Ixii 



reasons for considering it to be a butterfly, and maintained 

 that all its characters approximated it to the group of Pieridae, 

 especially mentioning its bifid claws, a well-known Pierid 

 character. 



The venation, palpi, claw and scales were figured by Schatz 

 (Exotische Schmetterlinge, ii (1885-6), p. 65; Taf. 4, a-e), 

 who had no doubt that Pseudopontia is a true Pierine ; 

 placing it between Pontia and Leucidea. Speaking of the 

 venation of the hind- wing he says that " the costal and 

 subcostal apparently cross one another." This condition is 

 represented in his figure, as it v/as still more distinctly in 

 the original figure of Plotz. What the real condition is 

 will be shown later. 



Aurivillius (Ehop. Aethiop. (1898), p. 386) considered it 

 to be unquestionably a butterfly, and in his book on African 

 Rhopalocera includes it among the Pierines, putting it just 

 before Leptosia {Nychitona Butl.). 



Pseudopontia was submitted to a careful examination by 

 Enzio Renter (Ueber d. Palpen d. Rhopal. (1896), p. 228). 

 He pointed out that the pal2:)i are quite different from those 

 of all other Pierines, recalling those of Hepialus and in his 

 opinion probably representative of a very old type. On 

 the other hand, he says, the " basalfleck " corresponds 

 fairly well with that of some genuine Pierines, but it again 

 is of very primitive development. The isolation of Pseudo- 

 poniia is shown also by its neuration and its moniliform, 

 clubless antennae. He sees no intimate relation between 

 Pseudopontia and other Pierines ; but, on the other hand, he 

 finds no specific Heterocerous character. The antennae are 

 RhopalocBrous. On the whole, especially as the venation 

 does not absolutely defy comparison with that of some genuine 

 Pierines, Renter inclines to consider it as a subfamily of 

 equivalent rank to the " Pieridinae," believing it to be 

 probably a survival of an ancient, long-extinct stem. 



Grote (Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc, Vol. xxxvii (1898), pp. 40, 

 41 ; Entoni. Rec, x (1898), pp. 213-215) began by acquiescing 

 in the view that it was a Pierine, but afterwards j)laced it 

 among the Hesperids, adding that it had " nothing to do 

 with Papiliones." 



