PIERLS NAPI. 
63 
begins it is, indeed, difficult to determine, but that Venosa is identical with Napi I am sure; Pallida may, 
perhaps, have the benefit of the shadow of a doubt, but eventually, I believe my opinion will be substantiated 
as to the identity of all three; both P. Pallida and P. Venosa are comnon in California and adjacent territory , 
and could the larvae be discovered, their status as species or varieties could be then defined. 
Figs. 2 and 3 are the ordinary form of P. Venosa, neither the darkest or the lightest marked ; I have 
others much heavier marked, and, as I before said, between these and P. Pallida, all the intermediate grades. 
Time will prove that there are much fewer true species of Lepidoptera than are at present supposed to 
exist; at first the old authors, owing to the science being in its infancy and consequent want of opportunities 
for observation, in many instances described males and females of the same species as distinct ; especially was 
this the case with the tropical Lep., where the sexes, in numerous instances, are entirely dissimilar in appear- 
ance. But through the labors of Horsfield, Bates, Wallace aud others, the majority of these errors have been 
corrected, aud latterly, though occasionally some naturalist, through negligence or inability, makes male and 
female out of one sex, it has ceased to be a common offence, but in lieu thereof, every microscopic variation of 
tint or marking is seized upon with avidity in order to create a new species, and equally often is the same 
result attained through he student’s negligence in obtaining the proper material for comparison, or in his 
haste to outstrip some other unfortunate in foisting an old species with a new title on the world, that will be 
honored by having the abbreviation of his name, like an antient tin-pan, dangling to its tail. 
Though not so palatable to the advowees of multiplicity of species, how much better would it be to en- 
deavor to define the true status of species already described, than to be eternally grinding out new ones, aud 
only giving to after generations the trouble of undoing what has been done, and earning for themselves few 
thanks and much ridicule. 
PI KRIS RAPiE, Linnaeus. 
Rapas, Linnaeus, ( Papi/io P.) Faun Suec. p. 270, (1761); Syst, Nat. I, 2, p. 759, (1767). Esper, Schmett. 
I, 1, t. 3, f. 2, (1777). Hubner, Eur.' Schmett. I, f 404, 405, (1798-1803). 
Pieris Rupee, Godart, Ene. Meth., Vol. IX, p. 161, (1819). Boisduval, Sp. Gen. I, p. 520, 
(1836). Staudinger, Cat. Lep. Eur. I, p. 3, (1871). Kirby , Cat. Diurnal Lep., p. 
454, (1871). Edwards, Syn. N. Am. Lep., p. 4, (1872). 
Pontia Paper, Duncan, Nat. Lib. Ent., Vol. Ill, p. 117, t. 7, (1835), 
Tachyptera Paper, Berge, Sehmetterlingsbuch, p. 94, t. 30, (1842). 
Pieris Marginalis, Scudder, Proc. Bust. 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. 454, (1871). Edwards, Syn. N. Am. Lep., p. 5, (1872.) 
Pieris Yreka, Reakirt, Proc. Acad. Nat, Sc. Phila,, p. 238, (1866). / 
Var. Nelo, Borkhausen, ( Papi/io A 7 .) Eur. Schmett. I, p. 127, (1788). 
Var. Metra, Stephens, )Prntia 31.) 111. Brit. Ent, Haust, I, p. 19, (1827). Duncan, Nat, Lib. 
Ent., Vol. Ill, p. 119, t, 8, (1835). Pieris 31., Westwood, Kkumphrey, Brit. Butt., p. 
26, t. 5, (1841) Kirby, Cat. Diurnal Lep., p. 454, (1871). 
Var. Ergane, Ilubner, (Papi/io E.) Eur. Schmett., I, f. 904-907, (1827 ?). Pieris E., Staudinger, 
Cat, Lep. Eur., I, p. 3, (1871). Kirby, Cat. Diurnal Lep., p. 454, (1871). 
Pontia Narccea, Freyer, Beit, Eur. Schmett., I, t. 43, (1828). 
Var. Mann n, Mayer, ( Pontia 31.) Stett. Ent, Zeit., p. 151, (1851), Pieris M., Staudinger, Cat. 
Lep. Eur. I, p. 3, (1871). Kirby, Cat. Diurnal Lep., p. 454, (1871). 
Var. Leucotera, Stefanelli, Bull. Enf. Soc. Ital. I, p. 147, (1869). 
Var. Novangljle, Scudder, ( Ganoris N.) Can. Ent., Vol. IV, p. 79, (1872). 
PLATE VIII, FIG. 6, 7, PIERIS MARGINALIS, Scudder, (P. Yreka, Reakirt,) S'. 
FIG. 8, PIERIS NOVA NOLLE, Scudder, J. 
How Mr. Scudder first, and afterwards Mr. Reakirt, could have imagined the examples, which they 
respectively dubbed P. Marginalis and P. Yreka, were new species, and distinct from the old P. Rapae, is 
beyond my ken. I even yet think that Mr. Scudder must have been mistaken when he pronounced the types 
of P. Yreka identical with P. Marginalis ; then again, it can scarce be possible that he would not know his 
own species ! With regard to Mr. Reakirt’s determinations there can be no dispute; the figs. 6, 7, were 
drawn from his two original types of P. Yreka which he described in 1866, and which are now in my cabinet. 
