Article beginning on page 308.
Psyche 5:308-316, 1888.

Full text (searchable PDF)
Durable link: http://psyche.entclub.org/5/5-308.html

The following unprocessed text is extracted from the PDF file, and is likely to be both incomplete and full of errors. Please consult the PDF file for the complete article.

308 PSTx'HE. [February 18p.
species, found west of the Rocky Moun-
the Antilles and Central America.
tains, extending south to Guatemala.
There are two species in Australia,
A. amazili is strictly a South Amer- three in Europe, four in Africa and per- ican species extending to the north to
haps ten in Asia.
THE ARGYNNIDES OF NORTH AMERICA.
BY IfIi-NKY JOHN EI-WES, CIRENCESTER, ENGLAND. [Reprint. p. 563-575, from "A revision of the genus Argynnis," (Trans. ent. soc. London for the year 1889, p. 53.5-575.)]
The Argynnides of North America
are, without exception, the most diffi-
cult butteiflies to classify that I have ever studied. I have a collection which
includes authentically named specimens
of almost all the species and varieties, many of them direct from such well-
known collectors as Messrs. H. Ed-
wards and Morrison ; many from Messrs.
Strecker and Geddes. I have also
seen some of the best collections in the United States, and studied all, 01 almost all, the large mass of scattered literature and notes on the genus by Messrs. W.
H. and H. Edwards, Mead, Geddes,
Scudder, and Strecker. I have repeat-
edly tried to construct a key by which
the supposed species could be identified, and can only say that I have completely
failed. I am certain that no entomologist, who received to-day the most perfect
collection which could be got together
from all parts of North America, and
had to classify and describe them with-
out regard to the works dothers, would
make anything' like as many species as
have been recognized. It seeins pre-
sumptive for a man to set aside much of
what has been written by those who
have seen, both living and dead, so many more specinlens than I have seen, and
yet I cannot, in dealing with the
American forms, adopt as specific,
characters so slight and variable that
they would not be recognized as such in
the inuch better known European spe-
cies. And to show that it is not my
ignorance alone which makes the. diffi-
culty, I may say that it is just those spe- cies which I have personally observed in life, and which I have most carefully
examined, such as A. eurynome, A.
Ziliana, A. monticola, and A. meadii,
in which I have found my uncertainty
the greatest. Mr. Strecker's remarks,
on p. 118 of his Catalogue, are so much
to the point that I will quote them here, and can only say if our American col-
leagues do not agree with them, let them rather point out how others may under-




================================================================================

stand their conclusions, tha.n blame me
for not adopting what I cannot see :-
"The Argynnides of the western slope,
or Pacific side of the Rocky Mountains,
are without doubt, if we except, perhaps, the Coliades, the most difficult of all the North American Diurnae to deal with,
as they not only run into certain varia- tions, but again into subvariations, or
even further. The two species mod-
cola and z e w first considered identi-
cal by Dr. Boisduval, are perhaps the
most perplexing ; each of theye bears the same relation to some of their varieties as does niobe to its Tar. eris and a w e to cleodoxa, but presenting by no means
the stability of forms of these European variations, but branching out into endless and endless varieties until the student is completely at a loss to know where or
to what they may belong."
Scudder, in the 'Butterflies of New
England,' has figured the abdominal
organs of several species of Argynnis
on plate 33 which gives an opportunity
of comparing some nearly
allied spe-
cies. Those of A. cybele, fig. 44, A.
a$hrodi/e, fig. 40, are very similar in- deed, but as they do not appear to agree exactly with the descriptions, and the
figure of that of a$hrodi/e is not alluded to in the description on p. 565, I do
not know whether the description was
made from the same specimens figured,
and whether we are to attribute the
difference to variation, or to incorrect drawing. The clasper of atlantis fig.
36, also much resembles those of cybele
and aphrodite, but has the hook longer
and nearer the clasp. The figure of the
androconia of these three species, plate 46, figs. 12, 13, 14, are also very similar, and, taken in connection with the clasp- ers, do not lead one to suppose that very much help will be given in deciding the
relationship of nearly allied species in this genus by a microscopic exami-
nation. The claspers of A. myrina,
bellomx, and montinus, plate 33, figs.
35, 38, 42, all included by Scudder in
the genus Brenthis, show a general
similarity of form inter se, with the same minor differences as those of cybele,
aphrodite and atladis. I at first sup-
posed that some difference might be
found in the scales clothing' the median veins in the males, but on examination
with a powerful lens idalia is the only
North American species in which the
raising is conspicuous, though ,in some
specimens of atlantis and a$hrodite,
and others, it is clearly perceptible.
The tuft of silky hairs on the subcostal nerve is present in the males of all the larger species that I have examined, and is very conspicuous in idalia, but I
have not found it in the smaller species which have been separated under the
genus Brenthis.
A. idalia and A. diana are two of
the most beautiful species in the whole
genus, and may be said to form the best
links between those species of Eastern
Asia, which end the Palaearctic series,
and the American species, which are
isolated from them. A. diana has the
sexes more different than any except
sagmza, and if the genus was
divided
into groups would be another instance
of an American species having its




================================================================================

nearest affinities in Northeastern Asia
and Japan, of which we have several
among the plants of the Alleghany
Mountains.
A. aphrodite, A. cybeled. alcestis,
A. cy$ris, A. halcyone.- This is a
group of species or forms which are ex-
tremely hard to define, and though
Edwards and Scudder, and most other
North American entomologists, agree
in keeping them separate, I think it is
very difficult, if not impossible, to
identify them unless you know their
habitat. I have a pretty good series
of all except cypris, which must be
very close to, if not identical with,
alces+ and judging by the character
of the median veins in the fore wing of
the male, by the color and pattern of
the under side, which are the best
characters I know by which to define
the species, I am certainly inclined to
follow Strecker rather than Edwards.
There have been so many mistakes
made in identifying these species by
collectors that their geographical distri- bution is not very easy to follow out;
though Mr. Scudder's maps are useful,
they are by no means infallible, and the northern and western range of aphrodite
and cybele is certainly not defined at
present. I received from Morrison a
pair of cybele from Montana, which
agree with those taken by Geddes in
the Northwest Territory of Canada,
near Edmonton, being smaller than
those from the eastern states. Accord-
ing to Scudder and Edwards, however,
cybele does not occur in Montana, and
the Edmonton habitat is quite isolated ; whilst a-phrodite, which is unmentioned
by Geddes in his lists of north-western
butterflies in Canadian entomologist :
vols. 15, p. 321, 16, p. 56 and 334, is
stated by Scudder and. Edwards to occur
at Edmonton. Either such experienced
collectors as Morrison and Geddes did
nor know aphrodite when they saw it
out of its usual range, or Scudder and
Edwards are mistaken. Though it
seems undoubted that typical eastern
specimens of these species can be
distinguished (for the points of difference see Scudder, p. 566), yet the differences are so slight that it may not be possible to identify western specimens with one
or the other, and this difficulty seems to have been got over in Edwards' case
by creating other species, such as
alcestis; cypris, and halcyone, which
cannot be identified with any certainty
from his figures or descriptions ; and
which, notwithstanding all that has
been written upon them, must remain,
as far as I can see, "species dubiae"
to those who have not specimens
identified by their author at hand for
reference.
A. leto is a species which, though
undoubtedly nearly allied to cybele, is
fully as distinct from it as noko~nis, and may be regarded as its Pacific coast
form, in the same way as noko?n/s is the form of the dry central platean of the
continent. Though the male is not
very different from the male of cybele
yet the female, which on the upper side
is hardly distinguishable froin the fe-
males of nokomis and notocris. is
marked by the strong contrast between




================================================================================

February iS90.1 PSYCHE. 31 1
the dcep chocolate, almost black, of
the base and inner area of the wings
and the pale yellowish color of the area. Its r;mge extends along- the Pacific coast from Ce~itriil California to Washington
Territory, and it is recorded also by
Gcddes fi om Fort Macleod, in the North- western Territory of Canada, on the
eastern side of the mountains. Those I
have from Washington Territory are
considerably darker at the base of the
hind wing's than others from Plumas
county, California ; and I should not
be at 211 surprised if a large series from different localities were to show forms
intermediate both with cybcle and noko-
^ns .
A. ca7-$wnteri is unknown to me, ex-
cept from the description, which seems
to point to a form of cybele. It was de- scribed from two males and one female
taken by Dr. Carpenter in New Mexico
at a high elevation above the timber
line, and is said by Mr. Edwards to be
of the size of atla7~tis and near cybele. A. nokomis and doc?+ are regarded
by Mr. Edwards, in his last catalogue,
as distinct ; he cites, however, Strecker's figure of mkowls female, in Rufther7s
report, as an aberration of docris.
This is just one of those cases which
prove how difficult it is to follow Ed-
wards's authority in such matters. It so happens that I have two excellent pairs
of nokomis from Arizona, sent by Mr.
H. Edwards, which exactly agree with
Mead's figure cited by Edwards. I have
also a pair of nitocrz's, the male from
Utah, sent by Mr. Strecker, the female
from Arizona, agreeing with it, SO
marked by Mr. H. Edwards. bLI think
this species passes ;is A. nitoc?*is, fe- male."
It differs from noko~~is in having
the under side of hind wing to the second row of spots cinnamon-color, as in cy-'
beJe, and is exactly intermediate between nokomis and &to. The specimen fig-
ured by Strecker in Rufther's report,
and cited by Edwards as an aberration
of nokomis, is, to my eje, much more
like let0 than it is to nitocris or iiokoinis; and Mr. Strecker's remarks are as ibl-
lows :-"The present two examples
from Colorado differ notably from all
those from Arizona in the following
particulars : On under surface the red
color of primaries is darker, and covers evenly the whole wing- except toward
and at the apex ; on the secondaries the whole space interior to the second of
the two outer rows of silver spots, which in the Arizona examples is powdered
greyish green, is deep reddish brown,
nearly of the same color as in the female *
a$h?-odile, or the male
of leto; they
are larger than most of those I have seen from Arizona. On the tipper side it
presents no differences. I have always
contended that nokomis was a pale
ab-
normal form of cybele, of which we have
so many other instances in the species
from the dry salt regions of Utah and
Arizona, and these intermediate exam-
ples from Colorado, with their dark red- dish under sides, seem to strengthen my
opinion. I can but regret that no males
were captured (unless the following be
really its male)*, as I consider this is *This is put down as cybele
by Mr. Strecker, who is
astonished at receiving it from Colorado, and is strongly



================================================================================

31 2 PSTCElA'. [February 1890.
by far the most interesting insect in the whole collection."
A. aphrodite is a very wide-ranging
species, which varies enough in the
Western States to have received at least three names, for I cannot see how to
distinguish alcestis or halcyone in the
perfect state, though Edwards says the
larva of alcestis is different, and places halycone in a different subgroup with
coronis, calippe, and ediua~~cisz', on
account of the larger and more egg-
shaped form of the silver spots on the
under side. When, however, a good
series is compared together (I have six- teen males ancl twelve females of this
group from various States), I cannot
see that his suppose! distinctions are con- stant, and thoug-11 nausicaa, of which
I have four males and five females, taken by Messrs. Hulst and Morsison, is dis-
tinctly of a deeper red on the upper sur- face than any of the rest, yet its under side, like that of Jialcyone, has nothing sufficiently marked to distinguish it. Mi-. Edwards perhaps would say that my
halcyone, which were sent by Mr.
Strecker, and taken near Denver, are
not true to name ; but what else can
they be from that locality? It only shows that if a describer of insects does not
make his descriptions sufficiently com-
parative and clear to be followed
by others, he must not be surprised if
others refuse to accept them. Larval
characters alone, which are liable to
vary like those of the perfect insect, and which cannot be easily compared by
- --
inclined to the belief that it is the male of the above described form of nokomis.
others, are not in my opinion sufficient. With regard to A. naztsicaa, however,
I see a point not alluded to by Mr.
Edwards, which may be sufficient to
separate it, namely, the much less
abundant and shorter tuft of hairs on
the subcostal vein of the hind wing in
the males. This tuft is prominent in
all males of a/h/+od//c, alcestis and
ha/cyonc which I have examined ; in
nausicaa it is much less conspicuous,
and, taken in conjunction with the
isolated habitat and deeper color, is
probably enough to distinguish it.
A. atlantis is another species which
I find it uncommonly difficult to decide about, not so much when the eastern
form alone is before me, but when the
numerous western species or forms
have to be considered. Mr. Edwards
has got over the difficulty by naming
them all separately, and Mr. Scudder,
though he was not perhaps obliged to
mention them in the 'Butterflies of
New England,' says nothing as to their
very near relationship. He remarks
as follows :-'LTl~ere is no need of
confo~~ncling this species with either
of the preceding [a/h?*od/te and
cybele] : it is smaller than they, duller in tint above, has a blackish border to
all the wings in both sexes, and more
continuous mesial band on the upper
surface of the hind wings ; the darker
colors of the under surface of hind wings are deeper in hue than in either of them, while the buff belt is wider than that
of aphrodite and narrower than that of
cybele; the bufF scales on the basal
half of the wing also assume more im-




================================================================================

February iSoo.1 PS YCF7E. 313
portiince thiin in the other species :
finally the costal border of the fore wings does not appear to be quite so much
arched. It is possible, perhaps even
probable, that this species is the true
Papi7io aphrodite of Fabricius, but as
it is quite impossible to be certain of
it, the names ought to stand as given
by Mr. W. H. Edwards, who first
clearly distinguished the species in this difficult group. The species were
still confounded in the British Museum,
after the publication of Butler's Fabri- cian butterflies, as I myself saw, and
notwithstanding Butler's remarks on
p. 108 of that work." Its distribution,
according to Mr. Scudder, is much the
same as that of cybele and ajhmdite,
but extends to Newfoundland, Labrador,
and the Hudson Bay Territory ; on
Mead's authority he also gives Colorado, but Edwards calls the form found
here electa, which also ranges into
New Mexico and Montana. Whether
this is the same or not I cannot be
certain,
as the description of electa in
'Field and Forest' is inaccessible ; but I have a pair from Colorado, given me
by Mr. Holland (which are named
electa, 1 believe, by Mr. Edwards),
and a female from S. W. Colorado,
taken by Morrison, which I cannot
separate from atJantis. Mead also gives
a clue to the
correctness of this identifi-
cation with atladis by mentioning the
strong musky odor of the Colorado
species, a peculiarity of atlantis to
which Scudder calls attention. Geddes
says that atladis occurs in all parts of the Rocky Mountains north of the
American boundary which he visited,
and if this is correct, it can hardly be absent from Montana and Colorado.
But at the same time I must say that
the male of so-called electa does not
differ from the female as does another
male from Colorado (sent by Mr. H.
Edwards as hesperis) in having the
silver spots of the under side partially obsolete. If, therefore, hesperis and
atlantis, which are placed next to each
other by Mead, and stated to
occur at
the same elevation in Colorado, run
into each other, as they seem to do,
we are led into the belief that atlads
is liable, in the west, to the disappear- ance of the silver spots, which takes
place in other American and European
species; and then there is 110 reason
why some of the forms which occur on
the Pacific States, such as rolumbia
should not also belong to atlantis. I
do not say that they are so because it
would be unwise to do so without
knowing' them in nature better than I
or any living American naturalist does ; but on the other hand I can see nothing- in the writings and figures of Mr.
Edwards to prove the contrary, or to
enable others to distinguish them.
A. columbia H. Edw., was by him