(574) 



We are Dot sure tbat Hiibner's name has priority over that of Godart. 



The Santa Lncia sjieciiueus recorded by Miss Sbarpe (Proc. Zool. Soc. Loud. 

 1901. p. 223), if lieloDging to this species, represent doubtless a distinct subspecies. 



Boisdnval, I.e., records a form of this species from Cuba under the name of 

 P. pirithous Eoger, several other authors (Doubleday, Lucas, Felder, Kirby, etc.) 

 following suit. Gnndlach (1881) rejects the species as Cuban. There is indeed 

 no evidence that a form of/', h/cophron occurs on that island, though Lucas (185T) 

 records not only P. t/tersites, but also two forms of the present species from there — 

 namely, pirithous and li/rophron, the latter being stated to be common on the 

 island. The mistake began with Boisduval, who mistook some South American 

 females of P. hjcophron for Eoger's " Papillon pirithous." This " Pajiillon piri- 

 thous " being from Cuba, the locality of specimens erroneously identified as 

 pirithous was accepted to be also Cuba. The description given by Roger has 

 doubtless never been carefully read, since nobody appears to have noticed that it 

 is a descriiitiou of the male of P. caiguanabus ! 



It is quite possible that a form allied to P. thcrsites or P. Ujcophrou will be 

 discovered on Cuba or Haiti. 



Seba's figure. I.e., represents doubtless a form of the present species. However, 

 we have not seen a specimen agreeing with the figure. Seba's type came possibly 

 from Surinam. 



a. P. hjcophron pallas Gray (1852). 



J V • Papilio oehalus, Gray (iion Boisd., 1836, err. det.), Cai. Lep. Ins. Brit. Mus. i. Pujy. p. 39. 



n. 193. t. 6. fig. 1. (? (1852) (Mexico) ; id., List Lep. Ins. Brit. Mm. i. Pap. p. 53. n. 203 (I85G) ; 



Weidem., Pm: Ent. So,: Ph'dad. ii. p. 147 (18G3) ; Felder, Verh. Znnl. Hot. Gcs. ]Vieii xiv. 



p. 311. n. 311 (181)4) (Mexico) ; Kirby, Cat. Diuni. Lrp. p. 539. n. 148 (1871) (Mexico ; cit. 



Boisd. excl.) ; Obcrtb., Et. (J'Ent. iv. p. 71. n. 212 (1880) ; Staud., Exot. Tugf. p. Ifi (1884) ; 



Godm. & Salv.. Biol. Centr. Amer.. Lep. Rhop. u. p. 225. n. 5fi. t. 69. fi','. 5. G. '? (1890) (Mexico 



to Costa Rica) ; Winkle, Caiiad. Ent. xxv. p. 212 (1893) (only in Mexico). 

 (J. Pap'diii piilliis Doubleday, List Lep. Ins. Brit. Miis. i. p. IT (1845) (num. mid. ; Oajaca) ; id., 



Westw. & Hew , Gen. Diiirn. Lep. i. p. 17. n. 1G8 (1846) (uom. nwl. ; Mexico) ; Hewits., Trims. 



Ent. Soc. Land. (2). i. p. 97 (IH'ol) (parti in) ; Gray, Cat. Lep. Ins. Brit. .l/«s-. i. Pap. p. 39. n. 193. 



t. 6. fig. 1. (J (1852) (subsynon.) 

 Papilio lycopjhron, Butler & Druce, Proc. Zool. Soc. Loml. p. 365. n. 379 (1874) (Costa Rica). 



<?. Forewiug with a row of submarginal spots on upperside, marginal spots 

 also distinct, band more cut up than in the South American forms, the veins 

 S(.;^, R', R-, R^ being more broadly black, the central patches of the baud more 



or less rounded distally. Tail variable, ai)parently more obtuse in Easteru 



Me.xico than in other localities, and in the same district the black distal area of 

 the hindwiug more extended both above and below. 



¥ . Forewing more uniformly brown-black than in South American specimens ; 

 some butTdots distally of ape.x of cell ; submarginal spots SC — SC!''^, or at least the 



first, absent. Hiudwing : tail short, sometimes only a little more projecting than 



the other teeth ; three rows of spots, two inner rows often more or less confluent, 

 spots of proximal row either all red or at least the last spot, second row more 

 distinct than in South American females, and third row nearer the margin. 



On underside a buff' band on forewing from costal margin to M' or SM", 

 consisting of rather well-defined spots. 



Genitalia: (?. Rasplike ridge of harjie at right angles to the dorsal edge of 

 the harpe. 



