EREBIA. By H. Frhr. v. d. Goltz. 
151 
E. ocnus Ev. We are illustrating the upperside (10 a) and underside (9 g) in order to definitely dis- ocnus. 
tinguish this from the former species. 
E. lappona Esp. (9 g) probably belongs to the primeval forms of Erebia. Only in this way is it to lappona. 
be explained that the forms from the central Alps, the Scandinavian mountains ( = mantoides Btlr.), from the 
mountain chains of Central Asia — there also lappona flies for instance on the Sajan Mountains — all show 
very slight differences of no consequence. I therefore omit here giving a special name to the asiatic specimens 
so kindly sent me by Mr. Otto Bang-Haas, although in the 9 the plain, unclouded marking effect of the 
hindwings’ underside is striking. Fruhstorfer has named ingana specimens from the Aosta valley, which are irujana. 
also said to occur in the south Tyrol in Davos and on the Simplon. They are distinguishable by ‘'an un¬ 
usually wide striking fire-red transcellular and submarginal area” with <l 4 remarkably large black spots, that 
are minutely small on the underside”. Also the “bright grey underside is traversed by 2 crossbands sometimes 
up to 1 mm wide and very undulated”. Such specimens however are surely to be found also in other locali¬ 
ties than the 4 named. - marmolata Dannehl from the South Tyrol is small, very dark, bands reduced and marmolata. 
dusky, ocelli minute, underside sooty grey-brown. The form roberfsi Peschke from the heights of Tatra has robertsi. 
5 —6 dark marginal lunules of conical shape on the silvery grey underside that has wide dentate striations. 
In the $ the space between the dentate lines is filled with dark chestnut brown on the underside of hind- 
wings. The form cibiniaca Dannehl from the South Carpathians seems to be identical with it and the same cibiniaca. 
applies to the as yet unnamed form from the Rhodope mountains. As a matter of fact marginal lunules are 
also indicated on specimens from other localities. — caeca Strcl. (= caeca Oberth.) are aberrative specimens caeca. 
without eyespots on either side of wings, semicaeca Hoffm. without eyespots on either side of hindwings. — semicaeca. 
clossi Heinrich is an aberrative $ from the Albula without fuscous bands or eyespots on upper and under- dossi. 
side of fore wings, with a curious formation of the bands on underside of hindwing: “middle band and mar¬ 
gin pale, basal area and area between outer middle band and marginal line adumbrated black-brown.” 
Also the forewings show an indistinct band-like shading. — albina Oberth. from the Tyrol is an aberration with albina. 
silvery grey upper and undersides and pale orange-red bands. — We give an illustration of the upperside of 
sthennyo (9 g) a form from the Pyrenees. 
E. tyndarus Esp. (8 f) the most widely distributed of all Erebia. It occurs with small variations in tyndarus. 
Europe from the southern Spanish mountains to the bulgarian Balkans (it is absent in the North), in Asia 
from Armenia to East Siberia, in America in the high mountains of the North West. Eiffinger already 
pointed out with justice that the name tyndarus possibly includes several genuine species. This applies in 
the first ptlace to ottomana H -Schaeff. (Vol. 1 , plate 37 i) and balcanica Rbl., in which not only the general 
appearance points this way, but their localities are closely neighbouring those of cassioides (8 f) and its closely 
allied macedonia Bur., without there being transition forms. I also consider it very likely — although Verity 
claims to have found in this instance transition forms — that the southern form with its sharply pointed 
wings with many eyespots, to which after careful research by Reverdin the name of cassioides von Hohen- 
warth has been given, is separable as a separate species from the wide-winged name-form from the Bernese 
Alps with its sparse eyespots. Both forms are said to occur on the Grossglockner without linking transition 
forms. - - The Spanish races command especial interest, 4 can lie differentiated. In south Spain in the Sierra 
Nevada the largest form hispania Butl. (Vol. 1 , p. 113, pi. 37 h) occurs with very wide wings, which is corr¬ 
ectly classified by Eiffinger. Then we have throughout the chain of the Pyrenees a race that cannot be 
distinguished from cassioides Hohenw. The high Pyrenees are the home of rondoui Oberth. It is larger and diff- rondoui. 
ers from the other northern Spanish races in the development of both subapical eyespots in forewings. Bands 
are more heavy than in cassioides, especially in $, where the yellow-red colour generally also spreads to the 
disc of forewing. Underside is silvery grey, generally less clearly marked, rondoui is fairly close to hispania. 
The 4th Spanish race from the East Pyrenees is correctly described by Oberthur as “the prettiest and richest 
coloured” and he names it pyrenaea Ruehl *) (9 h). It is smaller than rondoui but with much richer devel- pyrenaea. 
opment of the brilliant yellow-red bands which in the <$ extend streak-like into the disc. Ocelli are large 
not rarely increased by 2 on forewing and 3 on hindwing over normal number. Also underside is as a rule 
characteristic: on the forewings the yellow-red marginal band contrasts sharply from the red-brown centre area 
of wing, in which correspondingly on upperside there is a red-yellow streak, on hindwings 3 brown dentate 
lines distinctly separate the paler basal and marginal bands from the dark middle band. Fruhstorfer un¬ 
necessarily renames this race goya. The name dromus H.-Schaeff. that Eiffinger gave it, must be with¬ 
drawn in accordance with Reverdin’s researches. — The race from the neighbouring southern french moun¬ 
tains (Auvergne) is named by Oberthur avernensis. It resembles the Spanish pyrenaea in regard to number avemensis. 
and beauty of the black ocelli with white pupils on all wings, but does not approach same in regard to the 
development of the bands. — Fruhstorfer alleges in regard to his race aquitania from the Maritime Alps aquitania. 
that it approaches the Spanish “ dromus ” ( = pyrenaea) in regard to size, development of bands and ocelli. 
*) In Vol. 1 p. 113 erroneously described as “ pyrenaica ” Ruehl. 
