202 RHOPALOCERA. 
British Honpvuras, Corosal (Roe); Guatemaua’, Chisoy and Polochic valleys, Choctum 
(Hague), central valleys (F. D. G. & O. 8.1), Duefias (F. D. G. & 0. S., Champion), San 
Gerénimo (F. D. G. & O. S., Champion), Panima, Chiacam, and San Juan in Vera Paz 
(Champion); Panama,Calobre (Arcé), Lion Hill (M‘Leannan *).— VENEZUELA ; EcuabDor 2, 
When we first submitted the comparatively small series of this form of Phyciodes to 
Mr. Bates, on our return from Guatemala in 1863, he considered that they were sepa- 
rable into five species. The large additional materials which have since come into our 
hands now show us that the lines of demarcation between at least four of these forms 
are obliterated; and therefore we have no alternative but to unite them under one 
name. At the same time, we have thought it desirable to figure a typical example of 
each of Mr. Bates’s species, to show more clearly what they are than can be expressed 
in words. 
The characters are chiefly to be sought on the underside of the wings. 
The typical form of P. ptolyca is represented on Plate XXI. (figg. 32, 33) and 
described above. This is a common form throughout Guatemala, and we have many 
specimens from the highlands near Duefias and from San Gerénimo; but the variety 
P. stesilea (represented by fig. 36) occurs, but in very sparing numbers, in both loca- 
lities. The variety P. alethes also occurs at Duefias ; but we have not yet seen specimens 
from any other part of Central America, though it is found in Venezuela and Ecuador. 
This variety is represented by fig. 39. | 
The variety P. lelea, represented by fig. 34, appears to be commoner in Mexico than 
in Guatemala, and it is also the only one of this form found in the State of Panama. 
These varieties are connected together by insensible degrees, and there seems to be 
no stability in the very indefinite markings of the underside by which to distinguish 
them. Nor do the sinuations of the outer margin of the primaries offer a better 
result. 
As regards the distribution of the species as a whole, it is worthy of remark that it 
seems to be entirely absent from Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and the district of Chiriqui, 
where, as far as the two latter countries are concerned, other members of the genus 
amply supply its place. 
The careful observations of Mr. W. H. Edwards on P. tharos and its allies, which 
have led to such remarkable discoveries as regards the seasonal broods of that species, 
remind us that some similar influence may be at work in the case of the present insect, 
and that the broods of the wet season and of the dry season may be so different as to 
account for the extreme variation observed. This question can only be settled by an 
entomologist working in the country where P. ptolyca is found, and raising successive 
broods over a considerable period of time. 
