Monograph of the gemis Catochrysops Boisduval. 327 



vertically below the inner margin of its predecessor; a subterminal 

 row of subsagittate internervular marks and a terminal row (almost 

 a continuous stripe) of broad internervular dashes. Secondaries 

 with four black spots near the base, three below each other, one 

 smaller, shifted well in on the inner margin, and a fifth shifted right 

 out a quarter or less from the apex. A lunular spot closes the cell, 

 followed by the postmedian series of six spots, the first very oblique 

 and ovate, the second to the fourth adjacent somewhat oval, inclined 

 slightly inwards, fifth shifted inv/ards, sixth slightly outwards; 

 a subterminal row of sharply crenulate internervular marks fol- 

 lowed by a row of spots ; a subanal black spot with bluish metallic 

 scales and an internal broad orange border with a small similar 

 anal spot. A very fine short tail. 



?• Upperside, both wings brown with the central area of the 

 wing from the base to three-quarters of the wing pale lustrous blue, 

 a large spot closing the cell of the primary only, and a trace of yellow 

 at the tornus of the primary. Secondaries with a submarginal 

 row of lunular marks followed by a row of spots, a considerable 

 development of orange in the anal area above the marginal spots ; 

 otherwise like the male. 



Expanse, cj 44 ; $ 48 mm. 



Hab. Transvaal {Selous); Mashonaland {Marsha}]). 



Types in Joicey collection. 



There is no doubt, I think, that two species have again 

 been confused together. There is the blue species described 

 by Trimen, and very accurately described as to colour : 

 " in tint intermediate between the uppersides of L. corgdon 

 Scop, and daphnis AV.V." (i. e. meleager) ; he, however, 

 also saj^s with a slight greenish gloss, and it is because of 

 this remark, I think, that the confusion has arisen. I 

 have no doubt that the green and the blue species are dis- 

 tinct; the former is a rather larger and a more robust 

 insect than the latter, whilst it appears to obtain further 

 north and not in the south. Neave {I.e.) briefly draws 

 attention to this difference in colour between the South 

 African glauca and those found further north. The andro- 

 conia show decided differences, as will be seen from the 

 descriptions and figures. 



Genitalia, with the harpagines somewhat elliptical at the base, 

 tapering gradually into the usual long arm-like sclerite with a shortly 

 spatulate (almost knob-shaped) tip; the bristles are long but not 

 very plenteous ; the anellus is subconical at the front margin ; the 

 aedoeagus shortish and of medium width; the cingulum is decidedly 



