NYMPHALIDJE. DANAIN^. EUPLCEA. 93 



except on the paler border, suffused with violet in certain positions ; the anterior area 

 with a paler ground, and a concealed pearly whitish costal vitta ; submarginal spots white, 

 small, often evanescent, and others before the outer margin obsolete, most frequently entirely 

 absent. Underside pale swarthy. Fornving with an internal hoary streak, and the two 

 usual internal elevated spots; the subcostal spots, and three discal of the uppcrside on a darker 

 ground (the lower median one much larger), small submarginal spots in a bent series, and dots 

 before the outer margin, violet-white, circled with blackish swarthy. Hindwing, with white 

 basal dots, a spot within the cell, and five or six beyond around it, minute, violet-white, circled 

 with swarthy ; the submarginal spots, and dots more or less large before the lower outer 

 margin, white." (^Felder, 1. c. ) 



Specimens from Sikkim in Colonel Lang's collection have \\\q forewing on the upperside 

 deep rufescent swarthy, shot throughout with bright violet-blue ; a spot in the cell at end, a small 

 subcostal spot, sometimes absent, an angulate row of four or five discal spots round end of cell, 

 a submarginal row of seven spots, and a few marginal spots from hinder angle, pale violet-blue. 

 The discal and submarginal spots large, especially the latter. Hindiving rufescent fuscous, 

 paler than forewing, paling towards the margin, faintly shot with violet-blue at the base ; 

 the costal margin broadly whitish ; a faint indication from the apex of an obsolete submarginal 

 series of white dots. In some specimens this series of spots is very conspicuous, pure white, 

 and not quite reaching the anal angle. 



The male only differs from the female in having two long impressed silky streaks on the 

 forewing, and the inner margin convex instead of straight ; in the hindwing of the male the 

 submarginal series of spots is almost altogether obsolete ; in that of the female it is rather 

 more prominent. Underside paler, rufescent fuscous, darker in the middle of the forewing. 

 Forewing with the inner margin broadly white ; all the spots of the upperside are represented 

 but smaller, especially in the submarginal row ; in the discal series the second from the costa 

 is minute, the third scarcely visible, the fourth large and square, the fifth large and oval. 

 hindwing, with small violet-white dots, a few at the base, one in the cell at end, five discal 

 round the end of the cell smallest towards the costa, three or four submarginal from costal 

 end, one between each pair of nervules, and nine marginal from anal angle, two between 

 each pair of nervules. These two latter series of spots are very variable, in some specimens 

 they are almost complete right round the outer margin of the wing. The female has a 

 bluish-white streak on the interno-median area. In a female specimen from Cachar the sub- 

 marginal row of spots is very large and white-centred, the discal series is also complete from 

 costa to internal nervure. Mr. Wood-Mason took two pairs in Cachar in June. 



The figure is taken from a male and female, showing the upperside, from Sikkim. The 

 specimens are in the Indian Museum, Calcutta. 



The two following species have recently been separated by Butler, but the characters on 

 which he bases his distinctions are so excessively variable that it is doubtful whether the 

 separation can ultimately be maintained. 



79. Euploea Isiixotata, Butler. 



Stlctoploeabinotata, Butler, Journ. Linn. Soc, Zoology, vol. xiv, p. 302, n. 7 (1878); Euplota caUithcl^ 

 Butler {nee Boisduval), Proc. Zool. Soc, Lond., 1866, p. 272, n. 10. 



Habitat : Sikkim, Sylhet, N. and E. India, Borneo. 



Expanse : 4*2 inches. 



Description : '-Male and Female : Fornving quite as in [£■.] 5. hopei, Felder. Hindwing 

 with only two white subapical points, all the other spots obsolete. This is the E. calUthoe of 

 my Monograph, but not of Boisduval." {Butler, 1. c.) 



This is recorded here on Butler's authority as a distinct species, but the single character 

 given in his description as distinguishing it from E. hopei is one so variable in the latter species 

 that a distinction based on it should only be accepted with caution, especially when, as in this 

 case, both species occur in the same localities. These remarks apply equally to the following 

 species, E, microsticta. 



