NOVITATES ZOOLOGICAE XXIV. 1917. 109 



I have no specimens of this species, but I consider it is quite a distinct 

 species and not a subspecies of mniszechi. 

 The British Museum has no specimens. 



[Grenus Satyrus. This genus in its conventional sense is very large and 

 unwieldy, and many authors have tried to split it up into several genera. In 

 1819 Hiibner in his " Verzeichnis bekanuter Schmetteuliuge " placed a number 

 of species of the famOy Satyrinae, which at the present time stand under Satyrus, 

 in three of his Coiti = genera, viz. Hipparchia, Minois, and Eumenis. W. F. 

 Kirby in his Catalogiie oj Diurnal Lepidoptera (1871-1876) has used Satyrus 

 Latr. (1810) for Hiibner's two Coiti Pararge and Dira, and has placed under 

 Hipparchia Fabr. a mixture of Hipparchia and Satyrus (conv.) and one or two 

 other things. Fruhstorfer has used Eumenis Hiibn. for a number of species, 

 and retains Satyrus for actaea, cordula, abdelkader, etc. Fabricius, who was the 

 first to establish Hipparchia, placed in it 119 species, of which he enumerates 

 10, the only ones now retamed in Satyrus being hermione and fauna. Satyrus, 

 established in 1810 by Latreille in his Considerations Generates, was used by 

 its author for a curious mixture ; he divided it mto two sections — Sect. I. 

 consistmg of Brassolidae Amathuriinae, etc., and Sect. II., which consisted of 

 Fabricius' genus Hipparchia. Passing over a number of other attempts at 

 reconstructmg the genus Satyrus, I wUl confine myself to the system adopted 

 in the British Museum. There the genus is divided up into 9 genera: Nythas 

 containing circe, hermione, and their allies ; Philareta, containmg anthe, etc. ; 

 Karanasa, with huebneri and allies ; Kanetisa, with digna ; Chazara, consistmg 

 of briseis and neighbouring species ; Eumenis, containing seniele, fidia, etc. ; 

 Minois, consisting of actaea and others ; and Cercyonis, consistmg of abdelkader 

 and its races. As at present these genera have not to my mind been sufficiently 

 established by careful anatomical study of all the elements composing them, 

 I prefer to place them in brackets after Satyrus, but this must not be under- 

 stood to mean that I consider them subgenera or that I acloiowledge subgenera.] 



54. Melanargia galathea lucasi (Ramb.). 



Arge lucasi Rambur, Cat. Syst. Lepidop. AvJal. p. 20 footnote (1858) (Bougie). 



Mr. Oberthiir considers this form so distinct that it should be treated as 

 a distinct species ; I cannot see in it anj'thing more than a very well defuied 

 subspecies of galathea. In his article on Moroccan lepidoptera, Mr. Meade- 

 Waldo says he found this insect very abundant m the Great Atlas ; but of 

 course the insect collected by him was the following subspecies. He also men- 

 tions a very large and pale form ; this will be dealt with later on when I give a 

 list with criticisms of Mr. Meade- Waldo's JMauretanian material. 



1 Saida, May 1913, W. R. and E. H. 

 7 Tifrit, May 1913, W. R. and E. H. 



2 Environs d' Alger, Captg,m HoU. 



7 Bei Bara, Gr. Kabylie, July 1910, Dr. Nissen. 

 35 Leila Ivredidja, July 1906-1912, Dr. Nissen. 



1 Teniet-el-Haad, July 1905, Dr. Nissen. 

 152 Environs de Batna, May 1912-1914, Nelva. 

 25 Khenchela, May 1912, W. R. and K. J. 



