CALLOPHRYS RUBI. 95 



distinct and roundish, the two next small and indistinct, the next rather larger, the 

 remainder (three) increase in size and alter in shape, being oval and more parallel 

 to the hindmargin, the middle one of the three is the largest, and, as well as the 

 last of all, almost lmrular, and so placed, that the curve is towards the base. Some 

 specimens (two) have also three indistinct whitish dots on the forewings as a con- 

 tinuation of the row on the hindwings, placed beyond the centre and towards the 

 middle of the wing, the inner marginal and costal areas remaining quite free. So 

 far as my collection goes, specimens with a fully developed row of spots are rare. 

 The constant tendency to a deficiency of spots operates in a definite manner, e.g., 

 the loss of the two below the topmost (costal) dot, then the one below these, then 

 the one at the anal angle, so that we may find specimens with four, three, or two 

 white dots, in the latter case the costal one, and the one in the second place before 

 the anal angle (this in the form of a very contracted lunule, or merely a white dot). 

 It is not surprising that there should be, in those with incomplete series, a reduction 

 of size in the remaining dots, corresponding with their increasing fewness, but the 

 degradation is not always uniform, and specimens may have only two spots yet 

 both well-developed. Finally, there are specimens in which all the spots have 

 disappeared except the costal one of the hindwing ; this alone remains in three out 

 of the thirteen in my collection, in one <? from Oberursel, at the foot of the 

 Altkonig, one ? from Nassau, and one ? from Bodo — specimens from indefinitely 

 distant localities, showing that the diminution is not due to cold, but is of un- 

 certain origin, and only an individual peculiarity. The last described specimens 

 come nearest to ab. immaculata, but are not it, this last spot also being absent in this 

 aberration, the hindwings being completely spotless beneath ; the name is to be 

 applied literally, and not to those specimens which, although very markedly 

 different from those in which the series of white dots is complete, still have one or 

 more spots present (Fuchs). 



Fuchs' remarks show clearly that he had no knowledge, when he 

 was writing this, that the form with the single white costal spot on the 

 hindwings was that described by Linne, as the type, or that the spot- 

 less form had been previously named by Geoffroy. On the whole the 

 extreme form without any white spots is rare. Zetterstedt reports 

 having taken a pair of rubi, in copula, in Lapland, the $ of the form 

 caecus, the $ with a striga of more or less obsolete and interrupted 

 white spots crossing the hindwings. Verity says that the ab. caecus 

 {immaculata) is rare in Lucca, in Italy, in May and June. He notes 

 also one example from Camaldoli. Blachier writes that he has 

 never observed it in the neighbourhood of Geneva. Caradja notes it 

 as occurring rarely among more typical forms throughout Roumania. 

 Dupont states that, in the Pont de l'Arche district, in the Eure dept., 

 the specimens all belong to the ab. caecus {immaculata), which, there- 

 fore, here becomes a local race and not a mere aberration. Rebel also 

 notes that most of the examples from Stolac, in Hercegovina, are of 

 this form. At Dresden, Winckler says that the form occurs rarely 

 among the type ; whilst Wheeler records it in Switzerland from the 

 Rochers de Naye and Vacallo. Muschamp says that it is fairly abundant 

 in Majorca. In Britain it somewhat rarely occurs, e.g., Hodgkinson 

 notes one from Witherslack, with the spots on the hindwings entirely 

 absent, etc., and one suspects that it occasionally occurs throughout, at 

 least, the greater part of its European range. [Keynes says that at 

 Lahr, in May, 1906, he took many approaching ab. immaculata, by which 

 we presume is meant not caecus, but the one-spotted Linnean type.] 



7. var. borealis, [Moesch.,] Kroul., " Bull. Soc. Imp. Nat. Mosc," iv. (new 

 series), pp. 217-8 (1890). Polaris [Gerh.], Kroul., " Soc. Ent.," vii., p. 164 (1893) ; 

 Ruhl, "Pal. Gross-.Schmett.," p. 196 (1895).- — The examples of this species, taken 

 in the Govt, of Kasan, differ only from the type, in the undersurface of the wings 

 being of a rather more yellowish-green, and the ordinary white spots on the 

 underside of the hindwings generally absent. The average size is, perhaps, also 



