Insects. 



8603 



field for investigation, for it is a subject that concerns a number of 

 other species besides V. Antiopa. 



Argynnis Dia. This insect is rather common in various parts of 

 the Continent. Its claims to be considered British rest on the obser- 

 vations of the late Mr. Stephens in his various works on Lepidoptera ; 

 but in Mr. Newman's work on 6 British Butterflies,' after noticing Mr. 

 Stephens' observations, we read, " This insect has not the slightest 

 claim to be considered British." But there is a notice of the capture 

 of this insect of much later date than Mr. Stephens'. In the £ Intelli- 

 gencer 'for November 21, 1857, will be found an announcement of 

 the capture of a specimen by a village ^ad, who knocked it down with 

 his cap. Some doubt being thrown on the authenticity of the capture, 

 in a communication which followed, caused the Hon. Charles Ellis to 

 send a notice to the editor of the c Intelligencer ' to the effect that he 

 himself had taken the specimen in the Rev. S. Hodson's garden, at 

 Cookham Dean, near Maidenhead. Thus we see there were two 

 recorded captures of one specimen. As might be expected a great 

 number of communications followed an announcement so opposite to 

 that first published. These conflicting statements seemed to confirm 

 the doubts already existing on the subject, in which I fully participate, 

 and think Mr. Doubleday perfectly justified in placing it among the 

 reputed British species. 



.Lycaena Beetica. This insect is of very rare occurrence in this 

 country: the only notice of its capture is in the 4 Zoologist' for 

 1859, by Mr. Newman, and conveys all the published information 

 on the subject, from which I extract a few lines. He says, "I am 

 indebted to Mr. Thomas Thorncroft, of North Lane, Brighton, for 

 the information _ that a new butterfly had been taken near the Chalk 

 Downs, on the 5th of August, 1859. The fortunate captor is Mr. 

 M 'Arthur of Brighton. The insect is common on the Continent, and 

 simultaneously with its appearance at Brighton was seen in profusion 

 along the northern coast of France and in the Channel Islands, so 

 that its appearance here does not appear remarkable; nevertheless it 

 can only be regarded, like P. Daplidice and C. Nerii, a purely casual 

 visitor."* Thus we see that Mr. Newman considers the specimen to 

 have blown over or migrated from the coast of France to that of 

 England, and I think this the most correct view that can be taken, 



* I have seen a second specimen taken near the same locality, of the authenticity 

 of which I have not a shadow of doubt. — E. Newman. 



