BY G. A. WATERIIOUSE. 175 



Cooktown and Thursday Island which are identical; and I am of 

 opinion that Mathew's Thursday Island specimens were that 

 species; but as M. eucletus is recorded from Southern New Guinea 

 it is just possible that both forms may occur on Thursday Island, 

 though I should rather be inclined to doubt it, 



Candalides, Hubner. 



Yerz. bek. Schmett. n. 73. 1816 : Erina (part), Swains., Zool. 

 111. ii. t. 134, 1832 : Holochila (nom. prc^occ), Feld., Verb. Zool. 

 Bot. Gesell. Wien, xii. 1862. 



Foreioing with costa nearly straight in ^, somewhat arched in 

 9, apex slightly acute, outer margin nearly straight in ^, more 

 convex in 9, inner margin straight. Subcostal nervure with 

 three branches, tirst quite free from costal nervure, upper dis- 

 eoidal and middle discocellular meeting on or very close to sub- 

 costal. Ilindzving with costa nearly straight, apex round, 

 outer margin rounded uniformly, without any trace of a tail and 

 no anal lobe, inner margin straight. Antennae about J length of 

 costa. Type C. xanthospilos, Hiibn. 



Swainson places in his genus Erina three Australian species, 

 j^ulchella, Swains., erinus, Fabr,, and ignita, Leach. The first is 

 without any doubt a synonym of the type of Hiibner's genus; the 

 second would also be included in that genus, as it has a similar 

 neuration; while the last belongs to a totally different type of 

 insects. Holochila, type H. ahsivnlis, was already used two years 

 previously, so it must give way. 



There are several Australian genera that, as regards neuration, 

 are very close to Candalides, viz., Lycfenesthes which may at once 

 be distinguished by the three short highly ciliated tails; Miletus 

 {Hypochrysops) by the brilliant markings on the underside; Pseic- 

 dodlpsas, which connects Caiidalides with LyccEuesthes, has three 

 blunt tail-like projections : Fhiliris has a similar neuration to 

 Cayidalides, and it is only the shape that separates it from that 

 genus; it moreover appears very difficult to separate it from 

 Pseudodipsas, a view de Niceville took, though Druce* does not 



* P.Z.S. 1902, ii. p. 115. 



