COLIAS I. 
agree with the Labrador Pelidne, and some with the European Palamo, forming 
another connecting link. He attributes the differences between all these varieties 
to locality and climate. A careful reading of Mr. Schilde’s paper leads me to the 
following conclusion: that occasionally a variety ol Pelidne appeals that le- 
sembles a variety of Palamo or the average type of that species ; and the con¬ 
verse also is true. But the average type of each species is distinct, and the 
connection between the two is no more than might be expected between any 
two nearly related species that at some time have come from a common ancestor. 
Both Palceno and Pelidne are stated to be very variable, and among the 
multitude of variations some of either species must approach the other. Even 
Mr. Schilde says that the name of Pelidne should be retained for the Labrador 
branch of the species, and really nothing more need be said, for if the two forms, 
supposing them to have at some time been one, are now so distinct that each 
breeds true to itself, each is to-day a good species. There can be no better test 
of a species. When eggs laid by a female Pelidne produce that type and also 
Palceno , or eggs by a female Palceno produce the two forms, then undoubtedly 
the two are shown to be one species, and dimorphic. And it is surprising that 
so little has been done in Europe, where Lepidopterists have worked for a cen¬ 
tury, towards settling such questions as this, whether any two or more given 
forms are species, or varieties only. Certainly the relationship of Palceno and 
Lapponica , or Palceno and Pelidne , could be determined in one season by the 
very simple process of shutting up one or more females of either with a plant of 
growing clover, on which the eggs will be deposited abundantly. This alone 
will test the relationship, and no amount of argument as to climatic influences 
ever can. 
