*2 ^Ir. G. T. ] 5{iiPinie-Baker's Revision of the 
Revision of the African species of the group. In 1893 
Kar.scli divided the genus into two, creating a second, 
Triclema (Berlin Ent. Zeit., 1893, p. 227) with lucretilis, 
Hew., as its type ; the difference in the two genera lying in 
the subcostal veins, Lycaenesthes having four, Triclema only 
three, whilst vein 11 anastomoses with 12 in Triclema 
but not in Lycaenesthes. Aurivillius (in op. cit.) objects to 
this subdivision on the ground that in one species vein 8 
is very short and almost wanting. It is with very great 
hesitation that I venture to differ from so able and revered 
an authority as the celebrated Swedish professor, but the 
fact remains that in the species he cites— turhatus, Grose- 
Smith (a synonym that must fall before lyzanius, Hew.)— 
the vein 8 remains: it is short, no doubt, but it remains, 
and therefore it does not belong to Triclema. This opens 
a wide subject, viz. •“ On what characteristics may we found 
new genera?” It is now almost universally conceded that 
where structure differs, another genus should, or may be 
erected; and the learned professor himself acts on this 
theory, for in this group that we are dealing with he has 
created the genus Cupidesthes (Ent. Tid., xiv, 1895, p. 215), 
on the ground that the eyes are naked, that the shape of 
the wings differs slightly, and that the species rohusta, 
Auriv., is, as its names signifies, more robust. Now the 
neuration of the Lycaenidae is one of their most constant 
and reliable characters. Many years’ study of the group 
from all over the world has certainly revealed a remarkable 
constancy of this character, whilst the study of this one 
genus only has revealed the fact that in more than one 
species the eyes may be hairy or not in individuals of the 
same species. I hold the view that neuration is a very 
important structural point, and, generally speaking (apart, 
of course, from those exceptional genera where tlie sexes 
differ in neuration as also in some cases individuals like¬ 
wise, but these are probably instances of change; the 
species and the genera being in a period mutation), is 
sufficient of itself to establish the validity of a genus. 
Under these circumstances I cannot do otherwise than 
maintain the validity of Karsch’s genus; but more than 
this, I am Avith some reluctance perhaps, raising two 
additional genera for the group. In several species vein 
11 and 12 anastomoses and there are four subcostal veins, 
whilst in several other species veins 11 and 12 do not 
anastomose, but there are only three subcostals. 1 do not 
