2i8 NYMPIIALID.E. NYMPHALIN/E. EUTIIALIA. 



oblique white macular band crossing the forewing from the middle of the costa to near the 

 margin above the first median nervule. 



The males of E. acontius, E, gartida and E. vasanta, which are almost identical on the 

 upperside, with the exception that E. gartida is on the whole rather paler than the others, 

 may be separated by the following characters of the underside : — 



E. acontius has on the inner edge of the pale discal area a complete series of diffused bluish 

 white lunules, the upper of which bear the pure white spots corresponding with those of 

 the upperside ; these bluish white lunules are moreover inwardly defined with dusky ferru- 

 ginous. 



E. garuda has no trace of the bluish white lunules ; the white spots are much more 

 sharply defined, and consist of a curved series of five kidney-shaped spots on an uniform pale 

 brown ground. 



E. vasanta also has no trace of the bluish white lunules ; the white spots are four in 

 number (that below the second median nervule being absent), and are arranged in a straight 

 but oblique series from the costa; the ground is not pure brown throughout, but is suffused 

 with greyish on the basal half. 



5 IS- Euthalla phomiliS, Doubleday, Hewitson. 



Itamis />hemtus,'Donh\sda.y, Hewitson, Gen. Diurn. Lep., vol. ii, pi. xli, fig. 4, vtitle (1850); Adolias 

 phetimts, Westwood, id., p. 291, n. 13; id., Moore, Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., new series, vol. v, p. 65, n. 4, pi. 

 iii, fig. 3, male (tiec female), 1859 ; A. samara, Moore, Horsfield and Moore, Cat. Lep. Mus. E. I. C, vol. i, p. 

 *95) n- 394 (1857) ; id., Moore, Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., new series, vol. v. p. 78, n. 34, pi. ix, fig. 1, female (1859); 

 id., Butler, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1868, p. 602, n. 18 ; A, hesj>erns (part), idem, id., p. 604, n. 32. 



Habitat : Sikkim, Bhutan, Assam, Sylhet, Cachar, Khasi and Naga Hills, China 

 (Butler). 



Expanse : ^, 2*5 to 2-9; ?, 3'i2 to 3-40 inches. 



Description: "Male. Upperside dark brown. Forewing with indi.stinct black sub- 

 marginal band, marks within discoidal cell, and two spots and large patch below the cell ; 

 a series of longitudinal narrow white lines tapering from costal margin near the apex to 

 middle of wing. Hindwing with basal two-thirds blackish ; from anal angle curving broadly 

 upwards to above middle of exterior margin light blue-green, the margin being white, and a 

 black line along the extreme exterior margin, which is much dentated. Narrow cilia white. 

 Underside dark brown, paler at the base. Forezoing vi\\\v longitudinal white lines, discoidal 

 marks and black submarginal band as above. Hindwing with black discoidal marks, indistinct 

 blackish submarginal band ; tlie bluish-green and white marginal band narrower, and with 

 a small black spot at anal angle ; extreme margin black, with narrow white cilia.'" (Moore, 

 I.e. in Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond.) Female. *' Upperside brown. Fomving wiih. m\ oniwdixA. 

 oblique white band from middle of costal margin to near posterior margin above the 

 angle ; also two small white spots near the apex ; an indistinct blackish transverse 

 band from near apex of forewing to abdominal margin [of hindwing] ; also an indistinct 

 narrow submarginal blackish band on the hindwing; black marks within the discoidal 

 cell. Underside greyish-brown, greyer at the base and along exterior margins ; marked 

 as above,'' (^Moore, 1. c. in Cat. Lep. Mus. E. 1. C.) 



Much confusion has arisen regarding this species. The male was first figured and 

 named in the Genera of Diurnal Lepidoptera. In 1859 Mr. Moore, in monographing the 

 genus, describes and figures the male correctly,* but describes and figures as its female what 

 appears to me to be the female of E.jania. He also at the same time describes both sexes and 

 figures one sex only, which sex is not stated, of a new species which he names A. sancara, it 

 being really the female of E. phemius. I can only conjecture that he must have erroneously 



* Mr. Moore writes me on the subject that the male and female of E. fhemius are correctly figured in his 

 Monograph, and that the type specimens of E. samara are both females, that supposed to be the male he has 

 since discovered to be a female, thus proving my conjecture regarding the supposed opposite sexes of Mr. Moore's 

 species being one sex only to be correct. He goes on to say that the male of E. samara -'should be something 

 likelhatsexof /?. z-.iirtw/fl-. I .nm sorry we differ so widely regarding the sexes oi E. phemius, but I feel 

 quite iure that I have correctly identified them. 



