PHYCLODES. 209 
41. Phyciodes sopolis. (Tab. XXII. figg. 30¢, 31, 329.) 
Phyciodes sopolis, Godm. & Salv. Ann. & Mag. N. H. ser. 5, 11. p. 262 ‘. 
P. otani similis, sed anticis fulvo maculatis. 
Q. Mari dissimilis. P. ptolyee aliquantum similis quoad maculas anticarum ; posticis supra rufo perfusis. 
- Hab. Guatemata, Choctum (Hague 4), Sinanja, Purula (Champion). 
A close ally of P. otanes, chiefly differing in having the primaries distinctly spotted. 
At present we have only seen specimens from the department of Vera Paz, in Guate- 
mala, P. otanes being restricted to the mountains sloping towards the Pacific Ocean. 
Both sexes, as determined by Mr. Champion from a pair captured at Purula, are 
represented on the Plate. 
Note.—The following species have been placed in the genus Phyciodes by Mr. Kirby 
and others, and are said to come from Mexico or Central America. We have not been 
able to identify them satisfactorily. 
Phyciodes mylitta, W. H. Edw.; Kirby, Cat. Diurn. Lep. p. 173. 
Melitea collina, Behr, Pr. Cal. Ac. 1863, p. 86. 
A species bearing the latter name is said to come from Mexico. We have not yet 
met with it. ° 
Eresia sydra, Reak. Pr. Ac. Phil. 1866, p. 330. 
Near Vera Cruz, Mexico (W. H. Edwards). 
This name most probably applies to P. atronia, Bates (antea, p. 206)=P. obscurata 
(R. Feld.); but we cannot speak positively on this point. 
Phyciodes clio (Linn.), Kirby, Cat. Diurn. Lep. p. 177. 
This name is based upon a figure of Merian’s (t. 35), and represents a Surinam insect, 
more like an Jthomia than a Phyciodes. Mr. Kirby gives its locality as “ Honduras,” 
but on what authority we know not. 
Phyciodes polina (Hew.), Kirby, Cat. Diurn. Lep. p. 177. 
This is Eresia polina, and comes from Ecuador, and not Honduras, as stated by 
Mr. Kirby. 
Phyciodes thymetus, Distant, Trans. Ent. Soc. 1876, p. xiii, ex Fabricius, Mant. 
Ins. 1. p. 30. 
The insect called by Mr. Distant by this name is the same as P. aineta (Hew.). But 
as Fabricius’s description is too vague to admit of certain recognition, and no habitat 
is given, it had therefore better be passed over. 
BIOL. CENTR.-AMER., Rhopal., Vol. I., December 1882. 26 
