( 562 ) 



Gends EULEPIS. 



Pajiilio Eqiiii Achiriis Linnt'. Sysl. Xnt. ed. X. p. 462 (1758) (partim). 



Enhoea Hubner, Verz. bek. Schmett. p. 46 (1816) (partim). 



yymphalis, Godart, Eiic. Melh. IX. p. 350 (18-23) (partim); Doubl. Westw. & Hew., Gencrn Dlurn. 

 Lej). II. p. 306 (1850) (partim) ; Kirby, Cat. Diurn. Lip. p. 267 (1875) (partim). 



Jiwia Swainson, Zool. Illuatr. 11. t. 90 (1832) (partim). 



Chora.ce.i, Felder, Keiies Lepidopteroit p. S'J, in Xuc. Ada Acud. Leup. Cur. XXVIII. (1861) 

 (partim): Butler, P. Z. .S. p. 622 (1865) (partim): Schatz, F^im. uiid Cnti. Tiifil'. p. 175 0892) 

 (partim) : Butler, Journ. Limi. Soc. Lond. XXV. p. 339 (1896) (partim). 



Euleph Moore, Lep. Ceylon I. p. 20 (1881) (typus : E. sumatha). 



.Viii-icaml'i Moore, Lej>. Indici p. 263 (18951 (typus : .1/. dnlim). 



Antennae rather sparsely covered above with small narrow scales : grooves 

 of nndersido deep, e.xteudiujr from the base to the apex of the segments; last four 

 or five segments considerably shorter dorsally than ventrally. Forewing, costal 

 margin serrate; SC and SC^ before end of cell, SC and SC" on a short stalk, 

 SC'^ thrown off from SC", the latter bent below apex of wing; base of (SM') as spnr 

 of M; basal patch of scales extending to (SM'). Hind wing, cell open. ('ell of 

 both wings never with more than two bars below, c? with penis-funnel which 

 has the opening restricted to the base; penis with one tooth before apex. 



The small scales of the antennae, the serrated costal margin of the forewing, 

 the short stalk of SC'' and S(", the bent apex of SC, the jjenis-fnnnel and median 

 spnr, represent a combination of characters nowhere else met with except in Clmra.ces 

 and Euxanthe. From the latter genus Etdepis differs in many respects, for instance 

 in the snbcostals of the forewing being all free, while the resemblance between 

 Eulepis and Cfiaraxes is so great that most anthors have merged the two together 

 into one genns. It is true, the open cell of the hindwing distinguishes Eule/jis at 

 once from Charaxes, as pointed out by Moore, Lc. However, as the loss of D" of 

 the hindwing is observed in many Xi/mphalinae which are not so closely related to 

 one another as to forms which have the veitdet preserved, the obliteration having 

 taken place independently, it can justly be urged that the absence of 1)^ from the 

 species united here under Eulepis does not necessarily warrant their being a gronj) 

 of close allies which stand apart, in a phylogenetic sense, from all the species of 

 Charaxes. Butler, indeed, brings {I.e.) Charaxes hadrianus, on acconnt of its white 

 colour, among the species called by us Enlejiis, and considers another true C/mrares, 

 namely ?ufebis, to be a transition from the allies oi' ji>/rr/i>i.s, which is an Eitli'pis, 

 to the allies of psaphon, which belongs to Charaxes, though both psaphon and 

 hadrianus have the cell of the hindwing perfectly clo.^ed. But there are other 

 specializations which confirm Moore's opinion of the generic distinctness of E</lr/>is, 

 and which show that there is in several respects a great uniformity in the develop- 

 ment of the species of Eulepis. 



The antennae are like those of Charaxes; the last three to seven joints are nearly 

 always rufous brown, seldom brownish black. The costal edge of the forewing 

 is never so highly specialized as in the large species of Charaxes, there being, 

 in the basal half of the wing, nearly as many serrations as there are scale-rows in 

 front of C, altiiongli Eulepis contains forms larger in size than the largest species 

 of the t3-])ical group of Charaxes. 



Of the four cell-bars of the diagram of the Charaxes pattern (Fig. 2, p. 549) 

 only two are found in Eulepis on the forewing, namely bars 3 and 4, and one 

 (bar 4) on the hindwing; in a number of forms bar 3 of the forewing has also 



