ENTOMOLOGICAL NOTES. 
69 
ANTICOSTI LEPIDOPTERA. — In Paper XVI of the Bull. Bof. Soc. Mr. Grote describes certain Diurnal Lep. from the Island 
of Anticosti, he mentions ten species, eight of which he examined and two more (Grapta) he heard about, “making ten species in all 
known from the Island” ; he is however in error, there were in all fourteen, viz.: Pap. Turnns, Pap. var. Anticostiensis, Pieris Oleracea 
var., Colias Pelidne var., Colias Phi I ad ice, Argynnis Atlantis, Phvciodes Tharos, Grapta Comma, Grapta Progne, Vanessa Atalanta, 
Lycsena Lucia, Ly. ? Pembina, Ly. Scudderii, and Carterocephalus Paniscus. 
The examples of P. Turnns, all q? are small, expanding only three inches; the bodies are almost wholly black ; all the black bands 
of wings heavy ; but little of the blue or grey which is so conspicuous on the marginal band on under side of secondaries, in ordinary 
forms. 
The Colias Philodice $ and 9 are in nowise different from those of other districts. 
Colias Pelidne, these are peculiar, the $ and 9 both being entirely lemon yellow on upper and undersurface, without the heavy grey 
powdering at base of wings on upper side, and of whole under surface of secondaries ; in all other respects they resemble the typical 
Pelidne of North Labrador, of which J have some twenty examples, among the latter there also occurs rarely a yellow 9> and there is 
one instance of a $ in which the discs of the wings are orange, after the manner of some of the paler examples of C. Eurytheme (Ke- 
waydin 1. I thought first these Anticosti Pelidne might be Sctidder’s C. Interior,* but that gentleman after inspecting them during a late 
visit here, says they are different, and were unknown to him ; but for my part, I believe them to be nothing more than a form of C. Pel- 
idne, precisely analogous to that of PaIaeno,f found in the Alps, in which both and 9 are yellow, whilst in examples of that species 
from all other localities the 9 is always white. 
Grapta Comma. — One ^j 1 , small, expanding but 1| inches, differs in nothing else from the common form. 
Lycsena Scudderii likewise resembles those from other localities. 
I suppose by Cyclopides MandanJ Mr. Grote meant Carterocephalus Paniscus^ which is found in the higher latitudes of Europe, 
Asia and N. America. 
Of the Lycsena, which I believe to be Pembina, but which he described as new and named “ Glaucopsyche Couperii Grote,” he says 
“ this species differs from Lygclamu s and Pembina in having a much broader dark margin to the wings, ” Ac., on examining ten examples, 
five (J 1 and five 9i taken by Mr. Couper in the two previous summers. 1 find that all the males are, on upper surface, in all respects 
exactly like Lygdamus, I cannot find any difference whilst examining them side by side; of the females some are nearly all blue but of 
much less brilliancy, and the border fades insensibly into the blue without any distinct line of separation between the two colours, others 
have the blue and dark grey or brown equally divided, and one has the blue restricted to a few basal scales only. The under 
surface of both sexes is paler than in Lygdamus, but the arrangement of the spots is precisely the same, i. e. on primaries a sub-marginal 
row of six spots, the one nearest the inner angle sometimes double, a diseal bar or spot. On secondaries an irregular sub-marginal row 
of eight sposts, the seventh sometimes geminate in such cases making nine in all ; a discal bar, a spot near costa and another opposite to 
it, within the discoidal cell, between which and the interior margin is another minute spot, these last two are often obsolete, example 
A in my cabinet has all the spots, except these two, almost as large and pupilled as in Lygdamus, B has all the spots likewise, 
but smaller, and the two nearest anal angle of secondaries are without pupils. C all spots of upper wings pupilled, but small ; sec- 
ondaries have the discal bar, but traces of all the other spots are scarcely discernable, except on closest examination, when a fern minute 
white points may be observed, the whole wing looks plain grey with a white ( discal ) mark in middle; the other two males are nearly 
like B cJb D all spots as in A g£, well defined and pupilled ; this example has the upper surface nearly all bluish. E 9. ground 
colour very dark, all spots as in the one last described, upper surface dark, blue confined to basal parts. F 9, spots of primaries large 
and pupilled, of secondaries small, the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh, from costa, have minute black points in centre, this 
example is small, 1 inch in expanse, and the upper surface is like the ordinary 9 examples of Lygdamus, blue and dark about equally 
divided. G 9 marked below like F 9 > but > s nearly all blue on upper side, and expands 1 3-lfiinches. H 9 , spots small, those nearest 
costa and inner angle, on primaries, almost obsolete, pupils quite small, secondaries have sub-marginal ocelli represented by six minute 
white spots, the one nearest the anal angle being wanting, no evidence of black centres, a white discal bar ; this example comes in 
appearance close to L. Pheres,j| but the spots of secondaries are smaller and the ground colour of wings darker. 
I have eight examples, male and female of a species from the west and north-west, these are what I always supposed to be L. Pembina, f 
Edwards, they are about the same size, colour and ornamentation as those 1 have just described from Anticosti and Labrador. The 
upper surface of males are like the preceding, perhaps a shade more towards violet, the 9 like the darker forms, I will however go into 
a few details concerning the under surface; A ^ is marked like A rj 1 of preceding species and Lygdamus. B and G $ the same, but 
the spots all smaller. D $ is a small example, expands f inch. E 9 has spots all large and well defined like E 9 °i the Anticosti ' 
examples. F 9i all spots pupilled, but all smaller than on the last. G 9, H 9 'ike F (9 of Coupers, except that the spot nearest 
anal angle of secondaries is absent. These examples just described, some from Oregon, some from California and some from British 
America, present no particular points of difference from those taken in Anticosti, more than there is a shade difference in the blue of 
upper surface of males, and tbe females have less blue on upper surface than in some of those from that locality ; should these be L. Pem- 
bina, which I think is the case, then Couperii is undoubtedly the same; I had the first examples, taken in 1872, a year prior to 
Mr. Grote’s obtaining them, and although the examples, twelve in number, male arid female^ were faultless or nearly so, I could not 
bring myself to describe them as new, believing then, as I still do, that they were Edwards’ L. Pembina. Mr. Scudder, in Article XX,** 
says the nine examples that Mr. Grote’s description were based upon, included only one male, and “all excepting one female were more 
or less rubbed, and their determination was a matter of no small difficulty,” and further, “ the wings of the male are rubbed so that it is 
impossible to assert positively that their border was any broader or less well defined than in those specimens from which it was believed 
to be specifically distinct” ; this can, however, be no excuse for Mr. Grote, for if the specimens were in the desolate condition described, 
it would have been belter to have left them alone, even if the one great aim of having “Grote” behind the name did not in this instance 
“ obtain.” 
Mr. Scudder says in same paper, “ the name Couperi will nevertheless stand for this species, for Mr. Edwards has recently called my 
attention to the fact that in describing Pembina he stated it to be allied to the Californian Pheres, Boisd., while in the same connection lie 
described a Californian butterfly (Behrii) as belonging to a distinct series of which Lygdamus, Doubl., was the type” ; with equal pro- 
priety might Mr. Grote give to Argynnis Nokomis another name because Mr. Edwards indulged in some little phantasy about the 
relation or similarity of that species to A. Diana, which belongs to a distinct group or series. Mr. Edwards in his Synopsis N. Am. 
Butt. (1872) has placed the Lycaena referred to thus, No. “ 50, Behrii, ff 51, Antiacis,JJ 52, Lygdamus , \\ 53, Pembina, so if .be did think 
*Scudder, Proc. Bost. Nat. Hist. Soc., p. 108, (1862.) 
f Herr-Sch. Schmett. Eur. I, f. 41, 42, (1843). 
JC. Mandan, Edwards, Proc. Ent. Soc. Phila., Vol. II, p. 20, (1863), is the same as C. Paniscus, Fabr. 
|Fabr. Syst. Ent., p. 531, (1775). 
||Boisduval, Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr., p. 297, (1S52). 
fProc. Acad. Nat. Sc. Phila., p. 22, (1862). 
** Bull. Buff. Soc., Vol. I, “ Notes on tbe species of Glaucopsyche from Eastern N. Am.” (1S73). 
ft Edwards, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc., Phil., (1862). 
ft Boisduval, Ann. Ent. Soc. Fr., p. 300, (1852). 
|| Doubleday, Ent. I, p. 209, (1842). 
