3 
considered the Scotch specimens to be the same as var. vieropc oi 
the Continent, on the strength of Staudinger’s short diagnosis of 
the latter ‘ alpina, minor, obscurior.’ In the general information he 
appends, he states that in Irish M. aunnia ‘ the fulvous spots on the 
upper surface are largely replaced by white or cream-coloured blotches, 
giving the insect at first sight the appearance of Melitaea cyntkia $ . 
It is larger than English, and very much larger than Scotch 
specimens of arteinis , the wings of the female frequently reaching 21- 
inches in expanse.’ So far as the remarks relating to size are 
concerned, we must take Birchall’s statement unless we charge him 
with untruth. He gives, besides the general information mentioned 
above—‘ Expanse of wings, $ 1 inch 4 lines —1 inch 8 lines; ? 
2 inches—2 inches 3 lines.’ The specimens from many localities 
vary almost as much as this. The following is Birchall’s description of 
the male hibemica: — Abe superne nigra', anticre maculis seriatim 
dispositis fulvis ad marginem posticum, aliisque in medio plurimis 
albis vel stramineo-albidis ad marginem interiorem coalescentibus, 
lituram forman tibus; posticse fascia lata, fulva secus marginem 
posticum (exemplorum typicorum maculis fulvis margine postico nigro 
angusto obsitis in varietate vel indiscretis-simis vel nullis) ornatfe ; 
subtus pallide-fulvre, signature simili at indiscreta.’ ‘ 5 Ahe anticfe 
fulvae, seriebus macularum albarum vel stramineo-albidarum duabus, 
interdum confiuentibus fasciasque formantibus, fascia exteriore trans 
alas posticas products, notatae; posticas ut in typicis, sed maculis 
stramineo-albidis nec fulvis ornatfe.’ It will be observed from this 
that Birchall gives the coloration of the males as ‘ nigr®,’ of the 
females as ‘ fulvae.’ It will be also noticed that, of the three Cromlyn 
specimens exhibited, the male is much the blacker and the females 
the more fulvous. As to. the criticism of Mr. Kane ( Ent ., xxvi., 
p. 141), that Birchall makes the hind-wings ‘ ornamented neither 
with pale straw-coloured nor fulvous patches,’ it appears to me that 
Mr. Birchall says: ‘ the posterior wings as in the type, but 
ornamented with straw-white, not fulvous patches,’ Mr. Kane having 
added a ‘ nec ’ to the original to get his reading. In the Ent. Mo. 
May., x.,. p. 154, Mr. Birchall refers to a coloured plate obtainable 
from him privately, in which var. hibemica is figured with the 
English, and what he considers the Scotch form. I have never seen 
this plate, but Mr. Kane, referring to it, writes :—‘ The plate shows 
clearly that * fulvis ’ should be ‘ stramineis ’ in the Latin description 
of the male. That of the female does not agree with the plate in the 
latter having the straw-coloured patches.’ This, I take it, makes the 
figure agree with the description. The Cromlyn male is very dark, 
and would do for Birchall’s hibemica, but hardly satisfies Birchall’s 
statement that ‘ there are many other whitish-yellow spots in the 
centre of the wing ; ’ it srikes me, indeed, as being an exceptionally 
dark aberration, even of the race Birchall described, with which, how¬ 
ever, it agrees in the ‘ very inconspicuous ’ extreme marginal spots of 
the hind-wing. In the females, the fulvous colour is much better 
developed than in the var. scotica. From an examination of these 
specimens, and careful consideration of Mr. Kane’s remarks, we 
must assume that var. praeclara, Kane, is in Ireland (as the type, which 
is of a less brillant colour, is, in England) the commonest form ; 
and that the ab. hibemica is a form more nearly approaching var. 
