70 
ENTOMOLOGICAL NOTES. 
when he described Pembina that it was allied to Pheres, (in which he was not so very far out of the way,) lie has since changed his idea, 
for between the four species (Behrii, &c.,) and Pheres he has placed thirteen others. ' 
Mr. Edwards, who of course knows his own species, has received also of these Anticosti examples, and the shortest plan to determine 
if they are Eycaena Pembina, Edwd. or Glaucopsyche Con peri GROTE, is for him to say which, at his early convenience, and much 
oblige a great many of us uninitiated, for as a matter of course we cannot expect Mr. Grote to do so, his time being so much taken up in 
attacking the life-long labours of Mr. Walker, of the British museum, that he really is unable to give the requisite attention to other 
matters, thus lie is, how unfortunate, compelled to suffer, or as his own beautiful and touching language expresses it, 11 1 elect to suffer 
through an injustice rather than countenance an apparent wrong.” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
LIMENITIS PROSERPINA, Edwards, is doubtless a form of L. Artheruis bearing the same relationship to that species as does the 
aberrant L. Tremula;* to L. Populif in Europe. 
PIERIS BECKERII,! Edwards, from Nevada, is certainly identical with P. Chloridice.jf found in Turkey, Sarepta, Siberia, &c. ; 
several Lepidopterists, as well as myself, have compared the two, and excepting that the Nevada examples are a little larger, cannot 
detect any differences that might warrant the retaining of the latter as a distinct species. 
In what Mr. Grote’s new Catocala Meskei || differs from Unijuga, Walker, I am at a loss to perceive ; Mr. Meske had the goodness 
to send me Grotes type for examination, but I cannot with my best will pronounce it anything else than Unijuga ; 1 have since sent to 
Mr. Meske three examples and 9 which he pronounces the same species as the one which Grote described as Meskei, and so they 
are, but nevertheless they are at the same time Unijuga too, and as we are supposed to go in nomenclature by the law of priority, it will 
still have to stand as Unijuga, although Mr. Grote doubtless imagines, after the manner of “ the Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote,” 
that he has acheived a glorious victory over Mr. Walker and has thereby acquired the right of annihilating that author’s species as 
spoils of war. 
N. B.— If Catocala Arizonhe, described in same paper with C. Meskei, does not turn out to be one or the other of Dr. Von Behr’s 
species, others than myself will be much surprised. 
I trust that, though the species figured in this No. are not conspicuous or showy, it still may not be devoid of interest. The 
next No. (IX) will be devoted to N. Am. Catocate. 
* Esper, Schmett., I, 2, t. 114, (1800). 
f Linn. Faun. Suec., p. 277, (1761). 
J Edwards, Butt. N. Am. Pieris, t. 1, (1871). 
| Hubner, Eur. Schmett,, I, fig. 712, 713, (1803-1818). 
|| Canadian Entomologist, Vol. V, p. 161, (1873). 
