232 
M l^^ouis B. Front on the 
the ^ not. The distinction is not really sexual, and I 
strongly incline to agree with Warren in treating it as 
specific ; but it is more in accordance with common pre¬ 
cedent to restrict Burmeister’s name to his ^ than to his 
^.especially as this course preserves an older name, dating 
from 1878, and sinks the more recent (1897). 
49. Eudule LOBiFORMis (Druce). 
EuduJe lohiformis, Druce, Ann Mag. Nat. Hist., (7) iii, 294 
(1899). 
Los Vasquez, in coll. Dognin. 
Druce’s type was from Maranham, Amazons. There is 
also, as Druce mentions, a single specimen from Chiriqui, 
Panama, in coll. Br. Mus. Its occurrence singly, in three 
such widely distant localities, is curious, and one is half 
inclined to wonder whether the remarkable costal con¬ 
formation, wdiich alone seems to distinguish it from 
cupraria, is some recurrent abnormality rather than the 
mark of a species. 
50. Eudule w^eyenberghii (Snellen). 
Eudvle weyenberejhii, Snellen, Bob Ac. Cienc. Cordoba, ii, 
890 (i877). 
Cordova (Weyenbergh),/fA Snellen. 
The British Museum possesses two examples from 
Bolivia, which I believe have been compared with Snellen’s 
type, but which in any case agree very accurately with 
his description of the undersurface and the body parts, 
though their upperside agrees more nearly, in the smoky 
suffusion, with their under than his description suggests. 
Perhaps a local form. 
51. Mennis limbata (Burmeister). 
Eudule limhata, Burmeister, Descr. Phys. Arg. Rep., v (1), 
518, tab. xxiv, 4 (1878).^ 
Mennis eytherea, Schaus, Proc. Zool. Soc. 287 (1892) (nov. 
syn.).2 
Oran, Gran Chaco (M. Ruscheweyh), Burmeister’s 
type(^); La Rioja (Dr. E. Giacomelli), one ^ in coll. Br. 
Mus.; Tucuman, in coll. Dognin. 
Schaus’ type (2) Avas from Peru. 
