62 
PIERIS NAPI. 
Pontia Napi, Duncan , Nat. Lib. Ent., Vol. Ill, p. 121, t. 9, (1835). 
Tachyptera Napi, Berge, Schmetterlingsbuch, p. 94, t. 30, f. 4, (1842). 
Pieris Venosa, Scudder , Proc. Bost. Nat. Plist. Soc., VIII, p. 182, (1861). Morris, Synopsis, 
p. 320, (1862). Weidemeycr , Proc. Ent. Soc., Phila., Vol. II, p. 151, (1863). Kirby, 
Cat. Diurnal Lep., p. 454, (1871). Edwards, Syn. N. Am. Lop., p. 4, (1872). 
Pieris Nasturtii, Boisduval, Lep. Cal., p. 38, (1869). 
Var. Bryonia:, Ochsenheimer, ( Papi/io B.) Schmett,, Eur. I, 2, p. 151, (1808). Pieris B., 
Godart, Enc. Meth., Vol. IX, p. 162, (1819). Staudinger, Cat. Lep. Ear. I, p. 3, 
(1871). Kirby, Cat. Diurnal Lep., p. 453, (1871). 
Papilio Napi. Esper, Scbmett., I, 2, t. 64, (1743). Hubner, Eur. Schmett., Vol. I, f. 407, 
(1798-1803). 
Var. Sabellicre, Stephens, ( Pontia S.) 111. Brit. Ent. Haust, I, p. 21, t. 3, (1827). Duncan, 
Nat. Lib. Ent., Vol. Ill, p. 123, t. 8, f. 3, (1835). Pieris 8., Kirby, Cat. Diurnal 
Lep., p. 453, (1871 ). 
Var. NapaEyE, Esper, ( Papilio N.) Schmett., I, 2, t. 116, f. 5, (1800). Hubner, Eur. Schmett., 
Vol. I, f 664, 665, (1803-1818). Pontia N., Duncan, Nat. Lib. Ent., Vol. Ill, p. 
122, (1835). Pieris N., Staudinger, Cat. Lep. Eur. I, p. 3, (1871). Kirby, Cat. 
Diurnal Lep., p. 453, (1871). 
Var. Pallida, Scudder, Proc. Bost. Nat. Hist. Soc., VIII, p. 183, (1861). Morris, Synopsis, 
p. 321, (1862). Weidemeyer, Proc. Ent. Soc., Phila., Vol. II, p. 151, (1863). Kirby, 
Cat. Diurnal Lep., p. 455, (1871). Edwards, Syn. N. Am. Lep., p. 5, (1872). 
Pieris Ibciddis, Boisduval, Lep. Cal., p. 39, (1869). 
Pieris Castoria, Reakirt, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc., Phila., p. 238, (1866). Kirby, Cat. Diurnal Lep., 
p. 454, (1871). Edwards, Syn. N. Am. Lep., p. 4, (1872). 
Pieris Besedce, Boisduval, Lep. Cal., p. 39, (1869). 
PLATE VIII, FIG 2, PIERIS VEXOSA, Scudder, 3, $, 
FIG. 4, PIERIS PALLIDA, Scudder, (P. Castoria, Reakirt,) S'. 5, 9- 
I present the figs. 2 — 5 to mv friends, the Lepidopterists that they may for themselves judge whether the 
insects represented should occupy positions as distinct species, or whether they be, as I firmly believe, only 
forms of P. Napi. 
Figs. 4 and 5 have been drawn from Reakirt’s original types of P. Castoria, which Mr. Scudder informs 
me is identical with his P. Pallida,* the description of which appeared five years previous to Mr. Reakirt’s. 
In the obsolescence of the dark scales, which in ordinary forms define the neureation on the under surface 
of P. Napi, it approaches closely the var. Napaete, in fact the only difference observable is the absence of the 
two black spots on under side of primaries, but this is not a specific distinction as one-third of my European 
examples are also destitute of those spots on under surface, and in some examples on upper surface also. 
Moreover the absence or presence of these spots is not a peculiarity confined particularly to this species (Napi), 
for in the common form of P. Rapse these spots are in some instances almost obsolete, and in others entirely 
wanting; in the var. Ergane, found in Dalmatia and Turkey, they do not occur at all, and in the var. 
Mannii are quite indistinct and often entirely absent. 
In fact, there is no more difference between P. Pallida (Castoria) and the typical P. Napi, than between 
the latter and some of its European and Asiatic varieties and aberrant forms, and the more I have studied the 
many examples at my command the more am I convinced that P. Pallida is but a form of P. Napi. 
P. Venosa can scarcely be considered even as a variety ; it resembles the ordinary P. Napi to such a 
degree that we are forced to believe in their identity. 
I have a $ from Japan in nowise differing from the California examples. 
May not, perhaps, P. Venosa and P. Pallida be the spring and summer generation, thus accounting for 
the depth of markings in the former, as is the case with P. Napi and Napaese, P. Vernalis and P. Protodice, 
Pap. Ajax and Pap. Marcellus, Van. Levana and V an. Prorsa, &c. Our California friends can best tell us 
if such be the case, or whether they both emerge from the chrysalis at the same season of the year. 
But neither form is by any means' constant ; I have them from the almost immaculate examples of 
P. Pallida, in regular gradations, to the heaviest marked P. Venosa, and where the one ceases and the other 
*In speaking of P. Pallida and P. Marginalis, I always do so with the understanding that the former is the same as P. Castoria, and 
the latter as P. Areka, which Mr. Scudder informed me was the case, after inspecting the types of the two latter; I have not seen 
Mr. ScudderA types of either P. Pallida or P. Marginalis, therefore I make this explanation, although I have implicit reliance on 
Mr. ScuddeFs acquaintance with his own species, and write accordingly. 
