“Tabul 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.

“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 foetido” 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 foetido conspicuÆ, ex eisdem WestrogothiÆ locis.”

[529]. “10. Insectorum ovula, an nymphÆ seu aureliÆ lapideÆ? saxo foetido nigricanti immersÆ. Ex eadem parÆcia karabylonga.”

[531]. “14. Papilionum minorum imagines et impressiones, in ejusdem generis saxo suillo foetido. 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.

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.

This is an extract only from the next citation.

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 des Satyrus,” doubtless referring to Neorinopis 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:

In the “marnes calcaires” of Aix he has referred already, as we have seen, to one; he previously speaks of Papillons at 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.”

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

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

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

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

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

Gives a verbal report on the characteristics of Neorinopis 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.

Describes Neorinopis sepulta from 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.

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 a Note 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.

Describes (p. 408) and figures (Tab. xxii, fig. 4) Eugonia atava under the name of Sphinx atavus.

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

Uses the discovery of Neorinopis sepulta as 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 that N. sepulta may yet be found alive.

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

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

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.”

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.

Criticises at length the opinion of Dr. Boisduval on the systematic position and structure of Neorinopis 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.

Defends his views against the criticisms of Lefebvre.

Catalogues the three butterflies described by Heer from Radoboj.

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 of Cyllonium Boisduvalianum and C. Hewitsonianum.

Gives a brief account of the fossil butterflies then known, and reproduces excellently the figures of Neorinopis sepulta, and Mylothrites Pluto given by Boisduval and Heer.

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

Gives lists of Lepidoptera summarized from his previous work.

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

A cursory review of Radoboj insects, mentioning the rarity of Lepidoptera, and specifying Eugonia atava (Vanessa attarina) and Mylothrites Pluto (Vanessa Pluto). He remarks that the former resembles V. cardui and 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 to Papilio Hadena.

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

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

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.”

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

Discusses briefly (p. 109) the relationship of “Vanessa Pluto” to Argynnis Diana and Junonia Hedonia.

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 figures Lethites Reynesii.

Discusses (p. 342) the probable food of the caterpillars of Neorinopis sepulta and Thaites Ruminiana.

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), refers Cyllo sepulta Boisd. to a new genus, Neorinopis, and Vanessa Pluto Heer, doubtfully, to Junonia, adding remarks upon the relationships of each.

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

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

Doubts the lepidopterous character of Butler’s PalÆontina, and refers it, probably, to the CicadinÆ.

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

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