HELICONIUS. 153 
d'. Wings black, a red spot on the primaries. 
16. Heliconius petiveranus. 
Heliconia petiverana, Doubl. Gen. Diurn. Lep. p. 103* (ex Petiver, Gaz. t. 4. f. 2). 
Heliconius petiverana, Butl. & Druce, P. Z. 8. 1874, p-. 851°. 
Heliconia demophoon, Ménétr. Cat. Mus. Petr. Lep. p. 86, t. 2. f. 4°. 
Heliconius demophoon, Bates, P. Z. S. 1863, p. 247‘; Dist. Pr. Ent. Soc. 1876, p. xiii’. 
Heliconia mexicana, Boisd. Lép. Guat. p. 28°. 
Heliconia rosina, Boisd. Lép. Guat. p. 297; Butl. & Druce, P. Z. 8. 1874, p. 351°. 
Heliconia amaryllis, Dist. Pr. Ent. Soc. 1876, p. xiv °. 
Alis nigris, anticis fascia transversa irregulariter ovata per cellule finem coccinea, posticis fascia transversa 
flava; subtus ut supra, macula anticarum coccinea medialiter albicante, posticis punctis minutis ad basin 
coccineis ornatis et coste parte proxima anguste flava. 
Hab. Mexico, Alvarado (Deppe), Acapulco (A. Markham, Ransonnet, Mus. Vindod.), 
Potrero (Hedemann), Oaxaca (Fenochio), Valladolid in Yucatan (Gaumer); British Hon- 
DuRAS, Corosal (foe), Rio Hondo (Blancaneauz) ; Guaremata, Pacific coast, Retalhuleu, 
Yzabal, Motagua valley, and Polochic valley (fF. D. G. & O. S.), Zapote and Panima 
(Champion) ; Honpuras, San Pedro (G. M. Whitely); Nicaracua? (Bridges), Chontales 
(Belt); Costa Rica (Van Patten? 8), Cache (Rogers) ; Panama, Volcan de Chiriqui, 2000 
to 8000 feet (Champion), Bugaba, Calobre (Arcé), Lion-Hill station (M‘Leannan), Colon 
(Markham).—Cotompta ; Ecuapor. 
Some difficulty presents itself as to the proper name to adopt for this Heliconius ; but 
there can, we think, be no doubt that the titles petiveranus and demophoon were both 
intended for the same insect. The former is based upon an old figure in Petiver’s 
‘Gazophylax.’ That this was meant to represent this species there can, we think, be 
little doubt; but it would have been much more satisfactory had Doubleday, when 
introducing the name ZZ. petiveranus, described the species instead of merely referring 
to this figure. This seems to have been the opinion of Ménétriés, who went so far as 
to propose a name of his own to supersede that of Doubleday %. In so doing he has 
been followed by several writers. We prefer, however, to use the name H. petiveranus, 
believing as we do that no uncertainty is incurred thereby. ‘The insect described by 
Boisduval as H. rosina’, though admitted as distinct by Messrs. Butler and Druce 8, has, 
in our opinion, no right to such distinction. We find in many places specimens in 
which the yellow band of the secondaries beneath does not quite reach the outer 
margin ; but this character, by which alone H. rosina seems separable, we do not consider 
of specific value. With regard to H. amaryllis, Feld., we are not so certain, as our series 
of southern specimens is not sufficiently extensive to enable us to form a decided opinion. 
We notice, however, that variation occurs in the number of red spots at the base of the 
secondaries, rendering the position of H. amaryllis doubtful ; and, moreover, we hesitate 
to admit the existence of two forms in Costa Rica, which is Mr. Distant’s opinion 9, 
BIOL. CENTR.-AMER., Rhopal., Vol. I., December 1881. x 
