( 58 ) 



?. 'the/emale is like the Male in colour niion the uppersiJc, except that the 

 light colour of the enter margins invades the inner surface of the wing to a 

 greater (k'i)lh. The ]irimavios on tlic underside are marked as in the malt', but 

 the spots are geuenilly a little larger, and there are two white linear streaks near 

 the inner margin, below the first median uervule. The secondaries liave the same 

 sjwts as in the male, but the two submarginal series of spots in many specimens are 

 either jiartially or now and then wholly obliterated. The discal sjiots are always 

 found, tliinigh sometimes they are ijuite small, ami at other times abnormally large. 



Expanse : 6 and ? To to 85 mm. Descritud from 29 S d and 17 ? ?. 



This insect has occasioned me not a little difficulty, as I natnrally am reluctant 

 to iidd another to the list of species in this group. At first I was inclined to 

 identify it with Kuplofa lapfi/roi'iici Boisd., one or two of the females in my 

 possession<-tallyiMg exactly witli the description given by Boisdnval in the Vo'juge 

 de IJAstrolabi . 1 tlien discovered that Mr. Moore has referred E. lape>/rousei 

 to his genus t'liirom. (ine of the characters of which is a broad sericeous band on 

 the ni)])erside of the primaries, and states ex])licitly that " the type specimen of 

 this species is much like C. jiierveti, excepting that the sericeons Mtreah is nnrrower 

 auil longer." As the insect before me is without the sexual brand on the primaries, 

 it cannot be therefore identified as the insect de.scribed by Boisdnval, whose types, 

 now in the possession of Mons. Charles Oberthiir, were consulted by both Dr. 

 Bntler and Di'. Moore in their preparation of their monographs of the Eup/oeiiiae. 

 Accepting the entire accuracy of the figure of Vadehra melina given by Dr. Butler 

 in the I'loe. Zool. 8oc. Lond. 1S66, p. 282, the insect before me cannot be well 

 referred to this species, although Dr. Boisdnval states that E. melina occurs 

 in Burn. I likewisn cannot bring myself to refer the form before me to the species 

 named and figured as Eiiploea dimcAia by Cramer, and made tlie tyjie of the genus 

 Vadebro by Moore. While the Cramerian figures are none of the best, tliere is 

 too great a discrejiancy between the figure and the insects under consideration to 

 permit me to assume their identity. 1 liave therefore ventured to name the 

 butterfly after its discoverer. 



(^ENus GAMATOBA Moore. 

 III. G. spiculifera Moore, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. j). 263 (1883). 

 The collection contains a small series of this fine species. 



Genus BETANGA Moore. 



11. CO B. duponcheli (Boisd.), Toy. .\strol., I.ep. p. 97 (1832). 



This is another case in which the exceedingly brief description given by 

 Boisdnval leaves us in doubt. Mons. Oberthiir, in his Ijcpidoptere.t tManiens, 

 ]i. 35, intimates that the insect ticketed as Kaploen duponekeli by Dr. Boisdnval, 

 and standing in his collection, does not agree at all with the published descrii)tion. 

 He assumes that the insect labelled in the British Musenm as K. duponcheli is 

 correctly determined. Boisdnval gives Burn as the habitat of the insect. I 

 have before me about eighty specimens evidently belonging to the same species, 

 vnile.<< &n<\ femakii. Among the females I find several which agree very well with 

 Boisdnval's descrij)tion except in one particular, which 1 shall point out presently. 



