TABULAR VIEW OF FOSSIL BUTTERFLIES.

Names of Species (and families).	First referred to genus.	First described by	When described.	Found in	Geological Horizon.	Preserved in Museum of	Nearest living allies found in	Probable food of caterpillars.	Parts of wings preserved.
(Nymphales). Neorinopis sepulta Butl.	Cyllo.	Boisduval.	1840	Aix.	Ligurian, (upp. Eocene).	Count Saporta, Aix.	E. Indies.	Gramineæ.	Perfect wings of one side.
Lethites Reynesii Scudd.	Satyrites.	Scudder.	1872	Aix.	Ligurian,(upp. Eocene).	Marseilles.	E. Indies.	Gramineæ.	Both fore-wings nearly perfect, superimposed.
Eugonia atava Scudd.	Sphinx.	Charpentier.	1843	Radoboj.	Mayencian, (mid. Miocene).	?	North temperate Zone.	Salix, Populus or Betula.	Upper half of one fore-wing.
(Papilionidæ). Mylothrites Pluto Scudd.	Vanessa.	Heer.	1849	Radoboj.	Mayencian, (mid. Miocene).	Hof mineralien-Kabinet, Vienna.	E. Indies.	Leguminosæ (Capparis?).	Both fore wings nearly perfect.
Coliates Proserpina Scudd.	——	Scudder.	1875	Aix.	Ligurian, (upp. Eocene).	Count Saporta, Aix.	E. Indies.	Smilax.	Two fore-wings superimposed.
Pontia Freyeri Scudd.	Pierites.	Heer.	1849	Radoboj.	Mayencian, (mid. Miocene).	Hof mineralien-Kabinet, Vienna.	Temperate America.	Cruciferæ? Terminalia??	One fore-wing nearly perfect, but neuration obscure.
Thaites Ruminiana Heer.	Thaites.	Scudder.	1875	Aix.	Ligurian, (upp. Eocene).	Professor Heer, Zurich.	Mediterranean district.	Aristolochia.	All the wings; those of one side nearly perfect.
(Urbicolæ). Thanatites vetula Scudd.	Vanessa.	Heyden.	1859	Rott.	Aquitanian, (low. Miocene).	British Museum.	Subtropical N. America.	Leguminosæ (Hæmatoxylon Gleditschia).	All the wings, but superimposed and very obscure.
Pamphilites abdita Scudd.	——	Scudder.	1875	Aix.	Ligurian, (upp. Eocene).	Marseilles.	Tropical America.	Gramineæ.	One fore-wing perfect.

In the earliest accounts that we have found, including all those in the last century, the generic term Papilio was used for all Lepidoptera, and therefore we cannot be certain whether butterflies or moths are meant. Hueber’s plates, even, are so inferior that they afford no additional aid; but those of Sendel possibly represent, as we have noticed in the Bibliography at the commencement of this memoir, the early stages of butterflies preserved in amber. The only other direct references to butterflies preserved in amber are the following: Gravenhorst,[AV] in his enumeration of amber insects, gives under the Lepidoptera forty specimens referable to Tineæ and Tortrices, and besides these “mehre Raupen, sämmtlich, wie es scheint, Schildraupen, denen des Papilio W. album ähnlich.” The probable nature of the ancient forest yielding amber renders it unlikely that any butterflies in their perfect state would be found in it. As a rule, butterflies are eminently fond of the light. This has already been remarked by Menge:[AW]—“Das fehlen gröszerer Schmetterlinge im bernstein deutet auf einen finstern undurchdringlichen urwald, den die kinder des lichts gemieden haben.” Yet as some Theclas do feed upon coniferous trees, it is not impossible that the onisciform larvæ, referred to by Gravenhorst, may belong to this group. As far as we can discover, no further reference is made to them, excepting by Giebel and Bronn in some of their lists and enumerations of fossil insects. The writings of Berendt, Menge and others, all bear testimony to the great rarity of Lepidoptera in amber, and most of those which have been discovered belong to the lowest two families, above referred to.

Dr. Hagen informs me that he has himself seen specimens of large butterflies in amber, but that these proved to be falsifications, recent European insects like Pieris rapæ, etc., having been enclosed between slabs of amber, which were then fastened together and the edges roughened, all in so clever a manner that one would not suspect them to be spurious. These specimens were manufactured many years ago, and it is not impossible that it is to one of them that Hope refers in 1836, as found in the collection of Mr. Strong, though why he should quote Berendt as authority I cannot discover.

Heer, in the introduction to the lepidopterous portion of his “Insektenfauna der Tertiärgebilde von Œningen,” says (p. 175): “Karg erwähnt zwar eines sehr schönen Œninger-Schmetterlings, der nach Zürich gekommen sein soll. Allein hier findet sich dieser nicht und die Angabe verliert noch mehr an Werth, wenn wir berücksichtigen, dass Karg das Thier nicht selbst gesehen hat.” Karg’s memoir in the “Denkschriften der Schwäbischen Gesellschaft der Aerzte und Naturforscher,” T. I., I have been unable to examine.

Boisduval, in his final report upon Neorinopis sepulta, remarks that Count Saporta had written him that many years previously he had sent to the Paris Museum a “Polyommate fossile” from Aix. Count G. de Saporta, in reply to my inquiries concerning this specimen, says that his father can give me no further information concerning this specimen; nor could M. Oustalet and myself, in our search through the fossil insects of the Jardin des Plantes, discover any such relic.

In a recent number of “Nature” (No. 266), Mr. E. J. A’Court Smith writes of the discovery at Gurnet Bay in the Isle of Wight, of an insect bed in which were found, among other things, “a variety of flies, butterflies, and one or two grasshoppers;” no further information has yet been published concerning these relics, and my inquiries upon the subject have not, as yet, elicited any definite response.