the Lepidoptera of the Khasia Hills. 285 
Genus Eutuani, Hithn. 
163. Huthalia derma (Kollar), Hug. Kasch., iv. 2, 486, 2 
(1848). 
Common. 
164. Huthalia nara (Moore), Trans. Ent. Soc., 1859, 
Povo pleayis ls 9 
Recorded by de Nicéville from the Khasias; not 
received by me. 
165. Euthalia sahadeva (Moore), l. ¢., p. 80, pl. 8, f.3, 3. 
Shillong. One example. 
166. Euthalia francie (Gray), Lep. Ins. Nepal, p. 12, 
pl. 14 (1846). 
Common. 
167. Huthalia lepidea (Butler), Ann. Mag. N. H. (4), i., 
p. 71 (1868). 
Common. 
168. Huthalia telchinia (Mén.), Cat. Mus. Pet. Lep., i1., 
np £00; pls 9; f23, ¢ (1857). 
Common. 
169. Huthalia appiades (Mén.), l.c., p. 120, pl. 9, f.4, 3. 
Common. At p. 350, Journ. Bo. Nat. Hist. Soc., 1891, 
Mr. L. de Nicéville enters into a long argument to show 
that EH. appiades, and a number of what he admits to be 
local races, are specifically the same. It is the same 
never-ending argument as to what is or is not a 
species. If he admits they are local races, it is quite 
suflicient, and each deserves a name, ‘“‘for the sake of 
convenience.” In describing EH. khasiana, I overlooked 
E. adima, Moore, and I am obliged to Mr. de Nicéville 
for pointing out my error; but what H. adima has to do 
with H. appiades, except that it is a local form of the 
commoner and widely-spread parent species, 1 cannot 
understand. It is undoubtedly a good local form; so 
also is H. sedeva, 2, Moore, = E. balarama, 3, Moore. 
This is confined to Buxar, in so far as my experience 
goes; and because H. appiades is a widely-spread parent 
species, that does not prevent H. sedeva from being a 
good local form. As to the intergrades between 
E. adima and E. appiades, all I can say is that although 
