The Project Gutenberg eBook ofFossil Butterflies

The Project Gutenberg eBook ofFossil ButterfliesThis ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.Title: Fossil ButterfliesAuthor: Samuel Hubbard ScudderRelease date: November 19, 2017 [eBook #56004]Most recently updated: October 23, 2024Language: EnglishCredits: Produced by Chris Curnow and the Online DistributedProofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file wasproduced from images generously made available by TheInternet Archive)*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK FOSSIL BUTTERFLIES ***

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Fossil ButterfliesAuthor: Samuel Hubbard ScudderRelease date: November 19, 2017 [eBook #56004]Most recently updated: October 23, 2024Language: EnglishCredits: Produced by Chris Curnow and the Online DistributedProofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file wasproduced from images generously made available by TheInternet Archive)

Title: Fossil Butterflies

Author: Samuel Hubbard Scudder

Release date: November 19, 2017 [eBook #56004]Most recently updated: October 23, 2024

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Chris Curnow and the Online DistributedProofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file wasproduced from images generously made available by TheInternet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK FOSSIL BUTTERFLIES ***

MEMOIRSOF THEAMERICAN ASSOCIATIONFOR THEADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE.I.

SALEM, MASS.F. W. PUTNAM, PERMANENT SECRETARY, A.A.A.S.1875.

PRINTED AT THE SALEM PRESS, SALEM, MASS.

Portland, Aug. 22, 1873.

Mrs. Elizabeth Thompson of New York City, to-day elected a member, sympathizing with the purposes of our Association in the advancement of science, and seeing the new crop of young and industrious scientific investigators who are to form the future basis of this Association following in the footsteps of the veterans of science who founded it, and being aware of the financial difficulties which often beset the path of those noble men of science who labor more for truth than for profit’s sake, wishes to place at the disposal of the Permanent Secretary the sum of one thousand dollars, to be used according to the directions of the Standing Committee, for the promotion and publication of such original investigations by members of the Association as may be accepted by the said Standing Committee, to be published by means of this special donation.

[Signed]

P. H. Van der Weyde.

To the Standing Committee of the AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science.

The Standing Committee of the Association at the Portland Meeting appointed the undersigned a Committee with full power to accept and print such papers as they might deem of sufficient importance to be published by the donation of Mrs. Thompson.

In accordance with the duties assigned to them, the Committee have accepted the Memoir by Mr. Scudder on Fossil Butterflies as the first paper to be published by theThompson Fund, and while regretting that the unavoidable delay in engraving the plates prevents their having the gratification of presenting the work at the present Meeting, they believe that the Association and its liberal patron will accept the Memoir as one in every way worthy of the honor thus bestowed.

Committee.

BYSAMUEL H. SCUDDER.

TOCOUNT GASTON DE SAPORTA,OF AIX IN PROVENCE,

WHOSE EXTENDED MEMOIRS ON THE FLORA OF THE TERTIARIES OF SOUTHERN FRANCE FORM THE BASIS OF THE BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS OF THIS ESSAY; AND WHOSE UNWONTED COURTESIES HAVE PERMITTED A CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FOSSIL BUTTERFLIES,

THIS MEMOIR IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED BYTHE AUTHOR.

The happy discovery in the Museum of Marseilles of a new fossil butterfly first drew my special attention to this group of extinct insects, and determined me to make, during my residence in Europe, a careful study of the original types of all that had been previously described. By the great courtesy of Count Saporta, Professor Heer, Dr. Reynès, Mr. Oustalet, Mr. Woodward, the Rev. Mr. Brodie, Mr. Charlesworth, and the authorities of the Jermyn street Museum, I was able to study not only all the originals of the Museums of Aix, Marseilles, Zurich, Paris, London, Cambridge and Warwick, but several new types, described here for the first time. As I was unable to visit Vienna, Mr. Brunner de Wattenwyl was good enough to procure for me new drawings, made under his immediate supervision, of the species from Radoboj, described by Heer and preserved in the museums of that city. So that I have either personally inspected all the fossils described within recent times as butterflies, or have procured new and excellent original drawings of them, with the exception of Heer’sVanessa attavina(Sphinx atavaCharp.), which I was unable to find, and two fragments of slight value, viz.: the hind wing referred by Heer to hisVanessa Pluto, and the portion of a hind wing, calledCyllonium Hewitsonianumby Westwood. In the hope of drawing attention to fossil butterflies, which have been hitherto so little studied, I have brought together in this connection all that has been published of this group of fossils, whether of text or illustration; presenting thus, within a small compass, a complete account of our knowledge of these insects, as a basis for future investigations.

1726.Hueber.Lithographiæ Wirceburgensis specimen primum. Fol. Wirceburg. This work contains the first reference to fossil Lepidoptera which I have found. In his Synopsis Tabellarum, he gives on page 94:“Tabulâ XV. Similium insectorum alatorum Papilionum videlicet diversas species;” but the plates are too rude to be of the slightest value or even to indicate the suborder to which the insects may belong.1729.Bromell.Lithographia Suecana. Acta Litteraria Sueciæ, II. In a sectionde lapidibus insectiferis Seanicis et Gothicis(p. 525) he says:“Praeter umbratiles etenim papilionum vel muscarum quasdam imagines, lapidi huic leviter sed distincte impressas, multa scarabæorum figuras, mole totaque facie imitantur;” these were found in “saxo fœtido” in “Westrogothia.”In his enumeration of fossils he specifies further:[528]. “9. Papilionum majorum ac minorum imagines et impressiones nitidæ, in lapide calcario communi inodoro, ubi etiam in alio fœtido conspicuæ, ex eisdem Westrogothiæ locis.”[529]. “10. Insectorum ovula, an nymphæ seu aureliæ lapideæ? saxo fœtido nigricanti immersæ. Ex eadem paræcia karabylonga.”[531]. “14. Papilionum minorum imagines et impressiones, in ejusdem generis saxo suillo fœtido. Ex eodem loco. Hæ itidem figura sua a papilionibus illis differre haud videntur, quarum superius Num. 9. meminimus.”I find no later reference to these supposed Lepidoptera.1742.Sendelius.Historia succinorum. Fol. Lipsiæ.Devotes a chapter (De Erucis, pp. 169-171) to supposed remains of caterpillars and chrysalides in amber. Several forms are figured (pl. 5, figs. 25-28; pl. 6, figs. 1-4), of which it is not impossible that pl. 6, fig. 1, may represent a Papilionid larva; and pl. 6, fig. 4, the chrysalis of a Nymphalid; but the illustrations are wholly insufficient to assert anything of them with confidence.1828.Marcel de Serres.Note sur les Arachnides et les Insectes fossiles et spécialement sur ceux des terrains d’eau douce. Ann. Sc. Nat., XV, 98-108.This is an extract only from the next citation.1829.Marcel de Serres.Géognosie des terrains tertiaires ou Tableau des principaux animaux invertébrês des terrains marins tertiaires du midi de la France. 16mo. Montpellier et Paris.Contains a “Tableau des Arachnides et des Insectes fossiles du bassin tertiaire d’Aix (Bouches-du-Rhône),” printed in the preceding citation, in which (p. 230; p. 107 of preceding) occurs the genus “Papilio,” with the remark: “Nous citons ici, sous la foi d’autrui, un Lépidoptère diurne de la division desSatyrus,” doubtless referring toNeorinopis sepulta.Speaking of the authors who have treated of the fossils of Œningen, he says: (p. 235) “Ces divers naturalistes y ont signalé des Scarabées, des Lucanus (p. 236) fort rapprochés du Lucanus cervus, des Papillons,” etc.In a “Tableau général des Arachnides et des Insectes fossiles” he gives on p. 257, the following:Genres qui se trouvent dans les terrains anormaux.Tertiaires.Secondaires.Noms des genres.postérieurs à la retraite des mers.antérieurs à la retraite des mers dans les couches desupérieurs jurassiques.inférieurs.Nombre d’espèces.marnes calcaires.lignite et succin.Papilio.***4In the “marnes calcaires” of Aix he has referred already, as we have seen, to one; he previously speaks ofPapillonsat Œningen (see above) and may therefore place two in the second column; he quotes Sendelius as probably figuring caterpillars in amber as follows (p. 242): “Des Lépidoptères (M. Brongniart). On a cru reconnaître des chenilles parmi les insectes du Succin figurés par Sendelius Tab. 3, fig. 28-82;”[A]and this accounts for one in his third column; and the following passage from the section on “Insectes fossiles des terrains secondaires inférieurs, ou de transitions” (p. 246) accounts for that in the fifth column: “Il se peut que ce soit également dans des formations de la même époque qu’existent les vestiges d’insectes, d’ailes de Papillons et de Scarabées signalés par Bromel.”1835.Gravenhorst.Bericht der entomologischen Section. Uebers. d. Arbeit u. Veränd. Schlesisch. Gesellsch. Vaterl. Caltur, 1854, 92-93.Gives a general enumeration of the collection of fossils from amber in the museum of the Königsberg Society, specifying a few Lepidoptera.1836.Hope.Observations on Succinic Insects. Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., I, iii, 133-147.In a list of insects observed in amber we find the following on p. 146:GENUS.AUTHOR.SUBSTANCE.COLLECTION.“Papilio.Hope and Berendt.Animé and amber.Mr. Strong.”1838.Bronn.Lethæa Geognostica, 2d ed., II. 8vo.In a tabular list of fossil insects, with localities, he gives (p. 814):Papilis [Papilio] (Bernstein), Satyrus (Gyps formation von Aix).1838.Duponchel.Ann. Soc. Ent. France, VII, Bull. 51-52.Re-announces the discovery ofNeorinopis sepulta, referring it to Nymphalis.1839.Boisduval.Ann. Soc. Ent. France, VIII, Bull. 11-12.Gives a verbal report on the characteristics ofNeorinopis sepulta, drawn from an inspection of a drawing sent by Fonscolombe to Audouin, refers the insect to the genus Cyllo and says that the species is allied to Europa and others.1840.Boisduval.Rapport sur une empreinte de Lépidoptère trouvée dans les marnes des environs d’Aix, en Provence, et communiquée par M. de Saporta. Ann. Soc. Ent. France, IX, 371-374. Accompanied by a plate (viii) which appeared in the second livrasion.DescribesNeorinopis sepultafrom the specimen, referring it to the genus Cyllo, and the neighborhood of the species Rohria, Caumas and Europa, and giving it the specific name sepulta.1843.Marcel de Serres.Notes géologiques sur la Provence. Actes Linn. Soc. Bord., XIII, 1-82; Note additionelle, 83-90; Deuxième note additionelle, 170-2. 2 planches.In a list of the plants and animals found at Aix, the author gives on p. 41: “Lépidoptères Diurnes. Papilio de la division des Satyrus. Cette espèce conserve encore en partie ses couleurs.” On p. 172 is aNote relative au Lépidoptère figuré(Cyllo sepulta), in which Boisduval’s opinion of its relationship is given.[B]The author’s review of the plants and animals leads him to the generalization that they are analogous to those which now live in dry and arid spots in the south of France.1843.Charpentier.Ueber einige fossile Insecten aus Radoboj in Croatien. Acta Acad. Leop. Carol., XX, 401-410.Describes (p. 408) and figures (Tab. xxii, fig. 4)Eugonia atavaunder the name ofSphinx atavus.1845.Coquand.Bull. Soc. Geol. France [2], II, 384-386.Refers to and quotes a portion of Boisduval’s description ofNeorinopis sepulta; nothing new is added.1845.Marcel de Serres.Sur les fossiles du bassin d’Aix (Bouches-du-Rhône). Ann. Sc. Nat. [3], IV, 249-256.Uses the discovery ofNeorinopis sepultaas an argument in support of his theory that there is an intimate relation between the tertiary fauna and flora of Aix and the animals and plants now existing in southern France; and that the climate of the two epochs was the same. Recalling the then recent discovery of many butterflies new to the fauna of Europe, he suggests thatN. sepultamay yet be found alive.1847.Hope.Observations on the fossil insects of Aix in Provence, with descriptions and figures of three species. Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., IV, 250-255.Gives a list of genera published by Bronn with some additions; on p. 252, under Lepidoptera, we have “85. Satyrus B[ronn].”1849.Heer.Die Insektenfauna der Tertiärgebilde von Œningen und von Radoboj in Croatien. 2er Theil. 4to. Leipzig. Extracted from the Neue Denkschr. allg. Schweiz. Gesellschaft für Naturw., XI (1850).Contains (pp. 177-183, Taf. xiv, figs. 3-6) descriptions and illustrations ofEugonia atava(Vanessa attavina),Mylothrites Pluto(Vanessa Pluto) andPontia Freyeri(Pierites Freyeri).1849.Heer.Zur Geschichte der Insekten. Verhandl. Schweiz. naturf. Gesellsch., XXXIV, 78-97.Refers to the late epoch at which Lepidoptera appeared, and adds, pp. 87-8: “Merkwürdig ist, dass von diesen Schmetterlingen 2 Arten grosse Aehnlichkeit [88] mit ostindischen Arten haben, während eine mit unserm Distelfalter, eine andere mit unserem Grassackträger zu vergleichen ist.”1850.Heer.Zur Geschichte der Insekten. Neues Jahrb. für Mineral., 17-33.On the History of Insects. Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. Lond., VI, ii, 68-76. Translated by T. R[ymer] J[ones].Essentially the same as the preceding. The quotation given above is found on p. 24 of the Jahrbuch, p. 72 of the Journal. “Schmetterlinge” is everywhere translated Butterflies instead of Lepidoptera. Aix in Provence is nearly always given as Aix-la-Chapelle.1851.Lefebvre.Observations relatives à l’empreinte d’un Lépidoptère fossile (Cyllo sepulta) du docteur Boisduval. Ann. Soc. Ent. France [2], IX, 71-88, pl. 3, No. II.Criticises at length the opinion of Dr. Boisduval on the systematic position and structure ofNeorinopis sepulta, maintaining that the fore and not the hind wing was furnished with a tail, and while confessing his inability to decide upon its relationship, inclines to the opinion that the insect was more nearly allied to Vanessa. His studies were wholly taken from the plate published by Boisduval.1851.Boisduval.Quelques mots de réponse à M. Alex. Lefebvre sur ses observations relatives à laCyllo sepulta. Ann. Soc. Ent. France [2], IX, Bull. 96-98.Defends his views against the criticisms of Lefebvre.1852.Giebel.Deutschland’s Petrefacten. p. 644. 8vo. Leipzig.Catalogues the three butterflies described by Heer from Radoboj.1854.Westwood.Contributions to Fossil Entomology. Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. Lond., X, 378-96, pl. 14-18.Represents on pl. 17, fig. 17, and pl. 18, fig. 27, two fragments of wings, which he considers as belonging to butterflies, and to which, on pp. 395-6, in the explanation of the plates, he gives the names ofCyllonium BoisduvalianumandC. Hewitsonianum.1854.Pictet.Traite de Palæontologie, II, pp. 392-393, pl. 40. 8vo. Paris.Gives a brief account of the fossil butterflies then known, and reproduces excellently the figures ofNeorinopis sepulta, andMylothrites Plutogiven by Boisduval and Heer.1856.Giebel.Fauna der Vorwelt, II. pp. 185-7. 8vo. Leipzig.Gives a similar but fuller account of the butterflies described by Heer and a brief notice of others.1856.Giebel.Geologische Uebersicht der vorweltlichen Insekten. Zeitschr. gesammt. Naturw., VIII, pp. 174-188.Gives lists of Lepidoptera summarized from his previous work.1856.Heer.Ueber die fossilen Insekten von Aix in der Provence. Vierteljahrsschr. naturf. Gesellsch. Zurich, I, 1-40.Simply mentions in his introductory remarks the occurrence ofNeorinopis sepultaat Aix, and says that most of the insects from this locality present a Mediterranean aspect.1858.Heer.Ueber die Insectfauna von Radoboj. Bericht 32e Versamml. Deutsch. Naturf., 118-121.A cursory review of Radoboj insects, mentioning the rarity of Lepidoptera, and specifyingEugonia atava(Vanessa attarina) andMylothrites Pluto(Vanessa Pluto). He remarks that the former resemblesV. carduiand probably fed on thistles, although these had not yet been found in a fossil condition in that locality; and that the latter was nearly allied toPapilio Hadena.1859.Heyden.Fossile Insecten aus der Rheinischen Braunkohle. Dunk. u. Mey. Palæontogr., VIII, 1-15, Taf. 1-2.Contains pp. 12-13, Taf. I, fig. 10, description and figure ofThanatites vetula(Vanessa vetula).1860.Heer.Untersuchungen über das Klima und die Vegetations Verhältnisse des Tertiärlandes. 4to. Winterthur.Refers to some of the fossil butterflies described from Radoboj and Aix.1861.Heer.Recherches sur le climat et la Végétation du pays tertiaires; traduction de Gaudin. 4to. Winterthur.The same as the previous; and also (on p. 205; not in the original edition) the following reference: “un cinquième (Thaites Ruminiana) est très voisin du genre Thais qui appartient à la faune méditerranéene.”1868.Butler.Catalogue of Diurnal Lepidoptera of the family Satyridæ in the collection of the British Museum. 8vo. London.Gives an appendix (pp. 189-190) on fossil species, in which he discusses the zoological position ofNeorinopis sepulta(Cyllo sepulta).1869.Butler.Catalogue of Diurnal Lepidoptera described by Fabricius in the collection of the British Museum. 8vo. London.Discusses briefly (p. 109) the relationship of “Vanessa Pluto” toArgynnis DianaandJunonia Hedonia.1872.Scudder.Description d’un nouveau papillon fossile (Satyrites Reynesii) trouvé à Aix en Provence. Rev. et Mag. de Zool., 62-71, pl. 7. Also separate, pp. 7.Description of a New Fossil Butterfly (Satyrites Reynesii) found at Aix in Provence. This is a translation of a portion of my paper. Geol. Mag., IX, 532-533, pl. 13, figs. 2-3. The same, separate, pp. 2.Describes and figuresLethites Reynesii.1872.Saporta.Études sur la végétation du Sud Est de la France à l’époque tertiaire. Suppl. I. Révision de la flore des gypses d’Aix. 1er fascicule, Généralités. Ann. Sc. Nat. [5], Bot. XV, 277-351.Discusses (p. 342) the probable food of the caterpillars ofNeorinopis sepultaandThaites Ruminiana.1873.Butler.On Fossil Butterflies. Lepidoptera Exotica, part xv, pp. 126-8, pl. 48.On a Fossil Butterfly belonging to the family Nymphalidæ from the Stonesfield slate near Oxford; with notices of two other foreign forms from France and Croatia. Geol. Mag., X, No. ciii, 2-4, pl. 1.Describes the genus Palæontina and species oolitica (a supposed fossil butterfly), refersCyllo sepultaBoisd. to a new genus, Neorinopis, andVanessa PlutoHeer, doubtfully, to Junonia, adding remarks upon the relationships of each.1873.Anon.The oldest Fossil Butterfly in the World. The [London] Graphic. Feb. 22.A popular account of the preceding paper, accompanied by a woodcut ofPalæontina oolitica.1873.Brodie.The Distribution and Correlation of Fossil Insects, etc. 8vo. pamph. Warwick.Gives a brief notice (pp. 8-9) of the various fossils referred to butterflies, especially ofPalæontina ooliticaandLethites Reynesii, and publishes an opinion expressed to him by me that the former was Homopterous.1874.Scudder.Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist., XVI, 112.Doubts the lepidopterous character of Butler’s Palæontina, and refers it, probably, to the Cicadinæ.1874.Butler.Notes on the impression ofPalæontina ooliticain the Jermyn Street Museum. Geol. Mag. [2], I, 446-449, pl. 19.Defends the lepidopterous character of Palæontina and gives new illustrations of the same.1874.Smith.Discovery of Remains of Plants and Insects. Nature, XI, 88.Enumerates fossils found at Gurnet Bay, and specifies among them “butterflies.”

“Tabulâ XV. Similium insectorum alatorum Papilionum videlicet diversas species;” but the plates are too rude to be of the slightest value or even to indicate the suborder to which the insects may belong.

1729.Bromell.Lithographia Suecana. Acta Litteraria Sueciæ, II. In a sectionde lapidibus insectiferis Seanicis et Gothicis(p. 525) he says:

“Praeter umbratiles etenim papilionum vel muscarum quasdam imagines, lapidi huic leviter sed distincte impressas, multa scarabæorum figuras, mole totaque facie imitantur;” these were found in “saxo fœtido” in “Westrogothia.”In his enumeration of fossils he specifies further:[528]. “9. Papilionum majorum ac minorum imagines et impressiones nitidæ, in lapide calcario communi inodoro, ubi etiam in alio fœtido conspicuæ, ex eisdem Westrogothiæ locis.”[529]. “10. Insectorum ovula, an nymphæ seu aureliæ lapideæ? saxo fœtido nigricanti immersæ. Ex eadem paræcia karabylonga.”[531]. “14. Papilionum minorum imagines et impressiones, in ejusdem generis saxo suillo fœtido. Ex eodem loco. Hæ itidem figura sua a papilionibus illis differre haud videntur, quarum superius Num. 9. meminimus.”I find no later reference to these supposed Lepidoptera.

In his enumeration of fossils he specifies further:

[528]. “9. Papilionum majorum ac minorum imagines et impressiones nitidæ, in lapide calcario communi inodoro, ubi etiam in alio fœtido conspicuæ, ex eisdem Westrogothiæ locis.”

[529]. “10. Insectorum ovula, an nymphæ seu aureliæ lapideæ? saxo fœtido nigricanti immersæ. Ex eadem paræcia karabylonga.”

[531]. “14. Papilionum minorum imagines et impressiones, in ejusdem generis saxo suillo fœtido. Ex eodem loco. Hæ itidem figura sua a papilionibus illis differre haud videntur, quarum superius Num. 9. meminimus.”

I find no later reference to these supposed Lepidoptera.

1742.Sendelius.Historia succinorum. Fol. Lipsiæ.

Devotes a chapter (De Erucis, pp. 169-171) to supposed remains of caterpillars and chrysalides in amber. Several forms are figured (pl. 5, figs. 25-28; pl. 6, figs. 1-4), of which it is not impossible that pl. 6, fig. 1, may represent a Papilionid larva; and pl. 6, fig. 4, the chrysalis of a Nymphalid; but the illustrations are wholly insufficient to assert anything of them with confidence.

1828.Marcel de Serres.Note sur les Arachnides et les Insectes fossiles et spécialement sur ceux des terrains d’eau douce. Ann. Sc. Nat., XV, 98-108.

This is an extract only from the next citation.

1829.Marcel de Serres.Géognosie des terrains tertiaires ou Tableau des principaux animaux invertébrês des terrains marins tertiaires du midi de la France. 16mo. Montpellier et Paris.

Contains a “Tableau des Arachnides et des Insectes fossiles du bassin tertiaire d’Aix (Bouches-du-Rhône),” printed in the preceding citation, in which (p. 230; p. 107 of preceding) occurs the genus “Papilio,” with the remark: “Nous citons ici, sous la foi d’autrui, un Lépidoptère diurne de la division desSatyrus,” doubtless referring toNeorinopis sepulta.Speaking of the authors who have treated of the fossils of Œningen, he says: (p. 235) “Ces divers naturalistes y ont signalé des Scarabées, des Lucanus (p. 236) fort rapprochés du Lucanus cervus, des Papillons,” etc.In a “Tableau général des Arachnides et des Insectes fossiles” he gives on p. 257, the following:Genres qui se trouvent dans les terrains anormaux.Tertiaires.Secondaires.Noms des genres.postérieurs à la retraite des mers.antérieurs à la retraite des mers dans les couches desupérieurs jurassiques.inférieurs.Nombre d’espèces.marnes calcaires.lignite et succin.Papilio.***4In the “marnes calcaires” of Aix he has referred already, as we have seen, to one; he previously speaks ofPapillonsat Œningen (see above) and may therefore place two in the second column; he quotes Sendelius as probably figuring caterpillars in amber as follows (p. 242): “Des Lépidoptères (M. Brongniart). On a cru reconnaître des chenilles parmi les insectes du Succin figurés par Sendelius Tab. 3, fig. 28-82;”[A]and this accounts for one in his third column; and the following passage from the section on “Insectes fossiles des terrains secondaires inférieurs, ou de transitions” (p. 246) accounts for that in the fifth column: “Il se peut que ce soit également dans des formations de la même époque qu’existent les vestiges d’insectes, d’ailes de Papillons et de Scarabées signalés par Bromel.”

Speaking of the authors who have treated of the fossils of Œningen, he says: (p. 235) “Ces divers naturalistes y ont signalé des Scarabées, des Lucanus (p. 236) fort rapprochés du Lucanus cervus, des Papillons,” etc.

In a “Tableau général des Arachnides et des Insectes fossiles” he gives on p. 257, the following:

In the “marnes calcaires” of Aix he has referred already, as we have seen, to one; he previously speaks ofPapillonsat Œningen (see above) and may therefore place two in the second column; he quotes Sendelius as probably figuring caterpillars in amber as follows (p. 242): “Des Lépidoptères (M. Brongniart). On a cru reconnaître des chenilles parmi les insectes du Succin figurés par Sendelius Tab. 3, fig. 28-82;”[A]and this accounts for one in his third column; and the following passage from the section on “Insectes fossiles des terrains secondaires inférieurs, ou de transitions” (p. 246) accounts for that in the fifth column: “Il se peut que ce soit également dans des formations de la même époque qu’existent les vestiges d’insectes, d’ailes de Papillons et de Scarabées signalés par Bromel.”

1835.Gravenhorst.Bericht der entomologischen Section. Uebers. d. Arbeit u. Veränd. Schlesisch. Gesellsch. Vaterl. Caltur, 1854, 92-93.

Gives a general enumeration of the collection of fossils from amber in the museum of the Königsberg Society, specifying a few Lepidoptera.

1836.Hope.Observations on Succinic Insects. Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., I, iii, 133-147.

In a list of insects observed in amber we find the following on p. 146:GENUS.AUTHOR.SUBSTANCE.COLLECTION.“Papilio.Hope and Berendt.Animé and amber.Mr. Strong.”

In a list of insects observed in amber we find the following on p. 146:

1838.Bronn.Lethæa Geognostica, 2d ed., II. 8vo.

In a tabular list of fossil insects, with localities, he gives (p. 814):Papilis [Papilio] (Bernstein), Satyrus (Gyps formation von Aix).

In a tabular list of fossil insects, with localities, he gives (p. 814):

Papilis [Papilio] (Bernstein), Satyrus (Gyps formation von Aix).

1838.Duponchel.Ann. Soc. Ent. France, VII, Bull. 51-52.

Re-announces the discovery ofNeorinopis sepulta, referring it to Nymphalis.

1839.Boisduval.Ann. Soc. Ent. France, VIII, Bull. 11-12.

Gives a verbal report on the characteristics ofNeorinopis sepulta, drawn from an inspection of a drawing sent by Fonscolombe to Audouin, refers the insect to the genus Cyllo and says that the species is allied to Europa and others.

1840.Boisduval.Rapport sur une empreinte de Lépidoptère trouvée dans les marnes des environs d’Aix, en Provence, et communiquée par M. de Saporta. Ann. Soc. Ent. France, IX, 371-374. Accompanied by a plate (viii) which appeared in the second livrasion.

DescribesNeorinopis sepultafrom the specimen, referring it to the genus Cyllo, and the neighborhood of the species Rohria, Caumas and Europa, and giving it the specific name sepulta.

1843.Marcel de Serres.Notes géologiques sur la Provence. Actes Linn. Soc. Bord., XIII, 1-82; Note additionelle, 83-90; Deuxième note additionelle, 170-2. 2 planches.

In a list of the plants and animals found at Aix, the author gives on p. 41: “Lépidoptères Diurnes. Papilio de la division des Satyrus. Cette espèce conserve encore en partie ses couleurs.” On p. 172 is aNote relative au Lépidoptère figuré(Cyllo sepulta), in which Boisduval’s opinion of its relationship is given.[B]The author’s review of the plants and animals leads him to the generalization that they are analogous to those which now live in dry and arid spots in the south of France.

1843.Charpentier.Ueber einige fossile Insecten aus Radoboj in Croatien. Acta Acad. Leop. Carol., XX, 401-410.

Describes (p. 408) and figures (Tab. xxii, fig. 4)Eugonia atavaunder the name ofSphinx atavus.

1845.Coquand.Bull. Soc. Geol. France [2], II, 384-386.

Refers to and quotes a portion of Boisduval’s description ofNeorinopis sepulta; nothing new is added.

1845.Marcel de Serres.Sur les fossiles du bassin d’Aix (Bouches-du-Rhône). Ann. Sc. Nat. [3], IV, 249-256.

Uses the discovery ofNeorinopis sepultaas an argument in support of his theory that there is an intimate relation between the tertiary fauna and flora of Aix and the animals and plants now existing in southern France; and that the climate of the two epochs was the same. Recalling the then recent discovery of many butterflies new to the fauna of Europe, he suggests thatN. sepultamay yet be found alive.

1847.Hope.Observations on the fossil insects of Aix in Provence, with descriptions and figures of three species. Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., IV, 250-255.

Gives a list of genera published by Bronn with some additions; on p. 252, under Lepidoptera, we have “85. Satyrus B[ronn].”

1849.Heer.Die Insektenfauna der Tertiärgebilde von Œningen und von Radoboj in Croatien. 2er Theil. 4to. Leipzig. Extracted from the Neue Denkschr. allg. Schweiz. Gesellschaft für Naturw., XI (1850).

Contains (pp. 177-183, Taf. xiv, figs. 3-6) descriptions and illustrations ofEugonia atava(Vanessa attavina),Mylothrites Pluto(Vanessa Pluto) andPontia Freyeri(Pierites Freyeri).

1849.Heer.Zur Geschichte der Insekten. Verhandl. Schweiz. naturf. Gesellsch., XXXIV, 78-97.

Refers to the late epoch at which Lepidoptera appeared, and adds, pp. 87-8: “Merkwürdig ist, dass von diesen Schmetterlingen 2 Arten grosse Aehnlichkeit [88] mit ostindischen Arten haben, während eine mit unserm Distelfalter, eine andere mit unserem Grassackträger zu vergleichen ist.”

1850.Heer.Zur Geschichte der Insekten. Neues Jahrb. für Mineral., 17-33.

On the History of Insects. Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. Lond., VI, ii, 68-76. Translated by T. R[ymer] J[ones].

Essentially the same as the preceding. The quotation given above is found on p. 24 of the Jahrbuch, p. 72 of the Journal. “Schmetterlinge” is everywhere translated Butterflies instead of Lepidoptera. Aix in Provence is nearly always given as Aix-la-Chapelle.

1851.Lefebvre.Observations relatives à l’empreinte d’un Lépidoptère fossile (Cyllo sepulta) du docteur Boisduval. Ann. Soc. Ent. France [2], IX, 71-88, pl. 3, No. II.

Criticises at length the opinion of Dr. Boisduval on the systematic position and structure ofNeorinopis sepulta, maintaining that the fore and not the hind wing was furnished with a tail, and while confessing his inability to decide upon its relationship, inclines to the opinion that the insect was more nearly allied to Vanessa. His studies were wholly taken from the plate published by Boisduval.

1851.Boisduval.Quelques mots de réponse à M. Alex. Lefebvre sur ses observations relatives à laCyllo sepulta. Ann. Soc. Ent. France [2], IX, Bull. 96-98.

Defends his views against the criticisms of Lefebvre.

1852.Giebel.Deutschland’s Petrefacten. p. 644. 8vo. Leipzig.

Catalogues the three butterflies described by Heer from Radoboj.

1854.Westwood.Contributions to Fossil Entomology. Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. Lond., X, 378-96, pl. 14-18.

Represents on pl. 17, fig. 17, and pl. 18, fig. 27, two fragments of wings, which he considers as belonging to butterflies, and to which, on pp. 395-6, in the explanation of the plates, he gives the names ofCyllonium BoisduvalianumandC. Hewitsonianum.

1854.Pictet.Traite de Palæontologie, II, pp. 392-393, pl. 40. 8vo. Paris.

Gives a brief account of the fossil butterflies then known, and reproduces excellently the figures ofNeorinopis sepulta, andMylothrites Plutogiven by Boisduval and Heer.

1856.Giebel.Fauna der Vorwelt, II. pp. 185-7. 8vo. Leipzig.

Gives a similar but fuller account of the butterflies described by Heer and a brief notice of others.

1856.Giebel.Geologische Uebersicht der vorweltlichen Insekten. Zeitschr. gesammt. Naturw., VIII, pp. 174-188.

Gives lists of Lepidoptera summarized from his previous work.

1856.Heer.Ueber die fossilen Insekten von Aix in der Provence. Vierteljahrsschr. naturf. Gesellsch. Zurich, I, 1-40.

Simply mentions in his introductory remarks the occurrence ofNeorinopis sepultaat Aix, and says that most of the insects from this locality present a Mediterranean aspect.

1858.Heer.Ueber die Insectfauna von Radoboj. Bericht 32e Versamml. Deutsch. Naturf., 118-121.

A cursory review of Radoboj insects, mentioning the rarity of Lepidoptera, and specifyingEugonia atava(Vanessa attarina) andMylothrites Pluto(Vanessa Pluto). He remarks that the former resemblesV. carduiand probably fed on thistles, although these had not yet been found in a fossil condition in that locality; and that the latter was nearly allied toPapilio Hadena.

1859.Heyden.Fossile Insecten aus der Rheinischen Braunkohle. Dunk. u. Mey. Palæontogr., VIII, 1-15, Taf. 1-2.

Contains pp. 12-13, Taf. I, fig. 10, description and figure ofThanatites vetula(Vanessa vetula).

1860.Heer.Untersuchungen über das Klima und die Vegetations Verhältnisse des Tertiärlandes. 4to. Winterthur.

Refers to some of the fossil butterflies described from Radoboj and Aix.

1861.Heer.Recherches sur le climat et la Végétation du pays tertiaires; traduction de Gaudin. 4to. Winterthur.

The same as the previous; and also (on p. 205; not in the original edition) the following reference: “un cinquième (Thaites Ruminiana) est très voisin du genre Thais qui appartient à la faune méditerranéene.”

1868.Butler.Catalogue of Diurnal Lepidoptera of the family Satyridæ in the collection of the British Museum. 8vo. London.

Gives an appendix (pp. 189-190) on fossil species, in which he discusses the zoological position ofNeorinopis sepulta(Cyllo sepulta).

1869.Butler.Catalogue of Diurnal Lepidoptera described by Fabricius in the collection of the British Museum. 8vo. London.

Discusses briefly (p. 109) the relationship of “Vanessa Pluto” toArgynnis DianaandJunonia Hedonia.

1872.Scudder.Description d’un nouveau papillon fossile (Satyrites Reynesii) trouvé à Aix en Provence. Rev. et Mag. de Zool., 62-71, pl. 7. Also separate, pp. 7.

Description of a New Fossil Butterfly (Satyrites Reynesii) found at Aix in Provence. This is a translation of a portion of my paper. Geol. Mag., IX, 532-533, pl. 13, figs. 2-3. The same, separate, pp. 2.Describes and figuresLethites Reynesii.

Describes and figuresLethites Reynesii.

1872.Saporta.Études sur la végétation du Sud Est de la France à l’époque tertiaire. Suppl. I. Révision de la flore des gypses d’Aix. 1er fascicule, Généralités. Ann. Sc. Nat. [5], Bot. XV, 277-351.

Discusses (p. 342) the probable food of the caterpillars ofNeorinopis sepultaandThaites Ruminiana.

1873.Butler.On Fossil Butterflies. Lepidoptera Exotica, part xv, pp. 126-8, pl. 48.

On a Fossil Butterfly belonging to the family Nymphalidæ from the Stonesfield slate near Oxford; with notices of two other foreign forms from France and Croatia. Geol. Mag., X, No. ciii, 2-4, pl. 1.Describes the genus Palæontina and species oolitica (a supposed fossil butterfly), refersCyllo sepultaBoisd. to a new genus, Neorinopis, andVanessa PlutoHeer, doubtfully, to Junonia, adding remarks upon the relationships of each.

On a Fossil Butterfly belonging to the family Nymphalidæ from the Stonesfield slate near Oxford; with notices of two other foreign forms from France and Croatia. Geol. Mag., X, No. ciii, 2-4, pl. 1.

Describes the genus Palæontina and species oolitica (a supposed fossil butterfly), refersCyllo sepultaBoisd. to a new genus, Neorinopis, andVanessa PlutoHeer, doubtfully, to Junonia, adding remarks upon the relationships of each.

1873.Anon.The oldest Fossil Butterfly in the World. The [London] Graphic. Feb. 22.

A popular account of the preceding paper, accompanied by a woodcut ofPalæontina oolitica.

1873.Brodie.The Distribution and Correlation of Fossil Insects, etc. 8vo. pamph. Warwick.

Gives a brief notice (pp. 8-9) of the various fossils referred to butterflies, especially ofPalæontina ooliticaandLethites Reynesii, and publishes an opinion expressed to him by me that the former was Homopterous.

1874.Scudder.Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist., XVI, 112.

Doubts the lepidopterous character of Butler’s Palæontina, and refers it, probably, to the Cicadinæ.

1874.Butler.Notes on the impression ofPalæontina ooliticain the Jermyn Street Museum. Geol. Mag. [2], I, 446-449, pl. 19.

Defends the lepidopterous character of Palæontina and gives new illustrations of the same.

1874.Smith.Discovery of Remains of Plants and Insects. Nature, XI, 88.

Enumerates fossils found at Gurnet Bay, and specifies among them “butterflies.”

Sehn wir daher durch das Fenster,In das alte Schattenreich,Sehen wir da statt Gespenster,Wesen, die den jetz’gen gleich;Sehen nicht des Pluto Schrecken,Sphinxe und Harpyen Brut,Nicht Chimären Flammen lecken,In der Hölle Feuer Glut,Nein! in diesen stillen RäumenWo man sich den Orcus denkt,Sehn wir tausend Wesen träumen,Tief in ew’gen Schlaf versenkt.Haben einst die Welt genossen,Unterm blauen Himmelszelt,Jetzt sind sie in Fels verschlossen,In der schwarzen Unterwelt.Oswald Heer.

Sehn wir daher durch das Fenster,

In das alte Schattenreich,

Sehen wir da statt Gespenster,

Wesen, die den jetz’gen gleich;

Sehen nicht des Pluto Schrecken,

Sphinxe und Harpyen Brut,

Nicht Chimären Flammen lecken,

In der Hölle Feuer Glut,

Nein! in diesen stillen RäumenWo man sich den Orcus denkt,Sehn wir tausend Wesen träumen,Tief in ew’gen Schlaf versenkt.Haben einst die Welt genossen,Unterm blauen Himmelszelt,Jetzt sind sie in Fels verschlossen,In der schwarzen Unterwelt.

Nein! in diesen stillen Räumen

Wo man sich den Orcus denkt,

Sehn wir tausend Wesen träumen,

Tief in ew’gen Schlaf versenkt.

Haben einst die Welt genossen,

Unterm blauen Himmelszelt,

Jetzt sind sie in Fels verschlossen,

In der schwarzen Unterwelt.

Oswald Heer.

NeorinopisButler, Lepid. Exot., i, 127 (1873);—Ib., Geol. Mag. x, 3.

In the shape of the wings (Pl. I, fig. 8) this genus closely resembles Neorina (Pl. II, fig. 13). The fore wings are arched and roundly produced at the apex, though not so strongly as in Neorina, rather as in Antirrhæa or Cœlites, the costal margin is regularly, but not, as in Neorina, very strongly arched, and the apex is well rounded; the outer border is sinuous and scarcely crenulate, the upper portion, above the middle of the subcosto-median interspace, very strongly convex and particularly prominent at the tip of the second inferior subcostal nervule; below, the margin is again convex, starting from the middle of the upper median interspace; at first (over one interspace) gently, afterward more fully, but still rather broadly, to the well rounded lower angle; the inner margin is slightly concave. The hind wings resemble those of Neorina far more than those of any other genus, but are long and proportionally rather more produced than in Neorina, with less crenation of the outer border, and a shorter and slenderer tail; the costal margin is strongly and abruptly convex next the base, but beyond this passes with a regular and gentle convexity to the outer angle, which is larger than a right angle and somewhat rounded off; above the tail the general trend of the outer border forms scarcely more than a right angle with the general course of the costal margin and is gently crenate; the tail, which lengthens the upper median nervule by about one-fourth, is about the width of an interspace at the base and tapers to a rounded point, at first rapidly, afterward slightly; theborder is slightly angulated at the tip of the middle median nervule, and still more strongly at the tip of the lowest median nervule, causing in the latter a very broad angular projection, beyond which the margin slopes off and is rounded at the angle. The inner margin has a very broad and extensive basal projection, and the course of the internal nervure renders it probable that it was even more extensive than represented in the plate; it reaches more than half-way along the inner border, and at the broadest exceeds the cell in width; beyond it the inner margin has a nearly straight course, parallel and adjacent to the submedian nervure.

As to the neuration (Pl. I, fig. 9) this genus approaches more closely the genera Zophoessa (Pl. II, fig. 1), Neorina (Pl. II, fig. 8), Debis (Pl. II, fig. 10), and Lethe (Pl. II, fig. 6), than any others, although it differs from any of them more than they do among themselves. The most noticeable marks of distinction are these: in the fossil genus the first superior subcostal nervule of the fore wing is thrown off just at the extremity of the cell while the second and third are far beyond it; in the recent genera the first nervule is always emitted some distance before the tip of the cell and the second either at or before the extremity; in agreement with this, the cell is much shorter in Neorinopis than in the others, being but two-fifths the length of the wing, while in the others it is about one-half its length; in Neorinopis the nervule closing the cell of the fore wing unites with the median nervure at its last divarication, while in the others it strikes it a long distance beyond. In the hind wing the vein closing the cell strikes the median at its last divarication, as in Zophoessa, while in the others it meets the last branch of that vein at a slight distance from its origin.

In the fore wings the costal nervure terminates at a little distance beyond the middle of the costal border. The subcostal terminates, as in the recent genera mentioned, near the tip of the wing, and has four superior and two inferior branches; the four superior nervules and the costal nervure terminate at nearly equal distances apart on the costal border; the first superior nervule is emitted from the very tip of the upper border of the cell, at two-fifths the distancefrom the base to the apex of the wing, the second beyond the cell, but scarcely beyond the middle of the wing; the third at a less distance from the base of the second than that is from the first, and directly below a point midway between the tip of the costal nervure and that of the first superior subcostal nervule; the fourth near the extremity of the wing and but little before the tip of the third superior nervule, or at about two-thirds the distance from the base of the third superior subcostal nervule to the tip of the subcostal nervure; the first inferior subcostal nervule originates of course at the tip of the cell, and separates but narrowly from the main stem, from which it diverges very gradually as far as the base of the outer superior nervule, where the main stem approaches it again; the lowermost inferior subcostal nervule arises from the first inferior scarcely beyond its base, curves inward, downward and then outward before taking a course parallel to the nervule above, from which it is separated at its base by twice the distance that the former is there distant from the subcostal nervure; the vein closing the cell can scarcely be called a vein, but rather a break in the membrane such as is often seen in recent butterflies, and is indicated in the fossil by a curving granulated streak; it arises from the final curve of the lowermost inferior subcostal nervule opposite and directly below its origin; it passes thence in a slightly curved line, opening outward, to the very base of the upper branch of the median nervure. The median nervure runs in a straight line as far as its first divarication, which is a little beyond the middle of the cell; thence it is bent parallel to the subcostal nervure and exactly at the lower tip of the cell forks, the branches parting but gradually from each other, the upper gently curved, the lower nearly straight. The submedian nervure is parallel to the lowest median nervule, as in Neorina, etc. None of the veins are swollen at the base. The cell is three and a half times longer than broad.

In the hind wing the neuration is almost precisely that ofNeorina Lowii(Pl. II, fig. 8). The costal and subcostal veins are confluent for a short distance, when the costal parts from its neighbor at nearly right angles and immediately thereafter sends up the basal shoot, which, after passing in a straight line halfway toward the basal angle of the costal margin, curves slightly outward and fades away; the costal nervure, on approaching the border, curves outward and meets the border near the middle of its outer two-thirds; the subcostal breaks into three branches, exactly as in Zophoessa. The median nervure and its middle branch form a continuous, almost exactly straight line, from which the lowermost branch parts opposite the union of the vein closing the cell with the lowest subcostal nervule; and the uppermost at exactly the tip of the cell, or as far beyond the origin of the lowest nervule as the upper limit of the vein closing the cell is from the base of the upper subcostal nervule; the vein closing the cell is a very weak one and originates on the lowest subcostal nervule, as far from the second divarication of the subcostal nervure as that is from the first, and passes in a gentle curve, opening outward, to the second divarication of the median nervure. The submedian and internal nervures are united for a short distance beyond the base of the cell; the submedian passes with a gentle regular curve to the outer border, at the lower outer angle; the internal parts from this with an opposing curve and terminates somewhere below the middle of the inner flap of the wing, probably approaching again the submedian nervure near its extremity. None of the veins are swollen at the base. The cell is two and three-quarters times longer than broad.

In the disposition of its markings (Pl. I, fig. 8) this genus does not seem to show any strong affinity with any living butterflies, although it has some features in common with the genera already referred to (Pl. II, figs. 3, 9, 11, 13, 14). The base of the wing is dark, followed by paler spots and bands, differing greatly in the front and hind wings, followed again by a belt of dusky scales, which separates from the rest of the wing a paler submarginal band, enclosing roundish, interspaceal, often pupillated spots of varying size, and whose outer limits are at least an interspace’s distance from the outer border; the latter is margined, on the hind wings, with alternating darker and lighter lines. The middle portions of the two wings differ; the hind wings have simply a broad pale field, gradually merging on either side into the darker parts and varied by a cloudy, wavy, narrow, transverse belt near the middle; the fore wing, on the other hand, ismarked by two large diagonal light patches, whose interior edges are well defined, but whose exterior are powdered at their confluence with the darker parts; one of these patches crosses the subcostal interspaces at a little distance beyond the cell, and reaches from the subcostal to the median nervure; the other crosses the middle of the outer half of the cell and covers a great part of the basal half of the lower median interspace; while a third roundish patch, united with it, occurs near the middle of the medio-submedian interspace. The two diagonal patches have their inner distinct edges nearly parallel and straight, following lines which run at nearly right angles to the costal margin; in this respect they agree with the diagonal disposition of markings upon the upper and under surface of some species of Zophoessa (Pl. II, figs. 3, 11) and Lethe (Pl. II, fig. 9), while the nature of the broad patches themselves may best be compared to such masses of color as we see inNeorina Lowii(Pl. II, fig. 13) and some other species; the marginal markings of the hind wings and the submarginal spots are common to very many Oreades, but the nature and disposition of those of Neorinopis and the disparity of their character on the two wings are best seen on a comparison with the types we have already alluded to, and which are represented on the plates. The small round pale spots accompanying larger dark ones on the fore wing may be seen inNeorina Lowii, though the relation of the two is different from what we see in Neorinopis, while the greater importance of the ocellus in the lower median interspace of the hind wings finds an exaggerated counterpart inNeorina Lowii. In general, the design of the fore wings approaches that ofNeorina Lowiimore nearly than that of the upper surface of any other butterfly I have seen, although there is a distant resemblance to the markings of Antirrhæa and Anchiphlebia, as Butler has remarked, as well as toward certain species of Zophoessa. The markings of the upper and under surface of butterflies have nearly always some and often a close relation to each other, and therefore we may reasonably look at the under surface of living insects to find the nearest counterpart to our fossil; in this respect the under surface ofLethe Dyrta(Pl. II, fig. 9) may well be studied, where in a lighter submarginal band we find a series of spots, in the principal interspaces, far from the border; these are ocellated instead of double as in Neorinopis; thereare two large patches of pale color in the upper half of the wing as in Neorinopis, but the inner is much obscured by a dark bar crossing the middle; and the outer instead of the inner patch is connected with the lighter parts of the lower half of the wing, and is separated from the parts within by a long line whose general course is at right angles to the costal border; in the markings of the hind wings it is by no means unlikeZophoessa Sura(Pl. II, fig. 3), and resembles less conspicuouslyDebis Sinorix(Pl. II, fig. 14), with which also it agrees admirably in the form and neuration of the wing; in the shape of the tail particularly, and in the size of the insect also, Neorinopis agrees better withDebis Sinorixthan with any butterfly I have been able to examine. In neuration and in markings, although not at all in the form of the wings, this fossil shows no distant alliance to our ownEnodia Portlandia.

The other parts of the body are not sufficiently preserved to admit of their use in generic description, if we except the hind legs; these are slender, the tarsi (which are barely shorter than the thorax) being of the same length as the tibiæ and a very little longer than the femora.

Plate I, figs. 8-17.

Back to Index Next