468 Mr. A. G. Butler’s Monograph 
E. Doubleday, List Lep. Brit. Mus. pt. i. p. 52 (1844); 
Doub]. and Hewitson, Gen. Diurn. Lepid. p- 95, n. 7 (1847). 
Idea Agelia, Godart, Enc. Méth. ix. pp. 194, 195, n. 1 (1819). 
Amboyna, Ceram. Brit. Mus. 
I have little doubt that the insect figured by Cramer, pl. ccelxii. 
and by Herbst, pl. Ixxxvi., as a variety of Linnzeus’ /dea, is the 
Idea Aza of Boisduval. Herbst’s figure is copied from Cramer’s ; 
the only difference which he makes in any of his insects is that he 
represents them with the wings closed when the under side is to 
be shown. 
Donovan says of this species: “ Drury names it Papilio Lyn- 
ceus ; but it is almost superfluous to add that it is beyond dis- 
pute the Papilio Idea of Linnzus.” 
2. Hestia Aza. 
Idea Aza, Boisduval, Faune de |’Océanie, p. 107, pl. 3, fig. 4 
(1832). 
Hestia Aza, Doubleday and Hewitson, Gen. Diurn. Lepid. 
p- 95, n. 7 (1847). 
Papilio Idea, var., Cramer, Pap. Exot. 4, p. 141, pl. ecelxii. 
fig. D (1782); Herbst, Pap. vol. i. tab. Ixxxvi. fig. 1, 2 
(1789): 
Bouru. B. M. 
This species differs from . /dea in being smaller, having the 
wings much narrower and proportionally longer, the inner margin 
of the front wings much shorter, the discal and discoidal spots 
smaller, no spot on the centre of the costa, the sub-marginal 
series of discal spots in the front wings not so distinctly hastate, 
in the hind wings slightly broader and less continuous. 
3. Hestia Blanchardii. 
$ Idea Blanchardii, Marchal, Revue Zoolog. p. 168 (1845). 
$ Idea Tondana, Van der Hoeven, ‘Tijdschr. voor Ent. p- 41, 
pl. 4 (1860).* 
Borneo (Marchal), Celebes. $ 9. B. M. 
The female of this species much more nearly resembles HZ. dea, 
the spots being much larger than in the male, the apices of the 
wings darker, and the interneural streaks more distinet; the 
* Having carefully compared M. Marchal’s description with the insect 
figured by Van der Hoeven, I have no doubt that they represent the same 
species, although from different localities. 
