In Kaufman in referring to the female : "rarely with faint dogface outline" ? ? ? ?

I'm looking at the statement regarding eurydice on p.68 (Brock & Kaufman): "Female all yellow, rarely with faint dogface outline; note wing shape." The "dogface" on this specimen is hardly faint, but perhaps there's a point regarding the pointed tip. Is it more pointed than usual for cesonia ? Perhaps, if we go by the illustrations in this guide (p.69), and other authors (e.g. see cit. below) also mention this difference.
Concerning the FW apex, Opler (1) writes: "Forewing tip pointed" for euridice ; but "Forewing apex slightly pointed, not rounded" for cesonia . Regarding pattern in female Southern DF, Opler states "Female with black areas diffuse". This seems to be the case in the present photos. Opler adds that California DF female "usually lacks any hint of dog's head markings". Scott (2) notes that in cesonia both sexes have a "dog face" with a black eye on the upf. I suggest to look at the full text in both Scott and Opler. Emmel & Emmel (3) discuss hybrids from the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains of SoCal, with color plates. Can such hybrids occur near Prescott where eurydice doesn't seem to be listed?
Personally, I don't care on which side this female should be shelved, as long as there's good reason for the placement. However, I'm not convinced that this female is a California DF. Neither am I convinced (based on the literature & images consulted)that this could be a hybrid; except for the FW point perhaps.
A perusal of the literature, and perhaps a look at a good collection of specimen should sway your opinion one way or other.
Additional reference with second from right photo.
Another photo reference: dallasbutterflies . Robert's female has arguably as much of a pointed FW apex as the one pictured at dallasbutterflies.

The Southern DF has very distinct black edge on the upper hindwing. California DF does not, nor does my specimen. I am not expert in this business! Who can enlighten us?

Robert pointed out another trait that points this Dogface to the California: the shape of the FW tip. Is this a result of rare female pattern variance in the California Dogface, or is this an example of hybridization? I am unfamiliar with both factors in this species.

for being so misleading on this ID. Hartmut is right that this is actually a female C cesonia. I used the same guide by Brock & Kaufman, but somehow managed to read the wrong caption! (so embarrassed...)

Being a skeptic, I rechecked my books as well as internet sources. On the whole this turned out to be an interesting exercise for which I'm indebted to you.
So, lets park these images on the appropriate species page - these two species have been placed back into the genus Zerene , apparently because of character differences in genitalia, and wing venation from Colias .

it is making and realizing errors like this one which cause me to become increasingly careful with ID's that I make!
I'm very skeptical of any ID's that I make, so I, too, recheck with various internet sources. I guess this time I still failed - must have been the time of night!

to species page.

I was pretty excited about finding it & being able to ID it was'nt hard once I got the upper forewing pattern.