376 RHOPALOCERA. 
submarginalibus fulvo indistincte circumcinctis nigris, anticarum ocello sicut supra ; posticis puncto nigro, 
fulvo marginato ad cellule finem. 
Hab. Guatemata, Poctun (f. D. G. & O. S.); Costa Rica (Van Patten *); Panama, 
Volcan de Chiriqui (Ribde?), Bugaba (Champion), Lion Hill (M‘Leannan).— 
CoLomBIA}. 
Herr Weymar’s description of this species was published in the middle of April 1875, 
whilst that of Dr. Staudinger was read before the Vienna Society on the 7th of the 
same month, and the actual publication of the name must have taken place after some 
lapse of time; hence we adopt the name EL. patrona, Weymar, for this species. 
The insect most nearly allied to this species seems to be £. juturna, Feld., of which we 
have specimens so named from the Lower Amazons and also from Eastern Peru. From 
these, #. patrona differs in its larger size and in the greater extension of the rufous colour 
on the outer portion of the secondaries; in the ocellus of the primaries the blue spot 
is More conspicuous and of a brighter tint. Our only Guatemalan specimen was taken 
by Salvin in an open savanna near Poctun, in the department of Peten. From Costa 
Rica we have several examples, and Mr. Champion captured a single example at 
Bugaba, where Dr. Staudinger’s types were taken ; we have several from the line of 
the Panama Railway, and one from Colombia, whence Herr Weymar’s type was. 
derived. 
f. patrona is the largest species of the genus in Central America, and equals in size 
£. donna of Colombia. 
Mr. Champion took his specimen in dense undergrowth in damp places. 
2. Eurybia salome. 
Papilio salome, Cram. Pap. Ex. t.12. f. G, H*. 
Hurybia salome, Bates, Journ. Linn. Soc. Zool. ix. p. 415”. 
E. patrone similis, sed multo minor ; anticarum ocello saturatiori ceruleo, anticis punctis binis ad costam ultra 
cellulam albis. 
Hab. Nicaraeua, Chontales (Belt); Panama, Lion Hill (M‘Leannan), Panama city 
(J. J. Walker).—Ecouapor ; AMAzons?; Guiana |. 
We have a Panama example of this butterfly which agrees accurately with others 
from the Lower Amazons and Guiana, and these again conform to Cramer’s figure. 
As a species, it seems to be fairly separable from EH. patrona; the two small white 
subcostal spots on the primaries are present in all our specimens, their absence being 
equally plain in the allied form. At the same time the value of these spots as a. 
definite character is somewhat questionable, for they fail to differentiate E. lycisca 
from E. /amia, as certain undoubted specimens of the former have them, whilst others. 
do not. 
