( ^9 ) 



The description given in the Voijage, <le L' Astrolabe is as follows : '• Ailes d'un 

 bruu noir, pins pale a rextremite, sans taehes ; dessons des quatres avec deux 

 raiigs de points marginaux violatres ; les sni)drienres ayant en ontre qnatre points, 

 et les inferieures six points discoidaux violatres. Elle se tronve a Bonrou." The 

 ])oint of discrepancy which most puzzles me is found in the entire absence on 

 the underside of the primaries of all my specimens, both mih'. xmA j'i:iii'il>>, of 

 the outermost row of marginal spots (/joints marglniuu-). They are found ou the 

 secondaries according to the description above cited, but not on tlie primaries, 

 where there is but one row, with only a faint suggestion in one or two s])ecimens 

 of the outer or strictly marginal scries. Beginning witli specimens which thus 

 accord in the main with the description of Dr. Boisduval, I am able to trace a 

 series of forms regularly intergrading until I arrive at forms in which the 

 description given by Boisduval does not at all apply. The maculation of the 

 underside of the wings advances stej) by step until we have specimens the undersides 

 of the wings of which are covered with small white spots arranged as follows : 

 Ou the primaries near the outer angle a few marginal spots, a submarginal series 

 of s])ots extending from the first median interspace to the costa, three spots before 

 the end of the cell at the inner end of the interspaces, the lowermost spot large 

 and oblong, a round spot in the cell near its end, and a moderately large costal spot 

 beyond the middle of the costa. On the secondaries there are three curved series 

 of spots, a marginal and submarginal not reaching the inner angle, and a curved 

 series of seven discal spots just beyond the cell, one on each interspace from vein 1 

 to vein 8, a roundish spot in the cell at its extremity, and four or five minute 

 white spots at the base of the wing. These spots also reappear more or less 

 (especially those of the submarginal series) upon the upperside of the wing, and 

 thus nullify the words of Dr. Boisduval's description, which declares that the upper 

 surface is devoid of markings. In spite of these numerous and apparently great 

 discrepancies between the description and some of the specimens, I am inclined 

 to think that I am right in identifying the forms before me as belonging to 

 B. ilupoiii-heli. At all events no other species from Burn seems to accord more 

 nearly with Boisduval's description. 



Genus EUPLOEA Fabricius. 



12. E. semicirculus Butler, Proc. Znol. Sac. Loud. p. '-itiO (l^iiS). 



There is a small series of this species in which the specimens are considerably 

 larger than specimens I have received from Batchiau through Dr. Staudinger, 

 and in which the submarginal bine spots are considerably larger and more con- 

 spicuous. Otherwise there is no difference, and the insects agree well with the 

 figures and descriptions which have been given. 



Genus CALLIPLOEA Butler. 



13. C. infantilis Butler, Proc. /.ool. Soc. Loml p. 766. t. 77. f. 3 (1876). 



There is one male specimen of this species which was originally described 



from New Guinea. It does not differ from specimens received by me from 



Batchian, except that the spots on the underside of the wings are a trifle 



smaller. 



