48 
PROCEEDINGS OF SOCIETIES. 
In regard to the question, whether this species might he referred to that mentioned 
by Aristotle, under the name of the grey pontic mouse, there was much difficulty, 
owing to the looseness of his description. The word XevKog , might be translated 
cinereous ; yet the latter term also involved confusion. But as it could not, with 
any probability, be identified with either the squirrel or the mouse (according to 
the common interpretations), he thought it not unlikely that the animal said by 
Aristotle to occur both on the southern and western shores of the Black Sea, might 
be found on the Crimea and northern coasts also, and be in reality the species under 
discussion. With the Mus phseas of Pallas there was more probability of this 
species being satisfactorily reconciled: the former was described in Pallas’s last work, 
the “ Zoographia Russica,” a book of great rarity, not more than twenty copies 
having been circulated (one of which he had been himself fortunate enough to pro¬ 
cure on the Continent), in consequence of a fire that destroyed the printing-office 
at St. Petersburgh, where the work had been just prepared for publication. Imme¬ 
diately before writing this zoography, Pallas had been residing in the Crimea, on an 
estate given him by the Empress Catherine II. of Russia, not far from Balaklava, 
or between the latter place and Simpheropol; therefore, it was highly probable that 
the species, now so abundant there, had been described by him, whether under the 
name Mus phseas or not. He did not think that this Hamster (?) could be the 
Siberian species, because barren steppes, of great extent, intervened between that 
country and the Crimea, besides the difference of temperature. As the northern 
parts of the Crimea consisted of dry, sandy plains, abounding in small, burrowing 
rodents, and as our armies might, ere long, visit those places, some interesting disco¬ 
veries might be expected. In concluding, he would not give a decided opinion as 
to the identity of this species with the Mus phseas of Pallas ; but, having now care¬ 
fully examined the Crimean specimens, he would, on returning home, refer to the 
description in the “ Zoographia Russica,” and be happy to communicate the result 
to the Association. 
The Entomological Secretary exhibited a specimen of Carpophilus hemipterus 
(a beetle new to the Dublin lists), taken by himself, in rotten wood, at Charlton, 
Roebuck. From being somewhat immature, and not possessing the red spots on 
the elytra, it resembled in appearance C. pusillus, Ste.; to the latter species, how¬ 
ever, Mr. Haliday did not think it belonged. 
FEBRUARY 17, 1855. 
R. Ball, LL.D., President, in the Chair. 
The President gave a demonstration of the families Promeropidse and Nectarinidae, 
being in continuation of a series illustrative of the collection of birds in the Univer¬ 
sity Museum. 
The Entomological Secretary read the following abstract statement, from J. 
Walter Lea, Esq., corresponding member, of the facts connected with his 
CAPTURE OF ANTHOCARIS BELIA, IN WORCESTERSHIRE. 
Some time ago I had the pleasure of submitting to the Dublin University 
Zoological Association the first part of a series of notes on the Diurnal Lepidoptera 
of a limited district in Worcestershire. I have hitherto been prevented from com¬ 
pleting the communication ; but, in the meantime, I am glad of the opportunity of 
laying before the Association the following statement relative to the capture of a 
specimen of Anthocaris belia, in the same district, by myself, in 1849, and still in 
my possession. A coloured figure of the upper side of the insect was exhibited at 
a recent meeting of the Association, when it was supposed to be a singular variety 
of Pieris daplidice; but the insect itself having been submitted to Mr. Stainton, 
he informed me that it was Anthocaris belia, hitherto untaken in Britain. 
The evidence of its genuineness may be briefly stated, as the weight of the 
argument lies in a small compass; but Mr. A. R. Hogan will be able to answer 
questions, should any further particulars be required. 
It was in 1849, between the 23rd of June and the 6th of July, that I took the 
insect near Bewdley. At the time of capture I noticed that there was a dissimi- 
