LYaENID.E. 101 



Two dwarf $ s, from Cape Town and Graliamstown respectively, 

 expand only lo and 9 lines across the fore-wings. 



Pupa. — Above bright yellowish-green ; beneath much paler, shining 

 whitish - green ; semi-transparent, abdomen more opaque. On back an 

 indistinct median thin fuscous line ; on this line, marking junction of 

 thorax and abdomen, a conspicuous, oblong-ovate, salmon-pink, brown- 

 edged spot ; on each side of abdomen a row of minute, indistinct, 

 fuscous dots. About 4| lin. in length. 



The remains of a silken girth were attached on each side of the 

 basal segment of the abdomen in the specimen here described, which 

 was sent to me by the late Mr. Kay, on 23d October 1869, with the 

 information that it had been found fastened to the upper side of the 

 leaf of a Pdaryonium in Cape Town. The imago (a ^) emerged on the 

 4th November. 



As noted by me {op. cif., p. 235), it was with considerable uncertainty 

 that I referred this butterfly to the Polyommatus Emolus of Godart, and that 

 I also suggested that the ^ might be the same as Lyccena Sichela, Wallen- 

 gx-en. The late Mr. Hewitson adopted this latter STiggestion in his Illustra- 

 tions of Diurnal Lepidoptera ; but I have smce discovered Sichela to be an 

 entirely different insect, not belonging to the group Lijccenestlics. Godart's 

 Emolus, however, — described at p. 656 of Encyc. Method., tom. ix. — is very 

 near to L. Liodes ; and I think that Mr. F. Moore's type of his genus 

 Lyaenesthes, viz., L. Bciigalensis — described in Proc. Zool. Soc. Land., 1865, 

 p. 773 — is almost certainly the same as Godart's species, which is stated to be 

 from Bengal. Bengalensis is described as expanding i;^ in., and so should be 

 a little larger than Liodes. Moore points out its alliance to Dip)sas lycoinoides 

 of Felder (i860), and Hewitson {111. D. Lep., pp. 214, 219) treats the two as 

 identical. Judging from Felder's figure {^^ Eeise der Novara," Zool., Lepid., 

 ii. t. 30, f. 25) of the under side, and his description (p. 258) of the $ , and 

 Hewitson's figure {op. cit., pi. xcii. f. 39) of the $ , I consider it very doubtful 

 whether Lycoinoides can be held spionymous with Moore's butterfly. I have 

 examined the specimens of L. Liodes in the Hewitson Collection ; they are 

 mai'ked as from the Cape, and agree entirely with the Colonial examples 

 above described; and I think it very probable that the locality "Gaboon," 

 assigned to the species in Hewitson's original diagnosis in 1874, and again in 

 1878, was erroneous. 



Liodes belongs to the Sylvanus gi-oup of the genus ; it is considerably 

 smaller than Sylvanus, and the cj is of a paler tint on the upper side, while 

 the $ is much bluer, and has a well-marked discal fuscous fascia in the fore- 

 wings, besides a much more developed one in the hind-wings. On the luider 

 side Liodes is distinguished by its much less distinct markings in the (^ , and 

 especially by the absence in both sexes of the sub- basal transverse row of 

 round spots in white rings. 



This is a common insect in and near Cape Town, frequenting gardens and 

 open places in plantations. It visits many flowers, and is fond of sunning 

 itself on oak-leaves. It is active and wary, and very swift in its short flights, 

 reminding the collector of the species of Thecla. I have observed it on the 

 wing throughout the year, except from the beginning of May to the middle 

 of July. It was not uncommon near Grahamstown in Januaiy and February 

 1870, I took it rarely near D'Urban, Natal, in March 1867. 



VOL. II. 



