( 229 ) 



would, however, be entirely wrong to measure the value of the differential characters 

 by the quantitative amount of difference only. The great significance of the 

 characters will be recognised from other considerations. The first important 

 circumstance that goes far to prove the distinctness of the four insects is the fact 

 that, though the four insects occur together in the Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, and 

 Borneo, there are no intergradations between them; they are recognisable at a glance. 

 The second and still more important point is that the geographical variation shows 

 remarkable discordance in the four insects. 



Eulepis jali/sas occurs in Burma, Tenasserim, the Malay Peninsula, Sumatra 

 and Borneo, and has not developed into geographical races; the insect is remarkably 

 constant. Kidepis athamas, which has the widest range of the four insects, is in 

 the countries where the wide-banded jalysiis occurs always narrow-banded. The 

 Burmese specimens are slightly diflerent from those from Sumatra and Borneo, not 

 identical, while the Sumatra and Borneo races of E. kehe and moori are conspicuously 

 different. The area inhabited by Eulepis hebe e.xtends from the Malay Peninsula 

 to Borneo and Sumba, while moori is found from Assam to Borneo and Java. 

 Whereas the Sumatran races, both of E. moori and E. kclie, arc whiter than the 

 Javan races, the Sumatran athamas are, on the contrary, darker than the athamas 

 from Java. Further, E. hebe from Java is conspicuously different from the forms of 

 hebe from Sumatra and Borneo, while the specimens of E. moori from these countries 

 come very close to one another or are even identical; in the Javanese form of E. hebe 

 the white postdiscal scaling of the upperside of the hindwing is more extended than 

 in the Bornean form, wliereas in the respective forms of E. moori the reverse is the 

 case. The specimens of E. moori from the Malay Peninsula and those from Java 

 are not separable subspecifically, while E. hebe from Java differs constantly and 

 considerably from the form of E. hebe from the Malay Peninsula. The Javanese 

 examples of E. hebe have the discal band of the underside considerablj' broader than 

 the specimens from Sumatra, Malacca, and Borneo, while there is no obvious, 

 constant, dift'erence in the width of the discal band between the forms of E. moori 

 from those localities. In E. moori the discal baud of tlie hindwing below extends 

 always beyond M", while in some forms of J'J. hebe it stops short at that vein. 



We did not find any difficulty in discriminating the five species, but it was a 

 hard task to assign the right names to the numerous forms, which were mostly 

 described as distinct species. Fortunately we have seen the types, resp. typical 

 specimens, of nearly all tlie forms, and are tliorefore convinced that we have not 

 made a serious error in identification. 



(A Discal band of upperside with white or bluish white scaling at outside, hence 

 white colour more extended above than below. 



0. Eulepis hebe (Nov. Zool. V. t. XII. f. 8—12 and VI. t. Vll. f. l—W. 



Chantxes hcOe Butler, P. Z. S. p. G34 n. 46. t. 37 f. 39 (18G.'>) (Sumatra). 



cJ ? . Head, pronotum and anterior part of mesonotum blackish olive, with the 

 usual white markings, rest of npperside olivaceous grey or almost white ; palpi 

 below buff or cream colour, middle of prosternum, upper and outer side of anterior 

 femora, all tarsi, and middle and iiinder tibiae of the same colour, or more clayish, 

 rest of underside (except black strij)es underneath the legsj chiyisli buff, abdomen 

 of ? blackish or blackish tawny beneath. 



16 



