Monogrciplt of the genus Catochrysops Boisduval. 277 



Cupido eleusis Demaison. 

 contractus Butler. 

 his Butler. 



sancti Thomae E. M. 

 Sharpe. 



Cupido cissus Godart. \ 



,, iobates Hopffer. J 



,, micyclvs Cramer. \ 



,, togara Plotz. j 



stellata Trimen. 



scintilla Mabille. 1 ,, anatossa Mabille. 



sanguigutta Mabille. J ,, gaika Trimen. 



messapus Godart. ^ ,, lysimon Hlibner. 



mahallakoena Wal- 1 ,, mylica Guenee. 



lengren. j ,, Incida Trimen. 



hippocrates Fabricius. j ,, atrigemmata Butler, 



frochilus Freyer. ,, unigemmata Butler. 



I have bracketed those that are closely allied. The 

 first four, eleusis, coniractus, his, and sancti Thomae, 

 belong to an Oriental group of species that have hitherto 

 been placed in Calochrysops by most recent authors ; but 

 the type of Catochrysops being straho, it is not possible to 

 retain them in that genus, because they have genitalia 

 closely alHed to the genus Lycaena, and are therefore 

 Pleheinae, whilst Catochrysops belongs to the Lampidinae. 



Scintilla should also be included among the Lampidinae, 

 and sanguigutta ; but whilst the pattern of the latter is 

 closely allied to scintilla, the genitalia are quite different 

 and are similar to the next group, and thus it links up the 

 two sections. 



The third group, messapus, mahallakoena and hippo- 

 crates, form a group of their own with several more recently 

 described species, and have the furca quite free, that is, 

 a simple bifurcate organ arising from the harpagines near 

 the base, but with the tegumen very speciahsed, and I 

 think they should be included in the Lampidinae. Trochilus 

 is a Chilades somewhat allied to the Palaearctic galha and 

 phiala and the Indian laius. 



Cissus and iobates should, I think, be also placed in the 

 Lampidinae, though the genitalia are somewhat specialised. 



Micyclus and togara are allied to the large world-wide 

 Lycaenopsis section, but it is well to state that they are 

 two separate species. Aurivillius considers them (" Rhop. 

 Aethiop.," p. 377) as the same, but I came to the conclu- 

 sion after examining a number of each that they must 

 be distinct, and I therefore dissected out the genitaha and 

 found they were quite different (see Plate XXV, figs. 

 64 and G5J. • 



