64 
PIERIS RAP.E. 
The very first words he says, after “ Nov. Sp.,” are “ Size and form of Pieris Rapa ?, L .” ! ! and well 
could he say so, for the one which he described as the ¥ is the common S form of that species ; the other is 
also a S, with the dark apical patch of primaries represented by a few scales only ; examples exactly like this 
one I also have from Germany. 
But whenever I think of this comedy of errors, an uncontrollable desire overcomes me to lie back and in- 
dulge in a glorious guffaw over the fallibility of us poor humans, for in our beloved studies it is as Butler says, 
in Hudibras, of religion, “ still be doing, never done; as if religion were intended for nothing, else but to be 
mended.” 
The two types of P. Marginalis are in Mus. Comp. Zook at Cambridge; the S came from Crescent City, 
Cal., and the ¥ from Gulf of Georgia. 
The two types of P. Yreka are from California. 
There is a curious thing in connection with these western examples of Rapae, (Marginalis and Yreka,) 
that they should have been found in California and Washington Territory four or five years before the species 
was introduced into Canada and the United States from Europe ; this fact furnishes material for some reflection. 
I trust inv readers will forgive me right cheerfully for not going into elaborate griseous, luteous, eyaneous 
descriptions of these e< ninion species; it may even be considered waste of time and material to have figured 
them, but 1 have done so with the purpose that all might see for themselves that P. Marginalis and P. Yreka 
are nothing but P. Rapae, and P. Pallida, P. Castoria, and P. Venosa are but forms of P. Napi, and not have 
to depend on my determinations alone. 
Fig. 8 illustrates the curious S variety of P. Pa pay first described by Mr. Scudder, under the name of 
Novanglne,* in 1872. and which has no analogue in the old world; it is not of unfrequent occurrance, 
and some of my friends inform me that these yellow males are from larvae, which feed on Mignionette, but if 
that be the case, why are the females produced from larvae feeding on that plant not likewise lemon yellow, 
•or do only the male larvae affect that food, perhaps there may be females of like yellow colour, but I have 
never yet seen or heard of any such, all that have come under my observation were males, and I am of the 
opinion that they bear to the normal form, the same relation that Colias Helichtaf does to C. Erate,| whatever 
that relation may be. But it is really wonderful that within the few years that have elapsed since the time 
of P. Rapae’s introduction from Europe, there should have arisen a variety which is so entirely unlike any- 
thing found in the old country. 
ANTHOC HARIS OLYMPIA. Edwards. 
Trans. Am. Ent. Soc., Vol. Ill, p. 266, (1871). 
(PLATE VI J I, FIG. 9, S-) 
Male. Expands If inches. 
Body black above, beneath white. 
Upper surface white, with black at base of all wings. Primaries have a black apical patch broken with 
white ; a black discal spot. 
Secondaries with a small black spot on costa near the apex, and a minute black discal point. 
Under surface white. Primaries, a small yellowish grey spot on costa not far from the apex, also a few 
specks of greyish extend in a broken line from this spot to the exterior margin ; discal spot enclosing a white 
line. 
Secondaries with three irregular bands of greenish grey, the second and third ones connected on the me- 
dian nervure by a cross-banc! ; on these greenish bands are a number of round, white dots. 
The female I have not yet had the opportunity of examining, but Mr. Edwards, in his description, says 
it is “ similar to male.” 
Habitat. Virginia, Texas, In Mus. Comp. Zook, Am. Ent. Soc., W. H. Edwards. 
This fine insect is distinct both in form and ornamentation from all other known American species of 
Anthocharis ; though smaller, it forcibly reminds us ot the beautiful Zegris Eupheme§ of Russia and Syria, 
the markings of under side of secondaries bear a wonderful resemblance to those of that species, as does also 
^Scudder, Canadian Entomologist, IV, p. 79, (1872). 
fLederer, Verh. Zool. Bot. Ges., II, p. 33, (1853). 
JEsper, Schmett., I, 2, t. 119, f. 3, (1806). 
| Esper, Schmett., I, 2. t. 113, (1800). 
