( f.o ) 



44. H. lasinassa (Cramer), Pap. Ex. HI. t. 20.5. f. A. B (1782). 



There is a set of males and females of this species, which, when compared with 

 the large series of //. holina captured at the same time and in the same locality, 

 leads me to disagree with the view of Kirby, that //. lasinassa is a mere synonym 

 for H. holina. In the first place the male, which superficially resembles bolina, 

 differs widely from any specimens of bolina which 1 have ever seen both in size and 

 in markings of the nndersido of the wiugs; and the vastly larger size of i\\e: females, 

 and the corresponding difference in markings, all go, to my mind, to show that we 

 are dealing with a valid form. 



The expanse of the females of the form iphii/enia of holina taken by Doherty 

 in Burn does not much exceed TD mm. ; the expanse of ih&J'emales of //. lasinas-ia 

 is in some cases loS mm. and never less than 95 mm. The males are all much 

 larger than the largest male of II. bolina in the collection. The markings are 

 diiferent. In both sexes there is an entire absence of the white transverse median 

 band on the underside of the primaries and secondaries, which is characteristic of 

 H. holina. The outer margins do not have the white markings on the fringe, which 

 are characteristic of H. bolina. The marginal row of spots on the underside of the 

 secondaries, which is geminated in //. bolina, is single in H. lasinassa. The blue discal 

 spots on the upperside of the wings of the males are not centred with white, as in 

 H. bolina, but are uniformly a deep purplish blue. If the two forms are sjjrung from 

 the same insects, and are merely seasonal or dimorphic variations, we are confronted 

 with one of the most remarkable facts in natural history. That they spring from one 

 common ancestry I am quite willing to believe, and an examination of them must 

 convince of this, but I cannot bring myself to believe that one brood of eggs will 

 produce these two forms at the same time. They are as widely separate, for 

 instance, as any two species of Arg>jn7iis, which are now recognized by naturalists 

 as valid. Doubtless most existing species have had at some time a common 

 ancestry, and the student of phylogeny is able often to tell where lie the lines of 

 relationship, but relationship is not identity either in the case of individuals or 

 species. 



4.J. H. alimena (Linnaeus), Mas. Liul. Ulr. p. 2'..»1 (1T64). 



There is a very large series of this species. The males are constant, but the 

 females vary considerably. Some of the females are coloured upon the upperside 

 like the males, others have the outer third of the secondaries laved with rufous, 

 and still others are more or less strongly marked with white upon the secondaries. 



40. H. pandora (Wallace;, Trans. Ent. Soc. bond. p. 261 (1S69). 

 There is a small set of males a,nd females of this fine species. 



47. H. antilope (Cramer), Faj,. E.r. II. t. 183. f. E. F (1779). 

 A small series of this species, representing both se.xes. 



Genus PARTHENOS Hiibuer. 



48, P. nodrica (Boisdnval), Voy. Astrol., Lep. p. 126 (1832). 

 A good set of this distinctly marked species. 



