NYMPH ALID.E. 169 



median stripe white, though not so brilliant as that of fure- 

 wing ; beyond band, and near inner-margin before it, a silver- 

 grey tint ; violet spots more lustrous than in $ ; dull-yellow 

 lunular streak beyond them more apparent, and green-tinted 

 at anal angle. 



Var. A. (Cithceron, Felder). 



$ . Fore-tving : on inner-margin, where the two transverse 

 rows of blue spots meet, a large blue space, formed by their 

 junction ; three or four spots on hind-margin, near anal angle, 

 bluish instead of yellowish. Hind-ioing : central band 

 whitish towards inner-margin, not extending to costa, save 

 by two or three separate blue spots ; lunules on hind-marginal 

 edge pale-yelloivish instead of bluish, but, as in typical $ , 

 becoming obsolete towards costa. Under-side. — Coloured 

 and marked as above described, but the irregular olivaceous- 

 whitish transverse stripes wanting, or barely indicated by a 

 slightly paler tint, though the strise that bound them are 

 distinct and strongly-marked. 



? . More violet-glossed than above described ; median band 

 of hind-wing bhdsh-white instead of creamy-yellow. Fore- 

 wing : spots forming inner transverse row white, but larger, 

 more contiguous, than in typical ? , the band they compose 

 not so completely interrupted on first median nervule, and 

 continued interruptedly to inner-margin, where it is some- 

 times faintly tinged with bluish ; spots in outer row as above 

 described, but less distinct, the lower ones sometimes obso- 

 lete. Hind-wing : bluish-white median band rather wider on 

 costa ; rows of blue spots and yellow lunules as in typical ? , 

 perhaps a little broader. Under-side. — Very similar to 

 that described. Fore-wing : white transverse stripe from 

 costa a little broader, especially on inner-margin. Hind- 

 wing : median white stripe wanting, but indicated by a paler 

 space, the striae bounding it very distinct. 



Woods and forests. Not uncommon. 

 December (m) — May (m). 



At first sight, Folder's Cithceron would almost seem a good 

 and distinct species, especially if one only regarded the upper 

 surface of the female. I find it, however, impossible to 

 consider it as distinct from N. Xiphares, Cram., on a careful 

 comparison of several specimens of both sexes with those of 

 the species just named. The upper-sides of the males, and 

 the undersides of both sexes are so identical in pattern, and 

 so nearly identical in colouring, that it is difl^cult to regard 

 them as distinct. Messrs. Felder, while mentioning how 

 nearly allied their species Cithccroji is to Xiphares, ground 

 its rank to be considered distinct upon the differences ob- 



