152 



THE ENTOMOLOGIST S RECORD. 



The Ci=devant Genus Epinephele. {Witlt one jdate.) 



By P. A. H. MUSCHAMP, F.E.S. 



At Ponferrada last midsummer ]\Ir. and Mrs. Page and myself took 

 a large number of K. ida and K. tit/iontis flying together on the banks 

 of the Sil (north-west Spain). One or two J s that I netted were so 

 far from the typical form as to render it difficult to determine to which 

 species they belonged. To settle the question I made mounts of the 

 genitalia of the doubtful specimens, together with a number of indis- 

 putable E. ilia and A'. titJionvs. The butterflies in question were not 

 hybrids, but simply aberrant E. titlioniis. There could be no doubt 

 about this, for though these two butterflies seem from their wing 

 coloration and pattern to be very close to one another, their respective 

 genitalia do not belong to insects of the same genus. Wishing to 

 compare them with their congeners, I at once made a few mounts of 

 each of the European Epinephele and came to the conclusion that 

 several distinct genera are grouped together under the name of 

 Epinepliele. 



In his able review of the genus Krchia, Dr. Chapman tells us that 

 from the standpoint of Eichia and its neighbouring genera — of which 

 Epinep/ielc is one^the sickle or uncus is so constant in form that one 

 might say it presents generic characters, while those of the clasps are 

 sj)ecific. In w^orking through several genera, I have only found 

 confirmation of Dr. Chapman's conclusion. Now, when I apply this 

 rule to Ejiinephele and find that the uncus is far from being constant, 

 I am bound to believe that this genus is really composed of several 

 groups, so distant from one another that it would be well to break it 

 up into several distinct genera. 



Epinepl)ele presents the strongest imaginable contrast to its near 

 neighbour Coenoiupnilia. The former seem to have been lumped together 

 for no very good reason, the latter might all be considered as varietal 

 forms of one or two species (see ^litteilunqen der Entomolnqia, Ziirich, 

 Heft I.). 



I am not yet prepared to say exactly where in the Satyrid family 

 the different groups of this most heterogeneous genus fit in, they are all 

 fairly closel}' connected with Sati/nif^, but are all, I believe, as distinctly 

 separated from this genus as they are from one another. Unfortu- 

 natelj' I only possess very few of the Paltearctic, South American and 

 Indian species, and must therefore confine my notes to the European 

 species and their connection inter se. I should be deeply grateful to 

 any collector who may happen to have poor specimens from any 

 habitat outside Europe if he would allow me to examine the same, and 

 thus enable me to learn something about the non-European KpinepJtde. 



There are only seven species of European Epitiephele, they are 

 jurtina, luirai/, lycaon, iiarica, titJioniis, ida, and paaipha'c. Of these the 

 ovum, larva and pupa of norira are, I believe, unknown ; those of 

 jmtina, lycaon, titJionii^, ida -dud /lasiphar do not resemble one another 

 any more than they resemble the Sati/ms ova, larvae and pupse. There 

 is nothing generically distinct in their antennae, palpi or veins. It 

 looks really very much as if they were lumped together because they 

 are somewhat similar in colouring, especially in the $ s. This is 

 evidently a very convenient but perhaps not altogether satisfactory 

 system of grouping. I see, however, that the latest authority on 

 Epincpltele, Dr. A. Seitz, does not seem quite comfortable about them : 



