PIERIS MEN APIA. 
15 
minute differences in the shape of the wings, but does not make any mention whatever of the 
black mesial line on upper surface, or the very remarkable flesh-colored edging of costa, and 
six marginal lunules of same color on under surface of secondaries ; so we must come to the 
conclusion that Scudder fell into the same error as AY'. H. Edwards, and described both sexes 
from male specimens only. 
I would suggest whilst on this subject that it might be better perhaps, instead of heeding 
imaginary differances in the cut of the wings, which only lead to error ; to bear in mind that 
in none of the Pierkke are the male and female marked alike. 
Dr. Felder in the Weiner Monatsehrift is more acurate, and appears to be the only one 
who has heretofore really known the female; he notices that while the male has but five 
white spots, in the black apical patch, the female has six and also mentions that on secondaries 
of female, below, the costa, the basal and other spots are livid. 
For the example from which I made my drawing I am indebted to my valued friend, 
Mr. Henry Edwards, of California, who received it from Vancouver’s Island. 
April, 1873. 
NOTES ON SOME SPECIES. 
Papilio Burtonii, Peak., Proe. Acad. Nat. Sc., Phil., p. 89, 1868, is a synonym of P. 
Columbus, Hew., Trans. Ent. Soc., Ser. II, Vol. 1, p. 98, t. 10, f. 1, 1850. 
Papilio Caleb, Reak., Proc. Ent. Soc., Phil., II, p. 138, 1863, is Papilio Polymetus, 
Godt, Enc. Meth., 1819. 
Eresia Yorita, Reak., Proc. Ent. Soc., Phil., V., p. 224, 1865, is Eresia Ezra, Hew., 
Ex. Butt., Ill, Eres. t. 4, f. 29, 1864. In Kirby’s Catalogue, this is set down as variety 
of Eresia Theona, Men.; on what grounds I do not know; there certainly is little or no 
resemblance. 
*Colias Semperi, Reak. is C. Dimera, Doubh, Hew., Gen. D. L., t. 9, 
f. 3, 1847. Although Reakirt's name might be retained for the white female variety, which 
I believe he was the first to notice and describe. 
Lycacna Helloides, Boisd., L. Castro, Reak., L. Ianthe, Edw., concerning these there 
is some confusion, either Helloides is unknown in N. American collections or two of the 
above are synonyms, which latter I am inclined to believe is the real state of affairs, for I do 
not believe any one American collection can produce examples of all three ; Mr. Edwards 
has in his I believe Helloides and Ianthe ; Mr. Mead has Ianthe and Helloides, and I 
have helloides and Castro, but my Helloides is the same as the Ianthe of the others and 
my Castro is like their Helloides, a specimen of the typical Helloides from Dr. Boisduval 
would be of some use here I trow. 
April, 1873. 
*1 have in my possession the types of Reakirt’s Semperi mate and female, but where lie described it I cannot 
recollect or at the moment ascertain. 
