 1829 ; Wailes, however, who had 

 every opportunity of knowing, asserts that it was published in May, 1831, and that 

 the description was from specimens supplied by him to Stephens in that year, 

 though of course captured previously. — (G. W.) 



