73 



The first English author to figure it was old Mouffet, in 1633, in his 

 " Insectorum sine minimorum Animalium Theatrum.." 



Besides giving a figure of the upper and another of the underside, he gives 

 the following description, &c. — 



" Lsetiore adspectu prodit, alis oculatis, cyanum coelestera atque incompara- 

 bilem spirantibus. Eecit illam Dedala rerum artifex natura totam oculeam, 

 adeo ut ilium in Mythologo Arctoris filium, non pavonis caudae infertum, sed 

 in hujus alis habitantem haud inepte fingeres ; quas quidem non minori 

 superbia adnerso sale expandit, atque ilia avis Junonia, quam, prse celesti 

 quo excellit colore, fere in ruborem dat." 



It is also described in the " Pinax," of Dr. Merrett, published in 1667, as 

 follows : " Alis oculatis cyanum ccelestem spirantibus.'" 



It is also figured in Petiver's " Gazophylacii Naturse and Artis," in 1702, 

 under the name of " Papiunculus earuleus vulgatissimus, Blue Argus " ; very 

 common on heaths from June to August. 



In his "Aurelian," published in 1775, Moses Harris writes: "They are 

 seen in plenty about the beginning of June. See Linn. Papil. Pleb. 232, 

 Argus. Perhaps this is designed for it." 



Lewin writes in 1795, " There are at least two broods of these butterflies 

 annually ; or rather a constant succession of them from June to September. 

 They are very common, and are to be seen in almost every situation." 



POLYOMMATUS ALEXIS. 

 Brown Argus, 



Alexis, Scop. Alex'is, a Koman Shepherd, Yirg. Eel. li. 1. 



It cannot cause surprise that a butterfly which has caused so much dis- 

 cussion has had many names. Lewin, in 1795, called it Idas, which name 

 was also used in 1803, by Haworth, who transcribes Donovan's remarks in 

 his " Natural History of British Insects," vol. ix, published in 1800 : " This 

 insect must not be confounded with the Papilio idas of Linnaeus. The Lin- 

 nsean P. idas is evidently the female of P. argus ; a circumstance unknown 

 to that author, who considers them as distinct species, from their very dis- 

 similar appearance." Haworth goes on to say, " The above remarks are very 

 appropriate, and worthy my transcription : but they render it necessary to 

 keep in mind, that the Papilio argus of Donovan is not in either of the sexes, 

 the Papilio argus of LinnEeus or other authors ; its male being the Papilio 

 icarus of Lewin and of this work, and its female being the Papilio adonis of 

 Pabricius, &c. The genuine Argus of Linnseus is not figured by Donovan 

 at all. What I have remarked relative to Idas being a distinct species with 



