* 
1834.] Entomology. 75 
at hand, and it is safe to assume that species founded as they 
have been, on limited material, will not stand, but will all come 
to be looked upon as extreme forms of chrysotheme. However 
this may be, but four species that are at all well known, exclusive 
of eurydice and c@sonia, are recognized by Dr. Hagen. 
A critical study of his paper renders it doubtful whether the 
context warrants even these four. C. harfordii and barbara are 
made (on p. 165) synonymous with what Wm. H. Edwards 
figured as the male of 4eewaydin, so that interior, of which 
they are also made synonyms, should perhaps be joined to 
chrysotheme. Philodice and anthyale are made synonymous, 
while Mr. W. H. Edwards also acknowledges in his later writings 
the identity of palæno and anthyale with philodice, and of ariadne 
and keewaydin with eurytheme. Thus the logic of Dr. Hagen’s 
showing is, that of the common and wide-spread forms we have 
_ but two species viz., chrysotheme and philodice. The fact that 
Moeschler and Keferstein unite interior with philodice also con- 
firms the invalidity of zv¢erior and of all the varieties that Hagen 
associates with it. 
Now we have long held the opinion that evrytheme and philodice, 
as they occur in the Mississippi valley, could not satisfactorily be 
separated by any permanent specific characters, and our breeding 
experience tends to confirm this view (though the notes have 
never been published). Hence as Hagen argues that eurytheme 
and chrysotheme are one, by parity of reasoning the conclusion 
is inevitable that our commoner North American forms of 
Colias are all reducible to three, viz., eurydice, cesonia and 
chrysotheme with its thirty or more races and variéties. This 
would seem to mean that the more fully abundant material from 
all sections is studied, the more hopelessly confused our specific 
divisions become, and this is just what it does mean, as we in- 
sisted in our recent remarks (p. 975) on the discussion of a simi- 
lar question between Messrs. Hagen and Edwards. Some years 
rejected, and that we recognized but two good species at St. Louis, 
viz., c@sonia and eurytheme, not being satisfied at that time that this 
Should fall in as ordinary varieties, geographical varieties and 
races, and seasonal forms, the names proposed as specific being 
retained for convenience, very much as Mr. Edwards has so ad- 
mirably done with the forms of Pieris napi. 
The genus may be looked upon asa plastic one in which the 
Species are in process of forming, but in most cases have not be- 
