TEBACOLUS. f 



followed Dr. Butler in uniting these two forms. He also remarks : " Intermediate 

 specimens exist which, to my mind, render it impossible to keep these two species 

 apart. Roughly speaking, T. amafus may be said to I'ange throiaghout tlie plains of 

 Central and Southern India, occurring as T. modestus in Ceylon. T. cyproea is the 

 white form of the female." 



Mr. Davidson has very kindly sent me the ibllowing note : " T. amatns is a very 

 local butterfl}', but excessively common when met with. Its larva feeds on 

 Salradora persica, a plant requiring a salt soil, and whenever that plant is found, 

 the butterfly is there also. When I first took it, I did not know its food plant, 

 and so did not appreciate the cause of its isolated distribution. I have spent about 

 twenty years in India, changing camp every two or three days for at least seven 

 months yearly. During that time I have travelled pretty well over the Tumkur district 

 in Mysore, the districts of Kandesh, Nassic, Sholapur, Bijapur and Kanara in the 

 Bombay Presidency, and also spent some months in Northern and Eastern Guzerat 

 and in Bombay itself. I never noticed this insect in Tumkur, Satara, or the Panch 

 Mahals. In Sholapur I found it in only two villages, about fifteen miles apart. 

 In Kandesh I found it in a few acres in one village ; in Nassic, in the small 

 compound of a river bungalow, and in Kanara beside one tree on the coast, fifteen 

 miles south of Karwar. It was, however, plentiful enough among the ruins round 

 Bijapur, in the salt-pans near Bombay, and all along the frontier between Kathiawar 

 and Guzerat. Now in the case of a butterfly so local, it seems to me that it is im- 

 possible that more than one closely allied .species could be found in any one of these 

 places, and if we find specimens that could be brought under two forms in one place, 

 they must be considered as one species. I find all my specimens from Kandesh, 

 Nassic and North Guzerat have a square sub-median spot on the forewing ; all 

 those from Bijapur and Sholapur have a more or less linear one, one specimen from 

 Sliolapur, however, approaching very near the Kandesh ones. I have only two 

 Kanara specimens — a male with a large square mark, and a female (I think of the 

 same brood), white, with a linear one. Similarly in Bombay I have specimens with 

 both linear and square spots (I think from one brood). I can, however, find no 

 orange suffusion on the undersides of any specimens from Sholapur, Bijapur, or 

 Kanara, while in the Bombay and Nassic specimens, some have this tint and some 

 have not, while all my Guzerat and Kandesh specimens show it more or less. 



" The larva and pupa I described in a paper in the Journal Bombay Nat. Hist, 

 vol. X. p. 572, n. 148 (1897) as follows : "Larva very like that of Terias, cylindrical 

 or slightly depressed, with a rough surface due to minute tubercles, from each of 

 which grows a very small bristle. The colour is a uniform grass-green with a blue 

 dorsal line more or less distinct, and a yellowish lateral line, dividing the colour of 



