108 



Schm. I, PI. 98) although agreeing fairly well in the $ upper side 

 shows great dissimilarity on the underside ; there is no black anal spot 

 at all, but merely a double series of marginal lunules; it seems hardly 

 probable that Hubner would overlook such a prominent feature es- 

 pecially as according to Boisduval (Lep. Am. Sept. p. 115) he was 

 noted for his accuracy so we imagine some other allied W. Indian 

 species has been figured ; gyas Edw. approaches much closer to Hub- 

 ner's figure than does the true hanno. Lucas' hamo (Sagra, Hist. Cuba 

 VII, p. 612) probably refers to the same species as Hubner figures as 

 there is also no mention made in the diagnosis of the black anal spot. 

 Astenidas Bdv. (Lucas in Sagra, Hist. Cub. VII, p. 613) must also be 

 rejected from the synonymy of hanno as the under side of secondaries 

 is stated to possess 3 or 4 black ocelli, margined with fulvous, "tribus 

 vel quatuor ocellis, nigris, fulvocircumcinctis." We have not seen the 

 figure of Poey's filenus (Cent. Lep. Cuba) but accept Boisduval's word 

 that it is the species figured in Lep. Am. Sept. PI. 35, Figs. 5-7 under 

 pseudoptiletes; this species certainly is our Floridan one and if hanno 

 be accepted as referring to the same insect, filenus and pseudoptiletes 

 become synonyms. 



The final name in the synonymy of hanno is H emiargus antibu- 

 bastus Hbn. (Zutr. Ex. Schm. I, PI. 18, Figs. 99, 100) from 'Georgia', 

 the type of the genus, which Hubner later (Verz. p. 69) apparently 

 confuses with bubastus Cram. Taking into account the locality from 

 which the species was described and allowing for some slight inaccur- 

 acies of the artist we imagine the name to be correctly applied ; it may 

 have to be employed instead of hanno Stoll if this prove to be refer- 

 able to some West Indian species, but this is a point for some one to 

 decide who is more favorably situated with regard to West Indian 

 material than we are. 



H. gyas Edw. 



The type of this we have not seen ; it should be in the National 

 Museum as it was described from a single $ taken in Ariz, by Dr. 

 Palmer, but we could find no trace of it there. The specimens in the 

 Edwards' Coll. belong to what has later been described as astragala 

 Wright (Butt. W. Coast, p. 232) and florencia Grinnell (Ent. News, 

 XXV, 28) and as these specimens fit in well with the original descrip- 

 tion they are probably typical. Wright's figure of hanno from Ariz. 

 (PI. 30, Fig. 397) should also be referred to this species. The mar- 

 ginal spotting on the underside of secondaries is rather variable; in 



