collected by W. J. BurcheU in Brazil. 345 



(Rio de Janeiro). The data of this species not only appear 

 as A. 17. in Westwood's " Acrcea &c," but also separately 

 on a small slip of paper. In the first of these lists (only 

 including four of the dates of E. alipkera) Westwood wrote 

 the following description in reference to and opposite A. 16. 

 (Culcenis jul>a) : — " Cetkosia? orange red, with oblique brovvn 

 bar in f. \v." ; while opposite to A. 17. (the species with 

 which we are concerned) he wrote " d° smaller." The second 

 list, on the other haul, which is altogether in Westwood's 

 writing, and almost perfect, bears the heading " Small 

 narrow winged Cold'' 



As bearing upon Westwood's use of "Cetkosia" and his 

 inclusion of Eueides in the list of " Acrcea &c," it must be 

 remembered that, in 1819, vibilia, alipkera, and lybia were 

 placed in Cetkosia, and vibilia and alipkera in Acrcea (Godt. 

 and Latr. Enc. me'th. Zool., vol. ix. pp. 245 and 806). 



Eueides lybia lybia, F. 



7.6.29. =1435. "S a . Anna." On the Rio Toeantina, 

 just above (S.W. of) Paul. West wood's " A. 18." 

 (clerk's MSS.) is on specimen. 

 Westwood's list agrees with this label. The date of this 

 species not only appears as A. 18. in Westwood's " Acrosa 

 &c," but also separately on a small slip of paper. In the 

 first of these lists he distinguished this species from the pre- 

 ceding (A. 17.) by writing opposite to its date: " d° smaller 

 with broader wings & dark marks." The repeated date, 

 written by Westwood himself, appears on the slip which 

 bears the dates of Eueides alipkera. Below these he wrote 

 " 7. 6. 29 " under the heading" small sp s . d°. Like ditto but 

 with broader wings fulv". with black margin." 



Cohort y. Thaletoformes '. 



Eueides tales pytkagoras, Kirby. 



18. 6. 29. ? = 1438. Para-. 



A Westwood's label reads "Tholes Var. ? alt. Sexes?," and 

 another " Var. Costa al. ant. basi fulva. al-p. radiis, rufia 

 majoiV By the first of these labels Westwood evidently 

 doubted whether the peculiarities of pattern described in the 

 second label were those of a variety or of sex. This inter- 

 pretation i3 confirmed by his list, in which the words "Var. 



1 The numher should be " iv.," for no other cohort intervenes in 

 Stichel's classification between "iii. Lybiformes'" and " v. Thaletoformes.'' 

 Ann. & Mag. N. Hist. Ser. 8. Vol. v. 24 



