FURTHER NOTE OK HESTIA MALABARICA. 243 



Ceylon, as distinct species, but as that island represents but a 

 very small geographical area, he very wisely refrained from doing 

 so. But the object of this Note is not so much to correct the name 

 by which this species should be known, but to point out that 

 Captain Macpherson is not quite correct in stating that "nothing 

 is known regarding its early history ." As far back as 1857, Mr. 

 Moore published figures of the larva and pupa of this species (Cat. 

 Lep. Mus. E. I. C, p. 134, n. 267, pi. IV., Figs. 11, 11a) under 

 the name of Ideopsis daos, Boisduval. From these figures a brief 

 description was drawn up by Major Marshall and myself in "The 

 Butterflies of India, Burmah and Ceylon," Vol. L, p. 30. The original 

 discoverer was a Captain Hamilton, who is said to have found them 

 on the Teuasserim coast. This identification, however, was an error, 

 as the following extract from Mr. -Moore's paper in Proc. Zool. Soc., 

 Lond., 1883, p. 220, n. 12, under Hes'ia malaharica, shows: — "The 

 larva and pupa of H. malabarica were figured in the Catal. Lep. Mus, 

 E. I. Co., pi. IV., figs. 11, lid, in error for those of G. [= Ideopsis'] 

 daos. The figures there engraved were stated by Prof. Westwood 

 to represent the transformation of G. daos; the drawings (now in 

 the Library of the Entomological Society of London) were received 

 by him from Capt. Hamilton ; and the species in question was 

 stated to be from the Tenasserim coast." 



" In a letter which I subsequently received from Mrs. Hamilton, 

 this lady iufgrmed me that the drawings of the above-mentioned 

 larva and pupa were made from specimens taken on the Cotiaddy 

 Pass, in the Western Ghauts of Southern India, not in Tenasserim, 

 as stated by Prof. Westwood [Proc. Ent. Soc, Lond., new series 

 Vol. I., p. 35, 1850]. This identity is also confirmed by other 

 drawings of the metamorphoses of the same insects now in my 

 possession." 



In the last para, but four of Captain Macpherson's description 

 there is a stupid misprint.' For " suspended from its oval 

 segment," read "anal." 



I hope, in conclusion, that the Botanical Section of the Society 

 has ere this been able to identify the food-plant of Eestia lynceus ; 

 specimens of it, Captain Macpherson informs me, having been for- 

 warded to it for that purpose. Should this be so, a note might 

 be added to this paper giving its name, and the Natural Order to 

 which it belongs. 



