Insects. 5147 



them the wings returned to the position in which they had originally been set upon 

 the Continent. Having mentioned these two species, I cannot help expressing my 

 surprise that Mr. Stainton has admitted L. Chryseis into his ' Manual,' and rejected 

 L.Virgaurese: there is just as much ground for considering one to be British as there 

 is for the other, or the difference, if any, is in favour of the latter species, Lewin 

 stating that he once saw two of these butterflies settled on a bank in the fens : there 

 is no doubt that Lewin mistook males of dispar for Virgaureae. Haworth gives no 

 locality for either species, and all the reputed British specimens of L. Chryseis were 

 obtained from a dealer, who gave Epping as the locality, and a more unlikely spot for 

 its occurrence he could hardly have mentioned. Surely we have good reason for 

 being suspicious when a dealer pretends to have taken a conspicuous insect by dozens, 

 year after year, which no entomologist has ever met with in this country. A good 

 deal has lately been said about Parnassius Apollo : this is a strictly Alpine species, 

 the larva feeding upon various Sedums, and, although it may possibly occur in the 

 mountainous districts of Scotland or Ireland, there is no probability of its ever 

 occurring in England, unless it should be accidently introduced. As another proof of 

 the care required before admitting species to be British, I may mention that three 

 specimens of a Phigalia were sent to me to name, with a statement that they were 

 "unquestionably British," and with two localities were sent: the moment I saw them, 

 I recognised them as specimens taken by a collector in the United States a few years 

 previously, and, upon their being shown to hiin, he at once said that I was correct : 

 I knew the insect perfectly well as a North American species, and, from the pins and 

 the way in which they were set, I knew who collected them. Since the foregoing was 

 written, I have seen the following sentence in the 'Intelligencer:' — "Mr. Buxton is 

 eloquent on the bad habit entomologists have of only believing the rarities in their own 

 collections to be indigenous." I can find no statement of this kind in Mr. Buxton's 

 communication, and most positively deny that I ever doubted a species being British 

 because I did not possess it: I know that imposition is extensively practised, 

 and I wish to put young collectors on their guard. — Henry Doubleday ; Epping, 

 May 16, 1856. 



Pieris Daplidice and Argynnis Lathonia. — Since the publication of the last 

 'Zoologist,' I have received a letter from Mr. Dale, stating that Mr. Miller did not 

 take Daplidice near Tewkesbury : the mistake arose from Mr. Miller supposing Sinapis 

 to be Daplidice. I have also heard from Mr. Doubleday that the late Mr. Seaman 

 had several foreign specimens of Lathonia in his possession, taken by Mr. Hoy: this, 

 of course, throws great doubt on any specimens obtained from Mr. Seaman, and I 

 therefore reject them. I have, however, received a letter this morning from Mr. Garrett, 

 in which he says that the number taken by him near Ipswich was seven in all, and 

 stating in what collections they are now placed. Of these there can be no possible 

 doubt. — E. C. Buxton ; New Brighton, May 16, 1856. 



[I have great hesitation in saying anything more on this subject, but I wish briefly 

 to refer to one statement in Mr. Buxton's note: it is as follows: — " Mr. Newman 

 (Zool. 5071) declares that the occurrence of Lathonia and Daplidice is limited in each 

 species to about six cases" (Zool. 5108). I have referred to page 5071, and find 

 nothing on the subject. Will Mr. Buxton oblige me by correcting the reference? If 

 I find I have really made such a statement I will at once retract it. — Edward 

 Newman.'] 





