132 
ARGESTINA. By Dr. A. Seitz. EREBIA. By H. Frhr. v. d. Goltz. 
bocki. 
nirmala. 
materia. 
cashapa. 
martyr. 
hyagriva. 
karia. 
nitida. 
in the $ which is smaller than is illustrated in the main type. Ta-tsien-lu. — bocki Oberth. (Vol. 1, p. 94). This 
is possibly a separate species owing to the somewhat differently formed scent spot of the and the rather more 
pronouncedly scalloped hindwings of both sexes. 
C. nirmala Mr. (Vol. 1, p. 94). f. materta Fruhst. is unicoloured on the underside. It differs from the 
f. intermedia Mr. (Vol. 1, plate 35 b) which has 2—3 eyes on the hindwings, owing to the presence of only 1 
eye over which rarely a further dot occurs. Chitral. cashapa Mr. (Vol. 9, p. 300) from Kashmir has 4 hindwing- 
ocelli developed on the underside. 
C. martyr Watlc. sp. n. £ of sylvicola Oberth. differs as follows: ground colour of the forewings paler, the 
black spot of the apical-eye is almost round, the black androconia spot is narrower and intersected by the ribs. 
Hindwings with large eyespots in areas 2 and 3. The undersides of the forewings are more brown, on the hindwings 
there are also eyespots in areas 1-6, the 2 on the upperside are larger. Ta-tsien-lu. 
Note: hyagriva Mr. mentioned as an erebia in Vol. 1, p. 110 has been dealt with as a Callerebia by Fbuhstorfer 
in Vol 9. p. 300. As a matter of fact they form a link between the 2 families which are united together by close transitions. 
We are giving the illustration on Plate 8 f. Moore places hyagriva in a Genus: Ilallacha. 
9. Genus: Argestina Ril. 
Referring to our note regarding Callerebia ( Erebia) hyagriva we have to interpose a Genus here which 
links Callerebia and Erebia. It differs from Erebia by the sharply bent middle discocellular, which is straight 
in Erebia-. from Callerebia it differs by the club shape of the antennae which in Argentina is broad and spatulate 
on a slender shaft, whilst in Callerebia it is long and narrow and gradually thickened on the shaft. Besides the 2 
indian forms (waltoni Elw.) of which the one is a type for the Genus, there are 2 palaearctic species. 
A. karta Ril. (8 f. g) has in colouration and marking in the sex a superficial similarity with an Epineph. 
jurtina-C (Vol. 1, plate 47 b), only the apical eye is not ringed with yellow, but on the other hand has a distinct 
white pupil. Wing contour and scent organs are of course entirely different. On the underside the forewings 
are purplish-brown with large simple apical eyes heavily surrounded with yellow. The underside of the hindwings 
is grey and brown mottled and reminds one of Erebia pronoe (Vol. 1, plate 37 c). The species is named 
according to its locality, Kharta, which is 20 English miles from Mount Everest and which has vegetation 
chiefly of a thibetan nature. 
Al nitida Ril. is very similar to the previous species, but somewhat smaller (19—20 mm). On the 
underside of the fore wings in the disc instead of the nice purple-brown it has a dull copper colour and the grey 
mottle effect, which in karta is only developed in the apex, is extended along the costa towards the inner margin. 
$ like the <$ only slightly larger and with a larger apical eye: from Gyangtse in the Everest region. 
10. Genus : Erebia Dalm. 
The following amplifications to the excellent, though not quite complete observations of Eiffinger 
regarding the genus Erebia in the 1st Volume of Palaearctica must be expressly deemed as such. They are 
based on Eiffinger’s work and they can only be fruitfully considered in conjunction with same. The object 
of this recapitulation was primarily so to make known in text and illustration all forms of Erebia. newly 
described since the publication of the above mentioned Volume of Palaearctica, that their classification 
should be possible without difficulty. They are very numerous and spread about in the literature of so many 
languages that inspite of the praiseworthy “Novitates” of O. Bang-Haas it will scarcely prove possible to 
complete the work without any exceptions whatever. For, even when it has been ascertained where the original 
description was given, in a number of cases and inspite of the greatest endeavour it has been impossible to obtain 
same. Qiiite apart from giving full particulars of new forms it is deemed essential to give a word or two of 
criticism or an explanation in regard to the relationship of one form to another. As this supplementation of 
Seitz cannot possibly be a monograph of Erebia such remarks are perforce limited to narrow bounds. The 
author is responsible for the nomination of a form and the preciseness of its description, and not the editor. 
In some cases it has not been possible for me to ascertain exactly which form an author has actually intended 
with his denomination. This applies particularly to the diagnoses of Fruhstorfer, which are often genially 
exact, but often are based on insufficient material and so imperfectly described that they drive a conscientious 
recorder to desperation. — A further duty I felt was necessary to some extent in an amplification of Eiffinger’s 
treatise. Not that it seemed essential to rectify any immaterial faults or errors. But in such cases where our 
knowledge has been considerably increased, where new views in regard to certain questions (for instance in 
regard to the right of E. lefebvrei Dup. to be called a species) have become common property, this has to be 
expressed. In some interesting species (for instance epiphron, stygne , manto, ligea) an endeavour has been 
made to bring the various forms into line as being local races spread over wide areas. 
