LYCANID., LAMPIDES, 165 
736. Lampides pseudelpis, Butler. 
L. pseudelpis, Butler, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., Zoology, second series, vol. i, p. 547, n. 9, pl. Ixviil, 
figs. 9, male ; 8, female (1877) ;id., Moore, Lep. Cey., vol. i, p. 95 (1881); Z. e/pis, var, psendelpis, Distant, 
Rhop. Malay., pe 227, pl. xx, figs. 27, mtale ; 28, femtale (1884). 
HasitaT: Ceylon, Malacca, Java, Bantam. 
EXxpPANSE: &, Q, I°5 inches. 
DescrIPTIon : “ Nearly allied to Z. eis, Godart, which it resembles above. MALE. 
UPPERSIDE, doth wings more distinctly bluish-opaline. UNDERSIDE, oth wings with the 
white transverse bands narrower, irregular and broken up. Aindwing withthe large sub- 
marginal black spot less broadly encircled by ochreous, ” (Butler, 1. c) 
“ MALE. UPPERSIDE, doth wings of a paler colour than in Z. elpis, with a black marginal 
line. Aindwing with a whit einner marginal line only, no submarginal spots. UNDERSIDE, 
both wings with the bands narrower, more irregular and broken, the two marginal bands 
more sinuous, the anal black spot larger and less broadly bordered with ochreous.” (JZoore, 1. c.) 
**I cannot look upon this proposed species as exhibiting anything but a varietal character 
or form of Z. elpis.” (Distant, 1, c.) 
Mr. Distant also points out that Mr. Butler’s figures of the species are inexact in some 
respects, as the female should exhibit a fuscous costal margin on the upperside of the forewing, 
whilst the ground-colour of the wings is too green in hue. Moreover, no tail to the hindwing is 
shown. 
It is of course impossible to distinguish Z. Aseudelpis, Butler, from Z. e/pis, Godart, 
by the inexact figuresand very insufficient diagnosis given by Mr. Butler. When new species 
are established on minute differences from already described species, it is of course imperatively 
necessary that minute specifications should be furnished : and the descriptions (e. g.) given 
by Dr. Horsfield for Z. e/ianus, Fabricius, Z. celerio, Fabricius, and Z. e/pis, Godart, afford 
excellent models in this respect. Dr. Horsfield has pointed out that the arrangement of the four 
discal transverse white strice on the underside of the forewing “ affords clear characters for 
a specific distinction ; ” also that “ the species can only be clearly discriminated by the mark- 
ings of the underside of the forewing, on which the specific character will eventually be 
founded,” and it is chiefly to these characters that we must look for establishing a distinction 
between L. pseudelpis and L. elpis, as between other closely allied forms in this group. 
The species as described by Mr. Butler and identified by Mr. Moore appears to occur typi- 
cally in Ceylon, where however it appears with Z. e/pzs, ZL. elianus, ard L. coruscans, and 
may have originated in hybridation, I have before me five males and three females from 
Ceylon, which on the upperside are probably indistinguishable from many specimens of 
typical Z. e/pzs; but on the underside the characters above-mentioned furnish means of 
distinguishing the one from the other. Confining attention to the four discal striz of the fore- 
wing, and designating them as nos I, 2,3 and 4—no. I being nearest to the base of the wing—it 
isseen that in Z. e/fis nos. 1 and 2 are parallel to each other, arising some distance from 
the costa and passing in a slight curve across the disc terminating on, or close to, the inner 
margin; while nos. 3 and 4, also parallel to one another, arise from the costa, but 
reach only half way across the wing ; these last consist of short linear fragments, the last frag- 
ment of no. 4 ends on the third median nervule, while no. 3 has an additional fragment 
extending from the third to the second median nervule ; this appears sometimes as a continua- 
tion of no. 3 stria, or being much broken from that stria and placed nearer the exterior 
margin, it appears as.common to both nos. 3 and 4, and thus looks like the lower stroke of 
a Y, of which those two strice are the upper arms. 
The arrangement in Z. e/pis is very different from that in Z. @lianus; and in the form 
now under consideration, Z. pseudelpis, the arrangement is somewhat intermediate between 
these two older species. In LZ. pseude/pis strive nos. 1 and 2 are arranged as in Z. e/fis, arising 
some distance from the costa and gently curving transversely to the inner margin; and nos. 
3 and qarise as in Z, e/pis from the costa and are at first parallel one to the other. But 
