1882.] 135 [Hagen. 



N". menapia, H. Edw., Proc. Cal. Acad. 1873, p. 161 (separ. No. 2, 



p. 5) — Chrysalis. 

 P. menapia 9 Strecker Lep. Rhop. n, p. 14, f. 4. Catal. p. 74, 



p. 183. 

 P. menapia Kirby, Catal. p. 450, p. 791. 



P. menapia $ , $ Bull. Brookl. Ent. Soc. I, No. 5. Synopt. table. 

 P. menapia Stretch var. suffusa <? , ? . Papilio n, p. 103, pi. 2, 



f.1-4. 

 N. menapia Butl. Journ. Linn. Soc. 1882, Yol. xvi, p. 479. 



It would seem like " carrying coals to Newcastle " to give so 

 soon after the paper of Mr. Stretch a communication about this 

 species. But as this species and the discovery of its life history is 

 one of the more important entomological facts made out by the 

 members of the Survey, and Mr. Stretch (p. Iu8) " was unable to 

 determine whether or not the insect is worthy of a special name, 

 not having types before him for comparison," and such types are 

 present in the collection of the museum, additional remarks seem 

 to be justified. As he had no access to Felder's description 

 (p. 109), and to other works (the description of the female by 

 W. Hi Edwards, Tr. Am. Ent. Soc, as well as the supplementary 

 notices was not known to him), I have tried above to prepare a 

 bibliography of this species. 



The large apical black spot of the primaries " reaching the 

 second inferior nervule, where it is rather abruptly broken " 

 (Scudd.), of the males, gives an easy character to decide whether 

 an author has described and figured a male or a female, where 

 the apical spot by extension along the margin reaches the inner 

 angle of the wing. Mr. Felder has described both sexes from 

 2^1$ from Great Salt Lake, Utah, collected by Lorquin. The 

 short description in the Wien. Monatsschr. would not decide 

 that he had seen the female ; but the detailed description in the 

 Novara Voyage made from the same material shows that he has 

 described a female, which is not var. suffusa (Str.), but belonging 

 to the form more similar to the male. Mr. Scudder's description 

 agrees so well with the male, that by this alone it is obvious that 

 he has not seen a female. He mentions only once the female, 

 " as repeating slightly at the outer angle (on the upper side of the 

 secondaries) the markings of the lower surface." Two such speci- 



