376 HELICONIINAE. By Dr. A. Seitz. 



poisonous nature of the fluid in their bodies derived from certain plants ; and it is equally certain that many 

 Heliconiinae are protected against certain other enemies by a most acrid odour of the living insect, \\hich, if 

 the wind was favourable, I not only perceived at a distance of 10 yards, but which in the case of H. phyllis may 

 be called just as penetrating as tho,t of aflyingbug (Pentatoma). Whichever it is, it is certain that this protection 

 must be a most effective one. This is best shown by the habits developed by them in their various functions 

 of life: They fly in open places, alight very frequently, assemble in groups, have a slow, deliberate, perfectly 

 straicfht and often soaring flight, and are so little shy that many may be almost taken up with the hand. They 

 have a very tough life, enabling them to fly away without any difficulty even after having had the thorax com- 

 pressed; they display the brightest and most striking colour-patterns that may be imagined, and, nothwithstan- 

 ding the fact that by means of their broad wings they can easily gain the tops of the trees upon \\hich they pass 

 the larval stage, they descend very often to lower heights, or fly near the ground. 



If, leaving aside the colour-scheme, we consider their relationship from a systematic point or view, we 

 meet with two theories. One, considering the neuration to be the only valuable criterion for the classification of 

 lepidoptera, separates the Heliconiinae, i. e. the two genera Heliconius and Eueides, as a family of their 

 own, contrasting it with the Nyinplialidae, a number of which have the cell of the hindwing open. But it must 

 not be forgotten that a great number of Nymphalid genera have the cell of the hindwing also closed, as f. i. 

 Argynnis, Hypanartia, Vanessa, Pyrameis, Kallima, Ageronia, CaUithea, Amnosia and many others, among them 

 also a number of genera considered to be closely allied to the Heliconiinae {CetJwsia, Terinos, Atella. Euptoieta 

 etc.). During the process of development in the chrysalis, the tubular discocellular, commonly called the cross- 

 vein, is always present, disappearing as a rule in the best fliers {Apatura, Doleschallia, Junonia, Catagramma) 

 either entirely, or at least in the hindwings {Colaenis, Cirrhochroa, Araschnia, Melitaea etc.). Beyond that the 

 venation fails to afford us any possibility of effectively separating tlie genera i7ei»co»«(,?, ov Eueides (a genus with 

 very short antennae) from the Nymphalidae. Of much greater importance seem their habits and earlier develop- 

 ment, and these closely connect the Heliconiinae with the New World genera Colaenis, Metamorpha and Dione 

 and even more so with Ce</(os?'a of the Old World. Already Fritz Muller observed that a group of structurally 

 more or less similar genera, among them the American Heliconius, Eueides, Metamorpha, Colaenis and Dione, 

 live in the larval sta,ge almost exclusively on the leaves of Passiflorae, for which reason he comprised them all 

 under the name of "Maracuja-butterflies" (from the Brazilian name of those plants). This group to which 

 would have to be added the Old World genus CetJiosia, would be followed hy the Argynninae, comprising the 

 genera Argynnis, Melitaea, Euptoieta, Cirrhochroa, Atella, Terinos, Cynthia, the African Lachnoptera etc. ; there- 

 after would come the Vanessinae, the Limenitinae etc.. the Charaxinae and Apaturinae concluding the series. 

 HA.iSE, although separating the Heliconiinae as a subfamily, united them \\ith the group of Nymphalinae 

 (comprising all other Nymphalids), as well as with the Acraeinae into the main group of the Acraeomorphae. 

 Here we only wish to point out these differences of opinion, since it would exceed the limits of our work to 

 introduce new points of view ; on the contrary we think it best to retain the old system in order to render it 

 easier to readily find the described forms. For that reason we also give the Heliconids in the same sequence 

 adopted in the classical treatises of Weymer's and Riffarth's. The latest monography (Stichel and Riffarth, 

 das "Tierreich", Heliconiidae) is only a recent, rather more complicated edition of Riffarth's earlier Work, 

 embodying but a few changes. For practical reasons we will refrain from introducing any changes in Riffarth's 

 system, without, however, agreeing to it in every instance. Thus we would not place passithoe after novatus, nor 

 hortensia after clysonimus, their resemblance being merely mimetic. But on the Avliole Riffarth's system 

 clearly shows, in the chaos of coloixr-resemblances the natural relationship, for which reason we follow it without 

 essential changes. Only for the genus Eueides we have adopted a system which seemed to enable the student 

 to find more readily the desired forms. 



Judging from Riffarth's Work which within recent years has been supplemented by some new additions, 

 the number of known Heliconiinae amounts to 420, of which 360 belong to Heliconius, and 60 to Eueides. They 

 are entirely limited to Tropical America, neither passing in the Nortli tlie boundaries of Texas and Florida or 

 going (except as a great rarity) as far south as Buenos Aires. In the Antilles, nothwithstanding their favourable 

 climate,' only one species is known. On the whole there are not so very many separate species, but every one 

 of them has developed a large number of frequently quite imsimilar forms, mimicking the outward appearance 

 of some other protected species occurring in the same locality, as we have already mentioned above. The other 

 genera of the subfamily barely comprise a dozen of species. 



I doubt if any species of Heliconius is really scarce . Often I liave observed in certain localities of South America 

 certain //^eKcownwae to be rather scarce, but I invariably found later on, that be species first considered so rare would, 

 at some more distant place, at some other time or in a certain limited locality, suddenly appear in great numbers , 



