CATASTICTA, 117 



a. Sexes alike. 



l. Catasticta flisa. 



Euterpe flisa, Herr.-Schaff. Aussereur. Schmett. p. 54, ff. 93,94 (ex Boisd. MS.) \ 

 Euterpe arechiza, Reak. Proc. Ac. Phil. 1866, p. 244 2 . 

 Catasticta arechiza, Butl. & Druce, P. Z. S. 1874, p. 357 3 . 

 Euterpe bithys, Reak. Pr. Ent. Soc. Phil. ii. p. 345 (nee Hiibn.) \ 



Ahs fusco-nigris, fascia maculosa communi a costa anticarum ultra cellulam ad medium marginis posti- 

 carum mterni albida, maculis exterioribus in serie submarginali et interdum aliis minutis ad marginem 

 posticarum coloris ejusdem .- subtus brunnescentioribus, anticis fascia et maculis majoribus, punctis qui- 

 busdam ad apicem et ad marginem ipsum flavis ; posticis fascia albida flavo maculata, punctis tribus prope 

 basin aliisque minutis in serie duplici exteriore in margine ipso quoque flavis, maculis duabus ad basin 

 coccineis. 



$ mari similis, sed maculis majoribus et fascia posticarum ad costam et ad marginem internum flavo tincta. 



Hob. Mexico, Oaxaca (Fenochio), Omilteme, Xucumanatlan (H. H. Smith), Jalapa, 

 Orizaba (H. J. Elwes), Cordova (Rumeli) ; Guatemala, San Geronimo, Polochic valley, 

 Duenas (F. D. G. & 0. S.), Balheu, Duefias, Cerro Zunil (Champion) ; Nicaragua 

 (Zcettlingi); Costa Eica (Van Patten % Cache (Rogers); Panama, Chiriqui (Arce), 

 Volcan de Chiriqui (Champion). — Colombia ; Venezuela ; Ecuador. 



It is to this species that the name Euterpe teutila of Doubleday has been frequently 

 but erroneously applied, but this point was settled by Mr. Butler in 1874, after 

 examining the type. At the same time Herrich-Schaffer, in figuring it in 1852, 

 employed Boisduval's MS. name /w, distinctly stating that it was not teutila of 

 Doubleday. The next question that arises is whether the more northern specimens 

 which we trace as far south as Ecuador are really separable from C. bithys of Hiibner 

 from Southern Brazil, the two forms being obviously very closely allied. We trace 

 slight differences, which, taken together, seem sufficient to justify the two forms being 

 considered, as heretofore, distinct. These consist in the absence in C. bithys of the 

 discal spots of the secondaries in the male, and in the marginal spots in the same wings 

 of the female being yellow instead of white ; the cellular band has no yellow spot at 

 either end in the Brazilian insect ; the outer margin of the primaries, too, is hardly, if 

 at all concave. Seeing that Herri ch-Schaffer adopted Boisduval's MS. name C. flisa 

 for the present species, and gave an excellent figure of it, this name must clearly super- 

 sede Eeakirt's title E. arechiza, published in 1866, though Messrs. Butler and Druce 

 employ the latter name. 



There is considerable variation as regards the transverse band of the upper surface 

 of the wings in the males of this species. This especially affects Guatemalan examples, 

 in some of which this band is almost obsolete ; specimens from Costa Eica, the State 

 of Panama, and South America agree very closely with the typical Mexican insect. 

 Like the last it is a common upland species throughout our region, and its habits are 

 similar. 



