Sometime subsequently Mr. A. G. Butler refers to this dispute between the two French writers in the following manner:[J]
This very interesting species was described and admirably figured by Dr. Boisduval in the French “Annales de la Société Entomologique” (1840); that gentleman considered it to be a Satyride allied to Satyrus rohria, caumas, etc.,[K] which it somewhat resembles in the form of the wings.
In the French “Annales” (for 1851) M. Lefebvre published a note upon the species, in which he criticised Dr. Boisduval’s paper, and stated that the fossil species, instead of being allied to rohria, was evidently a Vanessa—that the strong, tail-like projection belonged to the front, and not to the hind wings, and represented the angular projection which occurs in all true Vanessidæ, as an example of which he instanced Vanessa (Junonia) Archesia of Cramer. This remarkable note was, moreover, accompanied by figures of the species, representing the tail both upon the front and hind wings.
In the same volume of the “Annales” Dr. Boisduval gives an excellent answer to M. Lefebvre’s observations, in which he well remarks, “Nous n’avons jamais vu une seule espèce avec les ailes [190] supérieures anguleuses et appendiculées, et les ailes inférieures arrondies comme avec un compas;” and certainly, did such an insect ever exist, its wings would be utterly useless as organs of flight, for they would invariably carry it downwards. In all insects which have small and rounded hind wings, the costa of the front wings always far exceeds the inner margin in length and strength,[L] whereas in M. Lefebvre’s insect the reverse would be the case.
It should be borne in mind, however, that there are two distinct criticisms by Lefebvre, to the second of which Boisduval only alludes in the most general way, and does not meet, while Butler makes no reference to it at all. As far as regards the position of the tail, Lefebvre is unquestionably wrong (see [Pl. I], fig. 10), although his fault is primarily due to the inaccuracy of the engraving given by Boisduval, an inaccuracy which is slightly accentuated in our copy of it ([Pl. I], fig. 17). But by far the larger part of his paper is made up of a detailed argument, drawn from the position and character of the markings and from the direction of the nervures, in which he endeavors to prove, and in most cases really does prove (though he errs in some of his statements concerning the neuration), that these markings belong to the front and not to the hind wing. He argues, for instance, that the two oval dark spots are plainly traversed by the nervures of the hind wing, and therefore cannot belong to that wing; that the minute white spot apparently on the outer border of the hind wing is only half a spot and must belong to the fore wing, and that the markings on and near the costal border traverse both wings and must belong to the one to which they certainly belong in part, the front wing. To this Boisduval makes no sort of answer, and Butler, to judge from his silence in the matter, and the comparative illustrations he gives on a plate published subsequently,[M] considers it unproven. All of these writers are, however, entirely wrong in supposing that the under surface of the wings is exposed to view, and that the hind wing covers the front wing. Boisduval does not distinctly state this; but the whole tenor of his remarks shows that this was the view taken by him; and when Lefebvre says: “Si de l’œil on suit les bords de la seconde aile, qu’avec le Docteur je reconnais couvrir en grande partie la première,” no objection is offered in Dr. Boisduval’s response; nor does he demur to Lefebvre’s statement, when the latter speaks of the “face inférieure, celle que nous voyons.” As we shall show later, however, the upper surface of the wings is that exhibited on the stone, and the front wing almost entirely conceals the hind one; compare [Pl. I], fig. 13, drawn anew from the fossil.
In the same place to which we have just referred Mr. Butler adds the following remarks on the probable affinities of this fossil:[N]
The true position of C. sepulta is undoubtedly in the family Satyridæ; and, so far as can be judged from the beautiful figure in the “Annales,”[O] it is exactly intermediate in character between three nearly allied genera now existing, viz.:—Neorina, Antirrhæa and Anchiphlebia, its more immediate allies being the commonest species in each of the above genera. Its characters are distributed between these three species as follows:—
| Neorina Lowii, Boisd. | Antirrhæa Philoctetes, Linn. | Anchiphlebia Archæa, Hübn. | |
| Form of front wings, | * | ||
| Form of hind wings, | . . | * | |
| Tails of hind wings (intermediate in character between), | * | * | |
| Submarginal spots of front wings, | * | * | * |
| Black disco-submarginal spots of hind wings, | . . | * | |
| Pale costal and discal banding of wings, | *? | . . | * |
| Limitation of dark dentated basal area of hind wings, | . . | . . | * |
| Submarginal line of hind wings, | * |
The venation appears to be nearly similar to that of Anchiphlebia. It is doubtful, however, whether the drawing of the veins has been sufficiently attended to, to offer any reliable characters.