CELASTRINA ARGIOLUS. 405 



of wing — <$ l^in., ? l^in. cf upperside, dull pale bluish-grey ; centres of both 

 wings whitish; forewings with a brown band, attenuated hindwards; hindwing 

 with a brown marginal line, and in some examples pale grey submarginal lunules; 

 underside, greyish-white, with a dull glazed appearance ; markings very faint and 

 indistinct ; forewing with a mark across end of cell and a discal row of pale 

 lunules or transverse streaks ; hindwing with a subcostal dot near base, another 

 below it in middle of wing ; a subcostal dot towards apex, terminating a discal 

 outwardly curved irregular row of streaks, very indistinct, and often invisible. 

 2 upperside darker than the males ; marginal band blacker, deeper, especially at 

 the apex, and running along costa; internal space whiter, as also is cilia, and a 

 dark costal band ; underside coloured and glazed like the male ; markings more 

 distinct, the discal streaks more or less joined, together. Shillong 10 s s, 4 2 s. 

 Above something like a faded dry season form of G.jynteana, Moore ; the under- 

 side like nothing I know of. I have submitted these insects to all the best 

 Indian lepidopterists in England, and all agree that it is a good and new species ; 

 they came in one batch, April, 1892 ; I have never received any since (Swinhoe). 



Chapman says that victoria, Swinh., astonished him by furnishing 

 appendages of strictly C. argiolus type. The facies of this form, 

 however, is very different from that of the latter species, and of most 

 Indian Celastrinids, being nearly devoid of blue and of a dull leaden 

 aspect. Its detailed markings agree with those of 0. argiolus, but like 

 the var. sikkima, it has much more black on the forewings. Indeed, 

 all these forms suggest to one whose ideas are based on European 

 C. argiolus, that they are not $■ but $ specimens. 



Nearctic races and forms. 

 Dyar quotes (List Nth. Amer. Lep., p. 45) the American insect as 

 ladon, Cram., basing his change of nomenclature on a statement made 

 by Butler" (Can. Ent., xxxii., p. 91 ; Ent. Amer., i., p. 53), but there is 



* Butler writes : " In 1782, Cramer described and figured a Cyaniris (pi. cclxx., 

 figs. D, E) and incorrectly gave the Cape of Good Hope as its locality. In his 

 Rhopalocera Africae Australis, Trimen described the species from a single example 

 labelled ' S. Africa, in the British Museum collection,' and stated that this was 



the only example he had seen On looking up the authority for 



the locality of the specimen mentioned by Trimen in our oldest ' Begister of 

 Accessions,' I find it entered as ' P. ladon, Cram., n., S. Africa (?),' the locality 

 having evidently been entered on Cramer's authority. As a matter of fact, 

 Cramer's insect is undoubtedly Cyaniris pseudargiolas, which it necessarily 

 supersedes, and our reputed African example is a large specimen of the form 

 marginata, ^rather less suffused than usual on the undersurface . . . . G. pseud- 

 argiolus is not half so nearly related to C. argiolus as it is to the Sikkim species, 

 G. dilectus." Here Butler appears to make several illogical statements. He notes 

 that (1) Cramer described and figured a species giving the Cape of Good Hope as 

 locality ; (2) a specimen of pseudargiolus var. marginata is in the British Museum 

 Coll. (referred to ladon, Cram.), and with the locality " ? South Africa," and adds, 

 apparently without the slightest warrant, that this had " evidently been entered on 

 Cramer's authority." He then argues that because a specimen of pseudargiolus var. 

 marginata has been referred to ladon, Cram., in the British Museum Coll., by some 

 unknown person, the true ladon of Cramer is pseudargiolus, and concludes that the 

 name must accordingly be changed, and Dyar accepts it, in spite of Elwes' timely 

 warning (Can. Ent., xxxii. , p. 116) . It is true that Cramer figured a Cyaniris under the 

 name of ladon, that he erroneously gave it as coming from the Cape of Good Hope, that 

 the specimen is not in existence in Britain (one suspects from de l'Orza's statement 

 that it was ' in Boisduval's collection,' that Oberthur now has it). Cramer's species 

 must be judged by the figure, and there are several eastern Asiatic species that 

 this latter might equally well be. That the wrongly-called specimen in the British 

 Museum Coll., which Butler says is pseudargiolus var. marginata, and labelled 

 ladon, was merely misnamed by one of the Museum officials, and that there is 

 nothing to connect this example with Cramer's figure of ladon, and that the latter, 

 whatever it may be, is certainly not pseudargiolus, and that the name cannot 

 possibly be changed on such evidence, appear certain. Bethune-Baker agrees (in 

 litt.) that the specimen under the name ladon, in the British Museum coll., is a 

 pseudargiolus from America, and adds that Cramer's figure most likely represents the 

 Asiatic species marginata, de Nicev. 



