Zeitschrift für wiss. Ins.-Biologie Bd. XXI, 1926. 191 
The geographical and seasonal variations of Coenonympha 
pamphilus L. 
By Roger Verity, M.D., Firenze (Italia). 
I have in some of my articles already remarked how sadly 
ıeglected this species usually is by collectors and how, in consequence, - 
he literature about it is of the poorest description and very little is 
inown about its variations. The cause, no doubt, lies in the fact 
he species is nearly ubiquitous and inconspicuous, so that collec- | 
ors are not keen to pay for specimens and take no interest in 
„ thinking those they can find near their door-step are similar 
d allthe others. This is an entirely mistaken idea and Oberthür, 
ke myself, has pointed out that, on the contrary, pamphilus is 
ne of the most variable and interesting species. I maintain it is 
ne of the broadspread and common species, which will furnish 
1e most valuable data from the general standpoint of evolution, 
he very object we are endeavouring to achieve by the long, toil- 
ome work of careful analysis carried out along the lines of an 
rderly synthetic plan. As I have struck in pamphilus a nearly 
nbeaten track, I am responsible for most of the descriptions and 
ames and some of those who will have the patience of glancing 
arough the following pages may think I have pushed analysis too 
ir. I feel confident, however, that if the matter is gone into fully, 
ith sufficient materials at Hand to verify my statements, it will 
ecome obvious I have only been lead by very positive facts and 
‚ would have been a mistake to deliberately limit our knowledge 
ırough fear of following nature’s complex developments. As to 
ıe number of names, I cannot go into the long-debated question 
ere, but Ican mention the excellent example afforded in this very 
vecies by that of /pyllus, Esper, showing the errors that arise from 
sisting on using existing names in cases, which are, in reality, 
Atirely different and new and require a new designation. The 
2scriptions of it given by many of the most diffused text-books 
zal with forms which have nothing in common with Esper’s 
‚sect and in nearly every local list of butterflies, including Britain, 
ıe finds it recorded. Esper’s /pllus is, instead, so distinct from 
imphilus that lately it has been suggestad by myself and by 
‚uerciit might even bea distinct species (see Entomologist’s 
'ecord and Journal of Variation, respectively of 1916, 
‚171, and of 1925, p. 26). This hypothesis is worth considering, 
though the facts I have been able to observe so far are not in 
vour of the conclusion that there exists sterility between Ipllus 
ıd vamphilus, such as is essential in true specific distinctness. 
| 3 
| 
| 
| 
| 
