276 Mr. G. T. Bethune-Baker's 



De Niceville uses the genus for species that possess three 

 quite distinct types of prehensores — viz. C. strabo Fab., 

 and lithargyria Moore; C cnejus Fab,, with its forms 

 Jiapalina Butler, theseus Swinhoe, and 'pandava Horsfield ; 

 and C. ella Butler and C. contracfa Butler. These may be 

 races of each other, but they belong to a totally different 

 group ; they are essentially Lycaenid in their genitalia (by 

 " Lycaenid " I mean they belong to the group of which 

 Lycaena arion is the type). I am quite unable to judge 

 why so keen an observer as de Niceville should consider 

 that they are forms of C. cnejus. Lastly, we have C. pan- 

 dava Horsfield and nicola Swinhoe — again with widely 

 differing genitaha which are essentially Plebeid in their 

 development. I shall conssider these in detail elsewhere, 

 but I think that each of the latter two sections will require 

 a generic name ; whilst of Catochrysops, as restricted above, 

 I have no doubt that Butler was correct when he gave 

 cnejus the new generic name of Euchrysops, and this 

 genus of the Asiatic group only can be included in this 

 memoir. 



Turning now to Aurivillius we find that in his " Rhopa- 

 locera Aethiopica "' he groups a vast assemblage of genera 

 and species under the omnibus genus Ctipido, which he 

 divides off into sections, calUng them first group, second 

 group, and so on. I can see a reason for using a single 

 name for a great genus, but if it is necessary to divide it 

 up into sections or groups I can see no reason for discarding 

 the names given to those groups, more particularly when 

 most of those names have been bestowed because of the 

 structural characters obtaining in the species dealt with. 

 The fifteenth group contains all the African species of 

 Catochrysops with which Aurivillius was acquainted, but 

 he also includes in the same section twenty-two other 

 species belonging to quite different genera. 



I have found one well-marked character in the genitalia 

 that obtains in all the species I have dealt with, but does 

 not obtain in any of the twenty-one species included by 

 Aurivillius in the section, viz. the junction in a most 

 definite way of the furca and the anellus through which 

 the aedoeagus invariably passes and in which it rests ; 

 whilst in addition to this character the v/hole form 

 and structure of the genitaha differ considerably from 

 them. 



The following is a list of the species which I exclude. 



