Chapter II: Part 2

Mais un instant, ne nous pressons pas de juger: examinons
attentivement l’original: qu’y voyons-nous?

Déjà, sur le bord costal de la première aile, nous apercevons
en effet, sur notre gauche, un commencement de cette blanche
éclaircie qui succède aux lunules, et à notre droite, le bord
intérieur de cette éclaircie y est des plus évident! (Voy. fig.
B [Pl. I, fig. 16]).

Comment donc se fait-il que ces ailes ainsi ployées, ces
vestiges de la première aile viennent s’adapter d’une manière
si complète avec toute la portion blanche qui se continue sous
la seconde aile? cela se peut rencontrer, je l’avoue, mais
c’est peu fréquent.

Bien mieux, le large sommet de la tache blanche anguleuse
et obscure qui lui succède, se voit aussi sur le bord un
peu diffus de la côte, dans la partie externe, et se relie
également bien avec celle que la seconde aile nous laisse,
selon moi, apercevoir. Plus loin encore, le commencement de la
grande tache basale, hachée à son dehors, ne se continue-t-il
pas sur la côte de la première aile?

Enfin, si cette dernière tache appartenait à la seconde
viendrait-elle, ainsi qu’elle le fait, s’arrêter précisément
sur le bord intérieur de la première, que par transparence
nous pouvons suivre parfaitement à partir du moment où il
est recouvert par la seconde aile? En l’attribuant à cette
dernière, ce serait agir contre toute apparence plausible,
contre toute disposition naturelle de ces sortes de taches, et
venir l’interrompre bénévolement et sans motifs spécieux, bien
avant l’angle anal de la seconde aile, sur lequel elle devrait
venir s’appuyer pour demeurer dans la forme la plus normale!
[82]

Cette interruption nous fixe donc aussi bien que le
commencement de toutes les taches du haut, sur l’attribution
que nous devons en faire à la première aile, et non à la
seconde, et le peu qui reste de ces divers dessins sous cette
dernière, si toutefois il en reste, doit se confondre avec
elles, sans contribuer beaucoup à nous égarer.

D’ailleurs, nombre de Lépidoptères diurnes des groupes, près
desquels doit venir se ranger la _Sepulta_, présentent sous
leurs premières ailes de semblables taches costales et basales,
ainsi placées, ainsi dentelées, ainsi conformées; d’habitude
même, elles y sont les vestiges plus ou moins complets de
ces larges bandes transversales qui couvrent ces mêmes ailes
d’une manière plus ou moins accusée; assez souvent elles vont
se répétant sous les secondes ailes, et s’y continuent d’une
manière parfois assez suivie, et selon l’expansion donnée aux
ailes. Elles y sont même, à mon avis, un indice de celle que la
nature a entendu leur accorder dans le vol, quand les bandes du
dessous des deux ailes s’y rajustent bien exactement.

Voici donc les taches et les dessins qui, après nous avoir
aidés à reconnaître la forme et la nature plus ou moins opaque
de ces ailes, sont actuellement eux-mêmes contrôlés par la
constitution physique de ces organes, restitués à leur places
voulues, et sous l’aile qui les doit comporter.

Voyons actuellement si l’étude du système nervulaire viendra
confirmer ou détruire ces suppositions. Cet examen anatomique a
bien son prix actuellement qu’on en comprend mieux l’importance.

Avant tout, je dois reconnaître que ces précieux vestiges sont
parfaitement indiqués là où ils doivent être, sur [83] cette
copie de la pièce originale, et que le dessinateur nous les
laisse suivre assez facilement, tant à une aile qu’à l’autre.

Que reste-t-il de la charpente alaire de la première aile?
D’abord, des traces de la costale; puis, au-dessus de la
lunule blanche de l’apex, les premier et deuxième rameaux des
trois apicales qui doivent jaillir de la troisième supérieure.
Diverses stries s’échappant du premier, accusent sans doute
ici les restes d’un dessin perdu ou quelques plis anormaux;
c’est sans importance. Puis, au-dessus de la lunule noire, on
distingue fort bien la deuxième supérieure, et plus bas, enfin,
la première.

Sur le bord extérieur, je devine encore l’extrémité des deux
premières inférieures; à travers la seconde aile, un trait
noir qui passe entre la lunule blanche et la large tache
noire orbiculaire, m’indique bien la position de la deuxième
inférieure; enfin, je suis non moins facilement, entre les deux
taches noires orbiculaires, la troisième inférieure, un peu
moins accusée.

Ces deux nervules se relient visiblement à la portion très
lisible de la médiane qui, sur le dessin, coupe le bas de la
première tache blanche costale.

Toujours à la première aile, la troisième inférieure s’y
reconnaît parfaitement à la place voulue, au milieu de la
dent qu’elle soutient. En effet, le plus souvent, quand une
dentelure, pareillement située, affecte le bord extérieur des
premières ailes, ainsi qu’on le peut remarquer dans les _Van.
Progne_, _Archesia_, _L.-album_, _Anglica_ et autres, cette
troisième inférieure a la prérogative de lui servir de support.

Au-dessus de son extrémité nous voyons un faux trait, sans
doute, car la présence d’une nervule me paraît impossible à cet
endroit. Plus bas, au dessous d’elle, le pli [84] qui, selon
moi, doit traverser la tache orbiculaire la plus inférieure,
précède encore un trait, sans valeur à mes yeux, puisqu’il
m’est inanalysable; et, en définitive, on voit la sous-médiane
qui se projette à travers la seconde aile, se confondant avec
les traces de la seconde inférieure de cette dernière.

Plus bas, avant l’angle interne, un autre léger faux trait me
semble encore inexplicable, car la saillie dentée de la marge
au dehors, précise assez la place, qu’à la première aile, doit
occuper l’extrémité de la sous-médiane qui d’habitude reste
volontiers assez distante de la médiane. En plus, il ne saurait
exister ici d’intermédiane, dont la présence ne se révèle que
dans les tribus trop éloignées de celle dont la _Sepulta_ fait
partie, pour nous en préoccuper ici.

La nervulation de notre première aile se trouve donc ainsi être
au complet, ou à peu près, et déjà je la peux réhabiliter avec
le crayon, telle qu’elle doit être.

Passons à la seconde.

La côte seulement se soupçonne, on voit parfaitement comme des
traits blancs, la costale qui est ici très brève en son trajet;
puis la sous-costale, la médiane, et le dé-[85] part des trois
supérieures qui se relient très bien en blanc sur la marge
dentelée de la tache basale (la deuxième moins facilement).

Ensuite vient la médiane, dont on suit le parcours, ainsi
que sa ramification qui forme la première inférieure et qui
passe sous la plus grande des deux taches orbiculaires;
puis la deuxième (celle qui, contre toutes les lois de la
Spiloptérologie, couperait la deuxième tache orbiculaire, si on
l’attribuait à la seconde aile).

Vient enfin la troisième inférieure, représentée, peut-être,
par une forte ligne blanche, et qui doit s’attacher à la
médiane, peu avant l’articulation fémoro-tibiale de la patte.

Dans les bords postérieur et abdominal, je ne peux distinguer
ni la sous-médiane, ni l’interne, qui sont disparues dans la
portion restante, et évidemment diaphane de cette aile qui se
détache ici sur le fond de la pierre.

Maintenant, si sur le tracé de la charpente alaire,
scrupuleusement calqué sur celui de la _Sepulta_, et que je
donne ici (fig. C [Pl. I, fig. 15]) rétablie dans son entier;
si, dis-je, on calque cette nervulation sur un papier végétal
et qu’on reporte cette copie sur le dessin de la pierre
originale, qui s’y verra par transparence, ou bien sur ceux de
la fig. C, qui est l’insecte tel que je le comprends, on sera
frappé de la précision avec laquelle ces diverses nervures
s’adapteront au dessin et aux taches que j’attribue à la
première aile, ainsi qu’aux vestiges de la charpente alaire
de la seconde aile. Ainsi, on pourra facilement contrôler mes
assertions.

Si donc la Solénoptérologie vient à son tour confirmer mes
rectifications, je dois croire que si je me trompe, je ne
m’abuse que de bien peu.… [86] Maintenant … que faire de ce
Diurne?

Comme plus haut je l’ai dit, c’est évidemment une espèce aux
premières ailes fortement échancrées et dentelées, tandis
que les secondes y sont arrondies et simples, à méplats bien
accusés.

Avons-nous dans nos espèces vivantes quelques-unes qui nous
offrent cette coupe peu commune, et dont les ailes des _Van.
Archesia_ et _Iphita_ de Cramer peuvent nous donner un exemple?

Cette _Sepulta_ me semble tenir beaucoup, tout bien consulté,
et des _Vanessides_ et des _Satyrides_, telles que nous les
comprenons.…

Evidemment la _Sepulta_ ne saurait être une _Cyllo_ proprement
dite. Serait ce donc une Vanesside? Si la forme des ailes
s’y prête quelque peu, son faciès, l’agencement des ses
dessins alaires, me porterait à en faire avec M. Boisduval un
_Satyride_, appartenant à un de ces genres inter-[87] médiaires
de ces deux familles nombreuses, déjà si peu éloignées à leur
état parfait.…

A essayer de caser cet insecte, j’abuserais à n’en pas douter
de la patience du lecteur; cependant, en peu de mots, je
pourrais lui faire observer (en ne nous occupant que de la
première aile, la seule que nous connaissons, à mon avis) que
la large tache basale qui se voit ici, comme à tant de Diurnes,
est avec les autres dessins de sa robe, le propre de nombreux
Satyrides de cette taille et de cette coloration, qu’avec
justesse M. Boisduval reconnaît devoir être d’une teinte
terreuse, seulement variée de blanc et de noir.

La petite lunule noire me ferait penser qu’en dessus il
devait exister une tache oculaire, dont elle est la simple
répétition en dessous, et précisément à l’endroit (entre les
première et deuxième supérieures) où cette tache existe le plus
habituellement dans nombre de Satyrides de ce faciès, quand
elle y est unique.

Certes, il devait y avoir en dessous, le long du bord
extérieur et jusque dans l’apex, une série disparue d’arceaux
internervulaires, formant une double ligne marginale, ainsi
qu’elle se voit encore entre la dent et l’angle interne.

La nervulation si peu différente parfois entre nombre de
Satyrides et de Vanessides, ne permet pas, sous ce rapport,
d’assigner un poste bien fixe à la _Sepulta_; en plus, l’état
de son empreinte ne nous permet pas de savoir si la base de
ses nervures est affectée, en tout ou partie, d’entre elles,
de ces renflements vésiculeux si communs à divers groupes de
Satyrides. [88]

Nous ne savons rien non plus de l’absence ou de la présence des
disco-cellulaires, et la perte assez prompte de la costale aux
deux ailes, dans la côte, s’accorde moins avec la marche plus
volontiers prolongée de cette même nervure dans les Satyrides,
de l’apparence de la _Sepulta_, etc., etc.

Bref, m’abstenir pour décider rigoureusement de quel genre
elle peut être, ou même approximativement, est ce que j’ai de
plus prudent à faire; mieux que moi, d’autres lépidoptéristes
pouvant s’acquitter de ce soin. Et à ceux qui, fatigués de
tant de lignes sans ce résultat désiré, me diraient: “Concluez
donc,” je répondrais—je ne sais pas!…

_Explication des figures de la planche._

A [reproduced in our Pl. I, fig. 14]. _Cyllos epulta_, telle
qu’elle a été comprise par M. le docteur Boisduval, en
attribuant un appendice caudal à la deuxième aile.

B [reproduced in our Pl. I, fig. 16]. _Sepulta_, telle qu’elle
devrait être d’abord comprise sous le rapport de la forme des
deux ailes.

C [reproduced in our Pl. I, fig. 15]. _Sepulta_, telle qu’elle
doit être jugée, tant pour la forme des ailes que pour la
distribution de leurs dessins et leur nervulation, selon M. A.
Lefebvre.

To this Dr. Boisduval at once responded, in the following language:[I]—

M. Al. Lefebvre, après avoir étudié avec soin la position des
nervures, la disposition des écailles et celle des taches, …
est arrivé à conclure que j’avais pris l’aile inférieure pour
la supérieure, et que cet appendice caudal, si manifeste dans
l’espèce en question, était au contraire un angle appartenant à
l’aile antérieure. Pour donner plus de poids à cette opinion,
il a refait une planche où il ressuscite à sa manière notre
_Cyllo sepulta_. Avec la queue que nous avons attribuée avec
MM. Boyer de Fonscolombe, de Saporta, Duponchel, et avec
tous les entomologistes qui ont vu l’échantillon à l’aile
inférieure, il fait un angle très aigu d’une saillie tout à
fait insolite, qu’il place au milieu de l’aile supérieure,
tandis qu’il a fait une aile inférieure complètement arrondie.
A côté de celle figure, il en donne une autre où il développe
notre _Cyllo_ comme il prétend que nous l’avons compris. J’en
demande bien pardon à mon estimable ami, mais jamais je ne
l’ai compris de cette façon. Je conviens du reste que cet
intéressant Lépidoptère fossile serait bien plus antédiluvien
tel que M. Alexandre Lefebvre le représente, que comme nous le
supposons, car nous ne lui trouverions aucun analogue, attendu
que jusqu’à présent nous n’avons jamais vu une seule espèce
avec des ailes supérieures anguleuses et appendiculées, et
des ailes inférieures arrondies comme avec un compas, il faut
croire que la nature n’en produit plus. Nous avons toujours
observé au contraire que lorsque les ailes supérieures étaient
anguleuses, les ailes inférieures l’étaient aussi d’une manière
très manifeste; mais ce que personne de vous ignore, Messieurs,
c’est que très souvent au contraire les ailes inférieures,
surtout dans le genre dont il est ici question, présentent
des appendices caudiformes plus ou moins saillants, et que
parfois les ailes supérieures out leur contour simplement
sinué. A l’appui de son opinion d’ailes inférieures arrondies,
aves des supérieures anguleuses, notre collègue a cherché à
trouver un exemple dans les figures de Cramer, et il cite en
consequence la _Vanessa_ [98] _Archesia_ qui effectivement
présente cette forme; mais Cramer a figuré un individu mutilé,
que probablement on avait arrondi avec des ciseaux, car nous
en possédons un très bel exemplaire, pris par M. Drege au pays
des Hottentots, que nous mettons sous les yeux de la Société,
afin qu’elle s’assure bien qu’au contraire cette espèce est une
des plus fortement appendiculée. Le choix de cet exemple est
malheureux. Nous persistons donc tout à fait dans l’opinion que
nous avons émise lors de la publication du rapport qui nous a
été demandé.

Sometime subsequently Mr. A. G. Butler refers to this dispute between the two French writers in the following manner:[J]

This very interesting species was described and admirably
figured by Dr. Boisduval in the French “Annales de la Société
Entomologique” (1840); that gentleman considered it to be a
Satyride allied to _Satyrus rohria_, _caumas_, etc.,[K] which
it somewhat resembles in the form of the wings.

In the French “Annales” (for 1851) M. Lefebvre published a note
upon the species, in which he criticised Dr. Boisduval’s paper,
and stated that the fossil species, instead of being allied to
_rohria_, was evidently a _Vanessa_—that the strong, tail-like
projection belonged to the front, and not to the hind wings,
and represented the angular projection which occurs in all
true Vanessidæ, as an example of which he instanced _Vanessa_
(_Junonia_) _Archesia_ of Cramer. This remarkable note was,
moreover, accompanied by figures of the species, representing
the tail both upon the front and hind wings.

In the same volume of the “Annales” Dr. Boisduval gives an
excellent answer to M. Lefebvre’s observations, in which he
well remarks, “Nous n’avons jamais vu une seule espèce avec
les ailes [190] supérieures anguleuses et appendiculées, et
les ailes inférieures arrondies comme avec un compas;” and
certainly, did such an insect ever exist, its wings would be
utterly useless as organs of flight, for they would invariably
carry it downwards. In all insects which have small and rounded
hind wings, the costa of the front wings always far exceeds
the inner margin in length and strength,[L] whereas in M.
Lefebvre’s insect the reverse would be the case.

It should be borne in mind, however, that there are two distinct criticisms by Lefebvre, to the second of which Boisduval only alludes in the most general way, and does not meet, while Butler makes no reference to it at all. As far as regards the position of the tail, Lefebvre is unquestionably wrong (see Pl. I, fig. 10), although his fault is primarily due to the inaccuracy of the engraving given by Boisduval, an inaccuracy which is slightly accentuated in our copy of it (Pl. I, fig. 17). But by far the larger part of his paper is made up of a detailed argument, drawn from the position and character of the markings and from the direction of the nervures, in which he endeavors to prove, and in most cases really does prove (though he errs in some of his statements concerning the neuration), that these markings belong to the front and not to the hind wing. He argues, for instance, that the two oval dark spots are plainly traversed by the nervures of the hind wing, and therefore cannot belong to that wing; that the minute white spot apparently on the outer border of the hind wing is only half a spot and must belong to the fore wing, and that the markings on and near the costal border traverse both wings and must belong to the one to which they certainly belong in part, the front wing. To this Boisduval makes no sort of answer, and Butler, to judge from his silence in the matter, and the comparative illustrations he gives on a plate published subsequently,[M] considers it unproven. All of these writers are, however, entirely wrong in supposing that the under surface of the wings is exposed to view, and that the hind wing covers the front wing. Boisduval does not distinctly state this; but the whole tenor of his remarks shows that this was the view taken by him; and when Lefebvre says: “Si de l’œil on suit les bords de la seconde aile, qu’avec le Docteur je reconnais couvrir en grande partie la première,” no objection is offered in Dr. Boisduval’s response; nor does he demur to Lefebvre’s statement, when the latter speaks of the “face inférieure, celle que nous voyons.” As we shall show later, however, the upper surface of the wings is that exhibited on the stone, and the front wing almost entirely conceals the hind one; compare Pl. I, fig. 13, drawn anew from the fossil.

In the same place to which we have just referred Mr. Butler adds the following remarks on the probable affinities of this fossil:[N]

The true position of _C. sepulta_ is undoubtedly in the family
_Satyridæ_; and, so far as can be judged from the beautiful
figure in the “Annales,”[O] it is exactly intermediate in
character between three nearly allied genera now existing,
viz.:—_Neorina_, _Antirrhæa_ and _Anchiphlebia_, its more
immediate allies being the commonest species in each of the
above genera. Its characters are distributed between these
three species as follows:—

=====================================================================
_Neorina_ _Antirrhæa_ _Anchiphlebia_
_Lowii_, _Philoctetes_, _Archæa_,
Boisd. Linn. Hübn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Form of front wings, *
Form of hind wings, . . *
Tails of hind wings
(intermediate in
character between), * *
Submarginal spots of
front wings, * * *
Black disco-submarginal
spots of hind wings, . . *
Pale costal and discal
banding of wings, *? . . *
Limitation of dark dentated
basal area of hind wings, . . . . *
Submarginal line of hind wings, *
=====================================================================

The venation appears to be nearly similar to that of
Anchiphlebia. It is doubtful, however, whether the drawing
of the veins has been sufficiently attended to, to offer any
reliable characters.

In this paper he quotes Boisduval’s locality “Aix en Provence,” but when he next refers to this insect[P] he gives it as from “Aix-la-Chapelle, White sandstone,” a mistake, however, corrected subsequently. In this latter paper he remarks:

I have discussed the position of this species in my catalogue
of Satyridæ, pp. 189, 190; showing that its nearest ally is
_Neorina Lowii_, a common Bornean species, but that it also has
a slightly more distant relationship to _Antirrhæa Philoctetes_
and _Anchiphlebia Archæa_, two common tropical American
forms; the amount of affinity, as regards the first two of
these species, may be seen on my plate, figs. 4 and 5; the
resemblance to Anchiphlebia is less striking, and the affinity
more doubtful; it has nothing to do with Cyllo.

That Butler should have so nearly pointed out the exact affinities of this insect from the simple study of Boisduval’s plate, is unquestionably due to his extended familiarity with butterflies, and especially with the forms of this subfamily; but it also shows the essential harmony between the markings of the under and upper surface of the wings of butterflies, notwithstanding their frequent great dissimilarity; for Butler compares this fossil with the recent forms on the assumption that the under surface of the wings is seen in Boisduval’s plate.

The actual condition of the fossil, for an opportunity of examining which I am indebted to the courtesy of Count Saporta, is this (see Pl. I, fig. 13): The thorax, hind legs and both pair of wings of the left side are preserved, almost completely; all the rest is lost. The thorax is viewed from above and somewhat on the left side; the hind coxæ seem to be almost torn away from their immediate connection with the trunk. The two hind legs are stretched out bent at the femoro-tibial articulation; the left leg lies above both the wings and is apparently attached throughout, although its base is covered a little by the crushed body; the right leg lies below both the wings and is apparently partially detached, though but slightly, from the coxæ; the tibio-tarsal articulation can be distinguished (Pl. I, fig. 11) but not the tarsal joints. The wings are bent over downward in a position the reverse of that of repose. The fore wing covers the hind wing as in nature, but to such an extent as to conceal the greater part of it; the guttered portion of the inner margin of the hind wings is almost fully expanded, but apparently has a fold next the submedian nervure. The fringe of the fore wing seems to be gone, but that of the hind wing is preserved nearly throughout. Head, fore and middle legs, wings of the right side and abdomen are wholly wanting.

The upper surface of the wings is, therefore, the part which attracts most attention. That it is the upper and not the under surface which is exposed to view is shown by the relation of the wings to each other (Pl. I, fig. 10), by their unquestionable attachment to the thorax, of which we certainly see only the upper portion with its smooth arched dome marked by the sutures which separate the portions which compose it; and by the design itself of the wings, which is such as pertains to the upper rather than to the under surface of butterflies of this group. These markings are most wonderfully preserved; and the careful and prolonged study I have given every part of the fossil has enabled me to separate, with a considerable degree of certitude, the markings which appertain to the fore wing and those which belong to the hind wing. Those of the latter are generally to be traced through the semi-diaphanous fore wing and are given in Pl. I, fig. 8. One is aided greatly in this investigation by following the lines and series of markings which extend over both the exposed and covered portions of the hind wing; and then by comparing the fainter and obscurer tints of the covered portion with equivalent marks on other parts of the stone covered by both the wings; in this way the markings of the hind wing may be separated from those of the front wing, but subject, certainly, to some degree of doubt. In the figure upon the plate (Pl. I, fig. 8) the portions to which the least degree of doubt attaches are the outer halves of the two wings. I am inclined to consider these as almost absolutely accurate. The parts on the other hand which are more likely to be inaccurate are the basal halves of the median interspaces of the fore wing and the contiguous portion of the medio-submedian interspace. Assuming, however, that the drawing faithfully represents the real markings of this extraordinarily preserved fossil, a detailed description of its features follows.

The basal portion of the fore wing (Pl. I, fig. 8) is very dark, and increases in intensity toward the border of the innermost light patch; the latter is bounded by a line running in a nearly straight course from the costal nervure, opposite the middle of the upper border of the cell, toward the middle of the apical half of the submedian nervure; but it extends slightly outward on reaching the lowest median nervule and just below this turns baseward and makes a large ovoid curve of an interspace’s diameter, returning to its course when it has nearly completed the circuit and reached the middle of the medio-submedian interspace; the outer limit of this large pale patch, which crosses the cell and extends nearly to the middle of the lower median interspace, nearly follows a line running from the upper extremity of the inner border to and along the middle median nervule. Beyond this the upper half of the wing, half-way to the apex, is nearly as dark as the basal part, excepting in a large light patch which crosses the lowest two subcostal and the subcosto-median interspaces, is broadest in the middle, but twice as broad at the upper as at the lower extremity, and rounded throughout excepting at the angular upper basal corner; its interior margin is sharply defined, and is nearly parallel to the interior border of the inner light patch, extending in a straight line from the subcostal nervure midway between the origin of the first and second superior nervules to the upper median nervule, about as far from its origin as it is from the base of the first median nervule; the exterior border is powdery, strongly convex and, starting from the subcostal nervure midway between the bases of the second and third superior nervules, joins the other border on the last median nervule; this patch is twice as long as broad. Extending from the next to the lowest subcostal nervule to the internal nervure, parallel to the outer border, is a broad indistinct pale band, broadening below, and on either side merging indefinitely into the darker parts of the wing, separated from the light patches by only a narrow belt of dark scales, which becomes narrower and fainter in the lower half of the wing; at its broadest the pale band is a little broader than an interspace, and it contains in its middle and at the middle of each interspace, as well as in the next to the lowest subcostal interspace, a series of large circular dark spots, of nearly or quite half the width of the interspaces in which they fall, often, and especially in the upper interspaces, enclosing a small black pupil; these spots are almost exactly parallel to the outer border, that in the lowest median interspace with its outer border at an interspace distance from it; with the exception of that in the lowest subcostal interspace, they are each surmounted interiorly by a much smaller circular light spot, the centre of which is near the circumference of the larger spot, so as to infringe upon it; with the exception of the uppermost, which is nearly as large as the spot on whose summit it is placed, the light spots are of nearly equal size and about one-third of an interspace in diameter; or if anything the two lower, seated on the largest spots, are smaller than the others; the wing must have been wrinkled between the nervules next the outer border, as shown by the dark lines running from the border to the centre of the dark spots. The outer edge and the apex of the inner are uniformly dusky and rather lighter than the other dark parts of the wing; the fringe is evidently lost.

The hind wing is very dark at the base, like the fore wing, nearly as far as the extreme tip of the cell; this dark area merges gradually into a lighter portion, which crosses the wing as a very broad equal band having its outer limit at a narrow, dark, regular belt, with ill defined outline, which crosses the wing subparallel to the general course of the outer border a little within the middle of the outer half of the wing; within this broad light band are two narrow transverse powdery streaks of dark scales, one extending from the extreme tip of the cell, and broadening a little in its course, running in a curve opening inward to the inner border; the other starting from the same point in an opposite direction, and passing in a sinuous course, with varying width, toward the middle of the basal two-thirds of the upper subcostal nervule, hardly separate from the outer limits of the dark base of the wing. The darkest part of the narrow band in the middle of the outer half of the wing has a regular curve and strikes the borders in the middle of their outer halves; there is a submarginal slender dark streak, separated by scarcely more than its own width from the outer border, becoming narrower toward the costal and inner borders, and especially towards the costal; it is broken at the upper median nervule, where the upper portion joins a second broader band, separated by a space nearly equal to itself from the submarginal band; this leaves a nearly equal light band in the outer part of the wing, broadest above and reaching from the costal border, almost to the inner; along the middle of this belt is a series of six round dark spots and ocelli, one in each of the interspaces excepting the costo-subcostal; the largest is in the lower median interspace, and is a spot nearly as broad as the interspace, deepening toward the centre to a black pupil; the next largest, in the upper median interspace, is an ocellus with a black pupil, immediately followed by a pale annulus, again surrounded by a dark ring of equal diameter, the whole a little more than half the width of the interspace; next larger are two spots of less intense depth of color, one in the upper subcostal, the other in the subcosto-median interspace, about one-third the width of the interspace, the upper deepening, the lower becoming paler at the centre; the spot in the lower subcostal and the medio-submedian interspace are equal and smallest, about one-fourth the width of the interspace, and consist only of rather faint, powdery marks, a little darker towards their centres. The fringe of this wing seems to be preserved and is short, nearly equal, dark, resembling a repetition of the submarginal streak.

Length of fore wing, 37mm.; breadth of fore wing, 20·5mm.; length of hind wing, 31·75mm.; length of tail, 4mm.; distance of the base of the second superior subcostal nervule of hind wing from the divarication of the costal and subcostal nervules, 5·55mm.; rows of scales in the subcostal region of the fore wings, ·075mm. apart; length of thorax, 5mm.; of hind femora, 4·6mm.; of hind tibiæ 4·8mm.; of hind tarsi, 4·9mm..

Tertiaries of Aix, Provence, France; collection of Count de Saporta.

LETHITES SCUDDER.

_Satyrites_ Scudd. (nee Blanch.-Brullé), Rev. et Mag. de Zool.,
1871-72, 66.

The costal border of the fore wing (Pl. I, fig. 5) is gently and equably curved, the apex moderately acute but well rounded, the outer margin, except at its extremities, nearly straight, and the inner border straight or almost so; the outer border is a little shorter than the inner and about three-fifths the length of the costal margin.

The costal nervule terminates slightly beyond the middle of the costal margin, its basal two-fifths presenting a considerable and almost uniform expansion, which tapers rather rapidly at the tip, and reaches nearly to the middle of the upper border of the cell. The subcostal nervule is very slight on the basal half of the wing, closely connected with the posterior surface of the swollen portion of the costal nervure and only divaricating from that vein after the latter has lost its tumidity; it emits its first superior nervule at slightly more than three-fifths the distance from the tip of the bulbous portion of the costal nervure to the upper apex of the cell; its second at midway between the origin of the first and the tip of the cell; its third at midway between the upper apex of the cell and the origin of the fourth, which arises at about two-fifths the distance from the base of the third to the outer border of the wing. The first superior nervule terminates near the middle of the outer two-thirds of the costal border, the second midway between the apex of the first and third; the third terminates just above, and the fourth at or scarcely below, the tip of the wing. The first inferior subcostal nervule arises at a very short distance beyond the base of the second superior nervule, and curving rather strongly, terminates in the middle of the upper half of the outer border; the second inferior nervule is emitted from the first inferior as far beyond the base of the latter as that is beyond the base of the second superior nervule; at its origin it is directed inward as well as backward (forming the upper termination of the cell) and passes backward in a small, narrow and rather strongly curved bow, bent below more than above, beyond which it assumes a course nearly parallel to the first inferior nervule; just beyond the arcuate portion it is connected by a rather long, straight, oblique nervule, directed considerably outward as well as downward, to the origin of the upper median nervule. The median nervule is slightly enlarged at the base, and diminishes gradually and regularly in size to its first divarication, which is scarcely beyond the middle of the cell; the origin of its middle branch is slightly nearer the origin of the basal than of the terminal nervule; the latter strikes the middle of the outer border. The submedian nervure is straight and not swollen at the base. The cell is three times as long as broad, and scarcely more than half as long as the wing.

The article from which the above is quoted, as originally written, closes thus:

“The neuration of the fore wing does not seem to me to accord sufficiently with that of any known genus of Oreades to admit of its being classed with them. It undoubtedly has close affinities with the characters of the genus Debis (= Lethe Hübn.) as laid down by Westwood and Hewitson, if we exclude therefrom, as we should, the _Papilio Portlandia_ of Fabricius. It is not a little interesting to notice that these authors have arranged this group in immediate proximity to the genus Cyllo (= Melanitis Fabr.), in which Dr. Boisduval placed the fossil species from Aix, named by him sepulta. Nor is it less interesting to find that in both genera all the living representatives (even including those discovered since the publication of the ‘Genera of Diurnal Lepidoptera’) are natives of the East Indies; so that the fossil butterflies of Provence have their nearest living allies in the far East.”

Although differing from Neorina (Pl. II, fig. 8) very strikingly in the form of the wing and the swollen base of the costal nervure, this genus has some striking points of agreement with that in the neuration of the fore wing. The nervure closing the cell indeed is straight in Lethites and strongly curved in Neorina, but, as there, two of the superior subcostal nervules arise before the tip of the cell, and the other two are thrown off at about equal distances between the apex of the cell and of the wing; the vein closing the cell meets the median nervure in both cases as far beyond its second divarication as that is beyond the first; the shape and proportionate length of the cell is nearly the same in the two, but the costal nervure appears to be much shorter in Lethites.

With Lethe (Pl. II, fig. 6) and Debis (Pl. II. fig. 10) the fossil genus can better be compared, as far as the form of the wing, the dilated costal vein, and the position and direction of the straight vein closing the cell are concerned; but in both these genera only a single superior subcostal nervule is emitted before the apex of the cell; the form of the cell again shows rather closer affinity between Lethites and these genera, although the difference in these respects is but slight. It is by no means distantly related to Enodia, in which two subcostal nervules are emitted before the tip of the cell, but differs from it in the much greater and more abrupt swelling of the costal vein, and in the much greater distance beyond the second divarication of the median nervure at which the vein closing the cell meets this nervure. It even exhibits no small affinity to Cercyonis, and especially to those species in which there is little dilation of the median nervure; the costal nervure is swollen in precisely the same way, and the superior nervules of the subcostal nervure are much the same; but the form of the wing is strikingly different, and the lowest subcostal interspace much wider at the base, in comparison with the width of the base of the subcosto-median interspace, in Cercyonis than in Lethites; and this seems to be a character of considerable importance. It may be noted in this connection that the markings of the fossil must have closely resembled _Cercyonis Pegala_.

Its nearest ally among living European types would seem to be _Maniola Hermione_, in which the costal and median veins are about equally swollen. The neuration of Lethites agrees with this genus in much the same way as it does with Cercyonis, the comparative width of the interspaces beyond the cell being very different in the living genera from what it is in the fossil. In the form of the wing Maniola agrees much better with Lethites than Cercyonis does, but the costa is much more arched, and the cell is much the longer in Maniola; were there no obscure spot in the lower median interspace in the male of _M. Hermione_, the markings of the fossil would agree with it almost perfectly.

LETHITES REYNESII SCUDDER.

Plate I, figs. 2, 5.

_Satyrites Reynesii_ SCUDD., Rev. et. Mag. de Zool., 1871-72,
66-72, pl. vii (1872); IB., Descr. Pap. Foss. 1-7, pl. (1872);
IB., Geol. Mag. ix, 532-33, pl. xiii, figs. 2, 3 (1872); IB.,
Descr. Foss. Butt. 1-2, pl., figs. 2, 3 (1872); BROD., Distr.
Corr. Foss. Ins. [_Satyrites Reynesii_], 8-9 (1873).

I give below the original of the first paper cited above, excepting the portion which was quoted under the genus.

In a recent examination of the rich collection of fossil insects from Aix, preserved in the Museum of the city of Marseilles, my attention was attracted by two little slabs containing the traces of a fossil butterfly. Although by no means so well preserved, nor so perfect as the remains of a butterfly from the same beds, described by Dr. Boisduval more than thirty years ago, a glance showed that it could not be referred to that species, since the costal nervure of the fore wings was greatly swollen. No such form having to my knowledge been described from these beds, Dr. Reynès, the accomplished director of the establishment, courteously placed the best specimen in my hands for closer study; and from it the following account and illustrations have been drawn. The second specimen is very imperfectly preserved, but since it exhibits in all its features an exact resemblance to similar parts in the better specimen it undoubtedly belongs to the same species.

The fossil (Pl. I, fig. 2) is a natural cast of a butterfly lying upon its side, the wings folded back to back, the legs extended as if hanging, the tongue uncurled and, with the antennæ, drooping in a direction similar to that of the legs. The right fore wing, which lies beneath, is pushed a little outward and also forward, even at its base, showing that the specimen must have been greatly macerated in very quiet water, before being covered by the deposits which have preserved its more essential features. The condition and position of all the parts also lead us to conjecture that it was swept into its final resting place by a gentle current, which left the slighter appendages lying in the direction of its final action.

It is evident that the object is a cast, for the veins of the wing which lie uppermost on the stone are impressed as we see them on the upper surface of the wings of living Oreades, while those of the wing lying beneath (veins which are plainly covered by the impressed nervures where the two come in contact) are in relief, as seen on the under surface of the same butterflies; that is, we have here the reverse of what would be the case, were we examining a living butterfly in this position.

The parts before us are: a poorly preserved body, vague indications of the terminal palpal joint, an antenna (probably a portion only), an unrolled tongue, the hinder pair of legs and portions of the other pairs, the greater part of the two front wings and fragments of the base of the hind wings. Of the latter, no border remains and only the base of a few of the nervules, which give scarcely any additional information as to the pterology of the insect. The only portion of the margin of the front wings which can be determined with certainty is the most essential part, the apex and the upper half of the outer border of the left wing, enough to show that its general contour was similar to that of the European Satyrids of the present epoch; but throughout the remainder all the nervules can be exactly traced. This being then the best preserved portion of the insect, we will consider its structure in detail, subsequently adding whatever can be gleaned from the examination of the other parts.[Q] [The account of the structural framework of the wing is given under the genus].

The basal two-thirds of the wing appears to have been more darkly clouded than the other portions, although in this fuscous area there is apparently a clearer space towards the upper, outer portion of the cell. There is also a distinct, darker, uniform and equal rounded spot in the middle of the outer two-thirds of the lowest subcostal interspace, nearly reaching the nervule on either side; in the specimen it appears to be broader than long by encroaching upon the next interspace in front, but this is evidently only apparent, the spots of the two wings (one of which I have stated to be a little in advance of the other) being blended. The object is so well preserved that one can see throughout the parallel series of minute punctures forming the points of insertion for the scales, outlines of the latter of which I have failed to discover. The wing is 28·5mm. long, the tip of the cell being distant 15mm. from the base of the wing; the costal nervure is inflated for a distance of 6·5mm., and the extreme width of this portion is 1mm.; the rows of punctures indicating the former insertion of the scales are ·12mm. apart.

Of the body itself nothing can be predicated, unless it be that the form of the abdomen and the appearance of its tip lead us to conjecture that the specimen was a female which had deposited most of her eggs, or in which they were but partially developed.

At the anterior upper extremity of the head is a dark prominence which seems to be the terminal joint of a palpus; it extends ·75mm. beyond the head and is of a nearly uniform width (·2mm.), scarcely tapering, with a rounded tip. The basal portion of an antenna, 5mm. long, is slender and apparently begins to increase slightly and very gradually in size, as in the genus Œneis Hübn. A finely impressed line, 7·25mm. long, appears to be the unrolled, though slightly curved tongue.

One of the hind femora projects 2·5mm. beyond the body; its tibia and tarsi are stretched in a single line, at an angle with it, but as the tip of what is apparently the other hind femur strikes them beyond the tip of their own femur, it is impossible to say whether they do not overlap, or are not overlaid by, the tibia and tarsi of the opposite side; their united length on the stone is 5·6mm.; but if both hind pairs are present, their probable length is 4·5mm.. There are also some remnants of the other legs, but in so fragmentary and confused a state that nothing can be determined from them, nor anything surmised of the length or structure of the front pair.

In the illustration of the fore wing given in the Revue et Magazin de Zoologie (fig. B), and copied in the Geological Magazine (fig. 3), the artist neglected to mark the position of the spot upon the wing. This is given in our Pl. I, fig. 5, which, as well as fig. 2, is taken from the originals of my former plate.

Tertiaries of Aix, Provence, France; Museum of the city of Marseilles.

NYMPHALES—NAJADES—PRÆFECTI.

EUGONIA HÜBNER.

Fore wings considerably more than half as long again as broad, the costal border scarcely bent at a little distance from the base, beyond that nearly straight to an equal distance from the tip, where it becomes more curved; outer border with the portion above the middle of the lower subcostal interspace very slightly concave, having a general direction at a very little less than a right angle with the central portion of the costal border, beyond suddenly receding at a little more than a right angle to the middle of the subcosto-median interspace, and continuing in a deep crenulate curve to just below the lower median nervure, where a prominent rounded tooth is found, and below which the border is excised, its angle rounded off; inner border very nearly straight, scarcely convex on the basal two-thirds. First superior subcostal nervule emitted a little beyond the middle of the outer two-thirds of the upper margin of the cell; the second a little more than half way from the origin of the first to the tip of the cell; the third midway between the tip of the cell and the origin of the fourth; the latter at three-fifths the distance from the tip of the cell to the apex of the wing; second inferior subcostal nervule arising scarcely one-third way down the cell; the cell considerably less than half as long as the wing, and three times as long as broad; middle of the basal curve of the last median nervule connected with the vein closing the cell.

The butterflies of this genus, which are generally above the average size, strongly resemble those of the genus Polygonia, in the form, color and design of the wings, but on the upper surface of the fore wings the costal markings are much heavier.

The above characters are wholly drawn from recent species of the genus.

EUGONIA ATAVA (CHARPENTIER) SCUDDER.

Plate I, fig. 1, 3, 7.

_Sphinx atava_ CHARP., Acta Acad. Leop.-Carol., xx, 408-9, Tab.
22, fig. 4 (1843).

_Vanessa attavina_ HEER, Insekt. Tert. Œning., ii, 177-79, Taf.
14, fig. 3 (1849); IB., Nouv. Mem. Soc. Helv., xi, 177-79, Tab.
14, fig. 3 (1850); GIEB., Deutschl. Petref., 644 (1852); IB.,
Faun. der Vorw., ii, 186 (1856).

_Vanessa? atovina_ KIRB., Syn. Cat. Diurn. Lep., 185 (1872).

_Nymphalis? atovina_ KIRB., Syn. Cat. Diurn. Lep., 648 (1872).

This was the second fossil butterfly known previously to the publication of Heer’s Tertiary insects. It was first described by Charpentier as a Sphinx, in the following terms:[R]

Ungemein interessant, und ich möchte sagen, ein Unicum ist der
in oben bemerkter Figur abgebildete Schmetterlingsflügel. Dass
es ein solcher sei, zeigt sogleich der erste Anblick, so wie
sich bei näherer Ansicht herausstellt, dass es unbezweifelt der
Oberflügel einer Sphinx Art sei. Er ist in seiner Form nicht
gut gehalten, sondern vorn etwas eingerissen, seine Zeichnung
ist aber bewundernswerth erhalten, und erinnert sehr an den
fast im ganzen mittleren und nördlichen Europa vorkommenden
_Sphinx Tiliæ_, doch ist er wohl specifisch von demselben
verschieden. Die drei grossen dunklen Flecke, die sich von
äussersten Vorderrande, fast bindenartig, über einen grossen
Theil des Flügels ziehen, sind unstreitig die Reste ehemaliger
Zeichnung und Färbung des lebenden Thieres.

The remainder of his remarks apply only to the rarity of fossil remains of Lepidoptera. The illustration was very poor and is reproduced on Pl. I, fig. 3. The next notice of it is by Heer, who also examined the original type, refigured [see Pl. I, figs. 1, 7] and redescribed it in the following manner, referring it to the genus Vanessa, and changing slightly the specific name:[S]

Alis anterioribus lividis, basi, fasciis maculisque nigris.
Long 16⅞ Lin.

Radoboj. Ein Oberflügel, dessen Innenrand aber nicht erhalten
ist.

Charpentier hat diesen Flügel einem Sphinx zugesprochen und
ihn mit dem Sphinx Tiliæ L. verglichen; allein schon die
ziemlich stark gebogene Randlinie (vena marginalis) spricht
gegen Sphinx, bei welcher Gattung sie bis über zwei Drittel
Flügellänge fast gerade verläuft und dann erst gegen die Spitze
sich zubiegt; ebenso aber auch das Geäder. Bei Sphinx haben
wir nämlich ein geschlossenes Mittelfeld und der Ast der
vena externo-media, welcher neben der Flügelspitze ausläuft,
verästelt sich nicht. In der Form des Flügels, im Geäder und
Färbung stimmt unser Schmetterlingsflügel, wie mir scheint,
am besten mit der Gattung Vanessa F. überein. Wir bemerken
nemlich, gerade wie bei den Vanessen, zunächst eine starke vena
scapularis, welche weit vorn in die v. marginalis ausläuft;
eine schwächere vena externo-media, welche noch näher der
Flügelspitze mit dem Rande sich verbindet; diese bildet nach
Innen zunächst einen Ast[T], der flügelspitzwärts in zwei
weitere Aeste sich spaltet; der äussere von diesen läuft zur
Flügelspitze, der innere aber trennt sich nochmals in zwei
Gabeläste, welche zum Hinterrande verlaufen und von denen jeder
in einen schwachen, stumpfen Zahn des Flügelrandes ausgeht.
Auf diesen Gabelast folgen weiter nach Innen zwei Längsadern,
welche am Grunde sich wahrscheinlich verbinden, und in die
vena externo-media eingefügt sind. Diese beiden Adern (es
sind diess die fünfte und sechste Ader von Herrich Schaeffer)
gehen bei [178] den Vanessen getrennt bis zur v. externo-media
hinauf und divergiren gleich, wie sie aus dieser heraustreten;
wahrscheinlich ist diess beim fossilen Thiere auch der Fall,
jedoch sieht man nur die Einmündung des äusseren Astes in die
vena externo-media, indem der innere am Grunde ganz verwischt
ist, wie denn überhaupt die Adern in Folge des starken Druckes,
dem der Flügel unterworfen war, äusserst schwach hervortreten
und nur mit Mühe zu erkennen sind. Die vena interno-media
verläuft wie bei den Vanessen, sie sendet nämlich nach dem
Hinterrande zwei Aeste aus, so dass im Ganzen drei Längsadern
zuletzt in parallelen Linien nach dem Rande verlaufen. Die
vena analis ist nur am Grunde angedeutet, indem der Innenrand
grossentheils zerstört ist. Das Mittelfeld ist offen,
wenigstens ist keine Spur eines Verbindungsastes zwischen v.
externo-und interno-media zu finden. In allen diesen Punkten
stimmt also das fossile Thier mit den Vanessen überein.
Ebenso stimmt ferner der zackige Hinterrand, indem wir, wie
schon bemerkt, an der Ausmündung des äusseren Gabelastes der
v. externo-media kleine Zacken bemerken, wobei freilich zu
bedauern, dass von dort an der Flügel zerrissen ist, so dass
die Randbildung nur an jene kleinen Stelle bestimmt werden
kann. In der Färbung zeigt der Flügel viel Uebereinstimmendes
mit demjenigen der Vanessa Cardui L. Wir bemerken nemlich
zunächst dem Grunde eine dunklere Stelle, welche fast bis
zu ⅓ Flügellänge hinausreicht; dieser dunklere Flügelgrund
ist indessen wieder in der Mitte durch einige unregelmässige
hellere Stellen unterbrochen. Auf diese dunkle Stelle folgt ein
helles Querband von 1¾ Linien Breite, welches aber nicht bis
zum Innenrande reicht, wenigstens ist an der Stelle, wo die v.
interno-media den ersten Ast aussendet, wieder ein, freilich
sehr undeutlich umgrenzter, dunkler Fleck; auf dieses helle
Querband folgt wieder ein 3 Linien breites dunkles Querband,
welches mit mittleren schwarzen Querband der V. cardui
entspricht; bemerkenswerth ist, dass dieses bei der V. attavina
von der Nahtseite her ebenfalls durch einen helleren Flecken
getheilt wird, welcher helle Flecken nicht his zum Aussenrand
hinausreicht. Auf dieses dunkle Querband folgt wieder ein
helles Band von 1¼ Lin. Breite, und darauf wieder ein dunkler,
3¼ Lin. breiter Flecken, der aber sehr kurz ist, indem weiter
nach Innen an jener Stelle der Flügel wieder hellgelb braun
gefärbt ist; auf diesen dunklen Flecken folgt wieder ein
kleiner heller Flecken; weiter flügelspitzwärts ist der Flügel
dunkelbraun gefärbt, welche Farbe allmählig heller wird, so
dass der Flügelrand wieder hellbraun wird; die Zackenspitzen
dagegen sind schwarz.

In der Färbung des Oberflügels stimmt also der fossile
Schmetterling am meisten mit Vanessa Cardui L. überein, dennoch
kann er nicht als analoge Art betrachtet werden, denn fürs
erste war er beträchtlich grösser [179], fürs zweite ist die
Randader stärker gebogen, zeigt eine regelmässige Bogenlinie,
während sie bei Vanessa Cardui in mehr gerader Linie verläuft.

The only subsequent notice of this insect, not directly copied or abbreviated from the above is by Butler, who remarks[U]; “I think it just possible, from the great resemblance which _V. Attavina_ of Heer bears to the under surface of _J.[unonia] Hedonia_, that it is the reverse of _J. Pluto_.”

I have been unable to see this fossil, or even to find out where it is preserved. Charpentier states that he received it for description from Dr. Unger through Professor Göppert of Breslau. Heer makes no mention of the quarter whence he received it. Herr Brunner von Wattenwyl searched for it in vain in the Vienna Museums.