LYC ANID. ARHOPALA. 279 
equal breadth, slightly curved outwards. Hindwing with the band separated from its basal 
spot on the costal margin, the anal angle with three spots of silvery-blue.” (//ewitson, 1. c.) 
MALE&. UPPERSIDE, 40th wings of a slightly darker shade of brilliant blue than in the female, 
the black margins reduced toa mere thread. UNDERSIDE, Joti wings with the markings more 
obscure than in the female. 
I have seen three specimens of this lovely species, two males taken by Lieutenant 
FE. Y. Watson at Beeling, Burma, on 30th April, 1886, anda female by Dr. J. Anderson, at 
Yimiki, King Island, Mergui Archipelago, on 25th February, 1882. The bands and svots of the 
underside are hardly darker than the ground-colour, outwardly defined with greyish, 
Since the above was written, I have seen six males and four females of this species taken 
by Mr. W. Doherty during the cold weather at Mergui and at Myitta in the Tenasserim 
valley. The markings of the underside are a little variable, the spot of the discal band in the 
lower discoidal interspace of the forewing on the underside being sometimes quite out of line, 
and some specimens shewing traces of a circular patch of differently-shaded scales on the upper- 
side of the forewing, as in 4. atosta, Hewitson, and A. antimuta, Felder. A. agelastus is very 
closely allied to 4. antimuta. 
844. Arhopala chinensis, Felder. 
A. chinensis, Felder, Reise Novara, Lep., vol ii, p. 231, n. 257, pl xxix, fig. 10, made (1865); Amblypotia 
chinensis, Moore, Proc. Zool. Soc, Lond , 1865, p. 774 ; id., Hewitson, Ill, Diurn, Lep., p. 14g, n. 96 (1869) ; 
Satadra chinensis, id., Journ. A. S. B., vol liii, pt. 2, p. 41 (1884). 
Hapirat : Shanghai, South China (Feder); Darjiling, China (4o0re) ; North India 
(Hewitson). 
EXPANSE : 4, 2'o inches, 
DESCRIPTION: “MALE. Uppersipe, o/h wings brilliantly deep blue. Furewing with 
the costal and exterior margins very narrowly blackish-fuscous. Aindwing with the costal 
and exterior margins narrow but increasing in width, blackish-fuscous, the interior 
margin dull fuscous. UNDERSIDE, both wings reddish-brown, brilliantly shining, with a 
common, whitish, marginal line, obsolete onthe forewing. forewing with the inner third of 
the surface whitish, and the following markings :—in the cell two large spots of a deeper tint 
than the ground-colour, and on the sides bordered with whitish, a third spot close to them, 
internal, and shaped as a short streak, and also a spot below it, both of the ground-colour, a 
small but rather broad disco-cellular fascia, and also a curved exterior fascia slightly broken 
posteriorly and joined at the first median nervule, these two last fascize of a deeper tint than 
the ground-colour and margined laterally with whitish, the intervals between the several spots 
and fascize of a much lighter tint than the ground-colour. Aindwing with the following deep 
brown markings bordered with violet-white :—four annular spots, one on the costal lobe, three 
at the base, the latter blending towards the costa with a short, broad fascia ; a bent discal 
fascia, another narrower exterior fascia rather close toit, broken at the first median nervule 
and anteriorly losing itself in the ground-colour, and finally an exterior shade touching the 
last fascia, the intervals between these spots and fasciz irrorated with a violaceous-whitish 
colour, also four spots on the exterior margin formed of black specks, more or less covered 
with metallic-green irrorations, and inwardly margined with a violet-whitish tint, the inner 
margin whitish-brown.” 
“ This fine distinct insect shows only a specific relationship with 4. afidanus, Cramer, 
yet it difiers also very strikingly from that species in its much longer wings, in the outer margin 
of the forewing being waved below the apex, and the entire absence of tails to the hindwing.” 
(Felder, 1. c. in the Reise Novara.) 
In spite of Mr. Moore having in 1865 recorded this species from Sikkim, and Mr. Hewitson 
in 1869 from North India, I very much doubt its occurrence within our limits, It is by no 
means improbable that those writers mistook A. chinensis for a somewhat similar Sikkim 
species which I have since described as Wi/asera asoka, but the latter is tailed, while the former 
