66 JUIOI'AUX'KHA MALAYANA. 



This fine species is somewhat intermediate between E. casiphonc and E. leucocyma,* agreeing 

 best with the last above, and with the first beneath. It appears to be a mimic of a species of 

 Euphra belonging to the iiiidamus group, though the female still remains to be discovered. 

 It was captured in Province Wellesley by Mr. Saiier, an enthusiastic collector of the Lepidoptera 

 of the beautiful region in which he at present resides, and after whom I liave named the 

 species. 



Subfam. NYMPHALINJ3. 



Xijwpliiilhitr, Bates, Joum. Eut. ii. p. 176 (1864); Moore, Lep. Ceyl. i. p. 26 (1881). 

 Xi/iiijiIiuliil(B and Furi/tt'liihr, p., Westw., Geu. Diurn. Lep. pp. 143, 403 (1851-2). 

 Moil'lii'lie, p., Wcstw., Gen. Diurn. Lep. p. 332 (1851). 

 Miii-jMiur, Godm. & Salv., Biol. Contr. Am. Ebop. p. 113 (1881). 



Discoiclal cell of the posterior wiug open, the lower disco-cellular nervule being 

 Fig. 10.— Post, wing of more or less atrophieil. Larvie variable in form. 



Discophora tnUia. ^ . 



Most authors treat the NijmphaUna' and Morphiiue as separate subfamilies, but though 

 I have endeavoured, by studying the views of my contemporaries, to find characters that 

 would enable me to follow that course, I can only subscribe to the dictum of the founder of 

 the NiimphaliiKi', that the genera grouped under the Morphiiia- as a subfamily " exhibit no good 

 character whereby they may be distinguished from the Nijinphalijue." t Most authors who have 

 followed the opposite course have also doubted the classificatory value of the lilorphina'. Prof. 

 Westwood, when he diagnosed the fam. Moi-pJiida',1 clearly stated that he followed the views of 

 Mr. E. Doubleday, a course the more necessary owing to the plates illustrating the work having 

 been already inscribed with the "distinct family headings." In his very exhaustive paper, 

 "On the Oriental Species of Butterflies related to the Genus Morpho," a memoir which 

 particularly applies to this fauna. Prof. Westwood has also expressed the view§ that he found 

 it " next to impossible to draw any (even an artificial) line of separation" between some of the 

 genera, which are thus divided in suljfamiliar estrangement, an opinion further strengthened by 

 earlier argument. || Mr. Kirby, who enumerates and uses the subfamily Morphiiia, in his 

 ' Synonymic Catalogue,' subsequently qualifies that course by stating, " The Morphiiur are a 

 group of butterflies perhaps only artificially separated from the NjimplialiiKC ;" ^ and to add to 

 the i)c'rplexity he has referred the foundation of the Morphiiur (under that name) to Mr. Butler,** 

 who has (at least where quoted) given neither diagnosis nor reason for such division. On the 

 other hand, however, Messrs. Godman and Salvin, without entering into the argument of 

 classification, "think that these butterflies have associated characters of sufficient number and 

 value to allow them to stand as a separate subfamily Morpliiiiw." W 



It is here proposed to separate the Xiimphaliiue into two groups, principally based on the 

 characters of the palpi. 



* A species received from Silliet. ■)■ Bates, .Jouru. Ent. ii. p. 177. 



:[ Geu. Diurn. Lep. p. 332. § Traus. Ent. Soc. vol. iv. N.S. p. 169. 



II Introil. Mod. Class. Ins. ii. p. 3.53. H ' Entomologist,' vol. x. p. 290. 



** Cist. Eut. i. p. 3. f f Biol. Ceutr. Am. Bliop. p. 113. 



