XXV 



there is a vertical dark stripe, which is not present in the ?, but is replaced 

 by a small horizontal somewhat curved dark line. It would be natural to 

 regard these as special marks of sex, but such markings are by no means 

 certainly dependent upon sex. In Sithon Nedymond Cram. (PI. XXVI, i/\.2a.d.), 

 a butterfly where the sexes differ very strongly in colour both upon the upper- 

 and the underside, a similar black stripe is found upon the underside of 

 the secondaries of both sexes. This very characteristic marking, which is 

 fqund in no other of the Javanese Lycaenidae, is apparantly of the same 

 nature as that in Yasoda Pita Horsf. and yet is not a distinguishing mark 

 of sex here, but one of species. As I have remarked above, the stripes on 

 the underside of the wings of many Lycaenae do not differ in the two 

 sexes of one species ; yet they cannot be regarded as distinctive of the species, 

 like those mentioned of Sithon Nedymond Cram., as they are sometimes 

 common to different related species. The darkening of costal margin, apex 

 and outer margin on the upperside of the $ common in many Lycaenidae, 

 is also not a sexual characteristic, because, as already said, it is not a 

 phenomenon of so-called female preponderance, but is also found in the cf 

 of a few species. A similar characteristic type of darkening of the upperside 

 is found in the 9 of different species such as Deudorix Lapithis Moore. 

 (PI. XXV, 123), and Malika Horsf (PI. XXV, 124), Hypolycaena EnyLUs 

 Gdt. (PI. XXVI, i,s8(^), Amabiijs Martin. (PI. XXVII, 161), Neocherita Man- 

 DERiNus Hew. (PI. XXVI, 156), JoLAus Jalindra Horsf (PL XXVI, issd), 

 Sithon Nedymond Cram. (PL XXVI, 142^^) and others, while it does not exist 

 in the cf ; but it appears in both sexes including therefore the male, in Charitra 

 Freja F. (PL XXVII, 174), Drupada Thazis Hbn. (PI. XXVII, 169) and 

 Hypolycaena Thecloides Felder. (PL XXVI, 159). Here, again, female 

 preponderance is doubtless the cause of it. But where there is no question 

 of female preponderance, the way in which the colours appear in connection 

 with the sexes in many Lycaenidae seems very confused. In the following examples 

 both sexes are almost the same on both surfaces: Loxura Atymnus Cram. (PL XXVII, 

 176), Drupada Thazis Hbn. (PL XXVII, 169), Cherita Freja F. (PL XXVII, 

 174), Hypolycaena Thecloides Felder. (PL XXVI, 159), Lycaena Roxus Gdt. 

 (PL XX, 30) Lycaena Elna Hew. (PL XX, 31) and Lycaena Akasa Horsf 

 (PL XXII, Tia.b). In the following the uppersides are different, but the undersides 

 the same in both sexes: Jolaus Longinus F. (PL XXVI, 148^.3.), Deudorix 

 Jalindra Horsf. (PL XXVI, i53«.^.), Deudorix Lapithis Moore. (PL XXVI, 123), 

 Zeltus Etolus F. (PL XXVII, ibza.b) and Drupada Ravindra Horsf (PL 

 XXVII, \6^a.b.) and finally in Hypolycaena Erylus Gdt. (PL XXVI, is^a.b.) 

 and Sithon Nedymond Cram. (PL XXVI, i^2a.b.) the sexes differ on both sides. 



4 



