PROCEEDINGS OF SOCIETIES. 
49 
larity between its appearance and that of Pieris daplidice; but not having any 
suspicion that it could be any other insect, I considered it a variety, and thought 
no more about the matter. But as in those days the capture of a Daplidice was a 
great rarity in my entomological experience, as it still is, I was particular to 
mark it, and another true Daplidice caught in the same locality, as my own, by 
passing the pin transfixing the insects through labels marked—“ Y. B., p. m. c., 
J. W. L .”—i e., “Yere Britannica, propria manu captaand with this note 
attached they were transferred from the drying case to the cabinet, where they 
remained undisturbed till, in 1851, I packed my cabinet lor travelling, when I 
cleaned the insects, which had suffered considerably from damp and mites, removed 
the labels above mentioned, which were stained and dirty, and, at the same 
time, secured the insects in their places by strong braces of card-board. From 
circumstances, which it is needless to mention, the cabinet was never properly 
unpacked, nor the securing braces removed from any of the insects until the autumn 
of 1853, when these two supposed Daplidices were liberated, together with the rest; 
but I did not replace the labels. It was not of any real moment, however, for I 
did not, at this time, possess any insect at all resembling the Daplidice, except 
these two. They remained in their places till the summer of 1854, when I was 
preparing to figure the Daplidice, and, in consequence, was led more closely to 
examine the supposed two specimens which I possessed; then, to my surprise, I 
discovered that the one which I had always, rather hastily, taken for a variety, 
must be considered a distinct species, as it presented great differences from the 
typical Daplidice, both in form, marking, and neuration of the wings. These 
have been already enumerated in a former notice, read before the Dublin 
University Zoological Association, so I will not now recapitulate them. Being 
unacquainted with the insect, I referred it to Mr. Stainton, who immediately 
informed me that it was Anthocaris belia, well known on the Continent, parti¬ 
cularly in the south of France, and appearing early in summer. 
That there can be no mistake as to the identity of the specimen with the one 
which I caught is, I think, pretty clear, as the only other specimens at all 
resembling it (except the Daplidice spoken of above), which I have ever had in my 
possession, were two true Daplidices, which I received a few months after the 
capture of the former two, with the intimation that their nationality was not quite 
unquestionable. Without losing a moment, therefore, as I had the reputation of 
my own to defend, I marked the new ones “Query British” on labels rolled 
round the heads of their pins, and affixed by gum; I then placed them in a case 
apart from the original specimens with which they were never compared, nor were 
they even brought into each other’s presence, having been laid aside in a different 
room. Where I placed them they remained till 1851, when I found both them 
and the whole of the insects in the case destroyed by mites and damp; and I 
burnt them all with my own hands—the remains of the dubious Daplidices, with 
the labels still adhering to the pins, being burnt along with the rest. I have 
never had any other specimens whatever, and as I think I have now given a 
clear statement of the different circumstances which befel the four specimens 
above alluded to, I trust it will be evident that the remarkable occurrence now 
recorded is not due to any slip of memory, or accidental misplacement of the 
insects under consideration. 
These statements of Mr. Lea gave rise to an interesting discussion, doubts having 
arisen as to whether the specimen might not be a Continental one which had 
been overlooked, from the time that ensued before Mr. Lea called attention to the 
specimen in question, and from the unlikelihood of the discovery of any new British 
Diurnal Lepidoptera, particularly one frequenting the southern parts of Europe. 
The chief question appeared to be, whether the Anthocaris belia had not been im¬ 
ported into England in the larva, or egg state. 
Mr. Haliday did not, by any means, object to the credibility of Mr. Lea’s state¬ 
ment ; but thought it would be difficult to account for the introduction of the insect 
into Worcestershire, an inland county, from the south of France, in either the egg 
or larva state. 
Rev. J. Greene stated his entire concurrence in the views of Mr. Haliday. A 
new British butterfly had not been discovered for many years (Erebia melampus, 
