OCR Text |
Show 1881.J OF AMURLAND, NORTH CHINA, AND JAPAN. 881 TERIAS BETHESBA, Janson, Cist. Ent. ii. p. 272 (1878). As far as I can judge, this is a good species, intermediate between T. lata and T. hecaBe. The females are easily known, being of a pale dull lemon-colour, more or less clouded with dusky scales. It seems very like the figure and description of T. venata, Moore. T. HECABE, Linn. Mus. Ulr. p. 249 (1764). T. hecaBeoides, Men. Cat. Mus. Petr. p. 85, t. ii. fig. 2. IT. sinensis, Luc. Rev. Zool. 1852, p. 429. T. mariesi, Butl. Trans. Ent. Soc. 1880, p. 198, t. vi. figs. 1-7. This wide-ranging and variable species is common in China and Japan. Mr. Butler's paper on the Japanese species of Terias gives full details of the variations and supposed hybrids between this species and the next. I can see no reason for separating T. mariesi, the difference in the shade of yellow which Mr. Butler relies on being variable in m y specimens from Yokohama. T. ANEMONE, Feld. Wien. ent. Mon. vi. p. 23 (1862) ; Butl. Trans. Ent. Soc. 1880, p. 199, t. vi. figs. 8-11. Found in Japan, where, according to Mr. Butler, it connects T. hecaBe with T. mandarina by almost insensible gradations. With regard to this species Mr. Butler says (Trans. Ent. Soc. 1880, p. 200) :-" So far as I have been able to judge, the T. hecabe and T. mandarina of China are constant; the intermediate T. anemone does not come from that country, in which case hybridization cannot modify the typical forms." Mr. Butler appears to have entirely overlooked the fact that the type of T. anemone is expressly stated to have come from Ningpo. It is also quoted in Fryer's list of Rhopalocera of Chekiang and Kiangsoo provinces, in Ent. M o . Mag. 1877, p. 52 ; and there are specimens in Pryer's collection marked " Snowy Valley, Ningpo." T. MANDARINA, De l'Orza, Lep. Jap. p. 18 (1869); Butl. Trans. Ent. Soc. 1880, p. 199, t. vi. figs. 13-18. Common in Japan, and occurs also in Formosa, whence two specimens are in Pryer's collection. I have, however, seen none from China, though Mr. Butler says it occurs there. With regard to the supposed hybrids named and figured by Butler in the Trans. Ent. Soc. 1880, p. 197 et seq., I would call attention to the utter want of evidence of the hybrid origin of the specimens which he names T. hybrida (No. 7) and T. connexiva (No. 12). Judging from the plates, the differences between Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 10 are extremely trifling, and equally so are the differences between Nos. 12, 13, 14, and 15. W e are informed that the absence of 6 specimens out of 150, which are presumably represented by figs. 7 and 12, will leave the three species as sharply defined as any in the genus, and we are asked to believe without further evidence that on this account the six specimens are hybrids. PROC. ZOOL. Soc-1881, No. LVII. 57 |