(pe) 
More than thirty years ago (in 1871) H. pachinus was 
described by Salvin, and four years later an extremely 
similar species was described by Staudinger and named JZ. © 
hewttsoni, but it was left to Riffarth in 1901 to detect that 
these two species were not genetically close, but belonged to 
two different groups. 
A remarkable fact not mentioned by Riffarth, or by 
Riffarth and Stichel in a more recent paper in the “‘ Tierreich,” 
published in 1905, is that all these pairs of species are found 
together in their respective localities. Thus H. hydara flies 
with H. amaryllis, sub-sp. ewryades, in Trinidad, and I took 
them there myself though quite unawares in July 1901. 
H. xenoclea (= batesi) and H. microclea have been sent home 
in the same parcel of papered insects from Chanchamayo, 
Peru. H. pachinus and H. hewitsoni occur together in 
Panama, and ZH. phyllis and H. nanna have been found in 
identical localities in Southern Brazil. That Riffarth’s 
character is a sound one there can be no doubt, as small dis- 
tinctions of shape and colour (not, however, always mentioned 
by Riffarth) are always to be detected, and the group character 
is never absent without the other. Why this great similarity 
should exist we have no direct proof. From analogy it is 
probably a Miillerian association, and one would have expected 
that either members of Group I or Group II were the more 
numerous because more distasteful. 
But this is apparently not the case. H. nanna and 1. 
amaryllis rosina, both of Group I, are much rarer than their 
respective “pairs,” H. phyllis and H. hydara colombina, But 
H. wenoclea also belongs to Group I and is much commoner than 
Hewitson’s figure could only be of the Group I species = H. xenoclea. 1 
therefore propose re-naming the Group II species as mcroclea, n. sp. 
Heliconius microclea, nu. sp. 
Hab. Tumatumari, B. Guiana; taken with H. phyllis, sub. sp. 
magnifica. 
Very like H. xenoclea, Hew., except that the smooth shining scalesin 6 
on the under-side of the inner margin of fore-wing do not reach the median 
nervure. The red apical patch is rounded on its outer edge and sharply 
cut below. The central red blotch shows no marked contraction within 
the discoidal cell as it does in H. xenoclea. In size rather less than H. 
xenoclen. 
Hab. CHANCHAMAYO, Peru. 
Taken with H. xenoclea, but less plentifully. 
