114 
REMARKS ON SOUTH AUSTRALIAN RHOPALOCERA. 
By Oswatp B. Lower, F.E.S., &e. 
[Read May 1, 1894.] 
In vol. XVITI., Part IT., Transactions of our Society, Mr. J. 
G. O. Tepper has given what purports to be a criticism, or reply, 
to my paper published in Part I. of the same volume. TI shall 
remark on the species serzatum. 
DELIAS AGANIPPE, Don. 
The figure in Mr. Tepper’s former paper (1881) either repre- 
sents this or some fictitious species. It is certainly not “ Harpa- 
lyce.” I have the whole of the catalogued Australian species, 
and the figure approaches “aganippe” the most. If, as Mr. 
Tepper suggests, it may be “argenthona,” all I can say is that 
such plates are very misleading and worse than useless. Some 
years ago I received a poor specimen of the latter species from 
Mr. Tepper under the name of “aganippe.” This, I think, is 
how the confusion has occurred. 
D. HARPALYCE, Dov. 
This has 2o¢ been taken in South Australia up to the present. 
D. ARGENTHONA, Jab. 
This is essentially an Eastern Australian insect, and has not 
yet been recorded from Victoria. I should be very pleased to 
place it on the list, but the locality requires confirmatory informa- 
tion, Mr. Angas notwithstanding. It does seem strange that, 
with so many zealous (‘) collectors, Mr. Tepper enumerates that 
this species has been overlooked (?) for so long. 
BELENOIS PERIMALE, Don. 
This I did not include in my list. It has never to my know- 
ledge been taken in S.A. JI have specimens from Port Darwin 
and Sydney ; it does not occur in Victoria. As Miskin rightly 
points out, this is the var. of Pzeris scyllara, Macleay ; it has 
light-brown hindwings on the underside. Mr. Tepper exhibited 
at one of our meetings species of Pzeris teutonia as this species, 
hence the confusion. 
DANAIS PETILIA, Séall. 
This 7s a widely different species from chrysippus, Linn. I saw 
in one of the Museum cases a specimen of a female Hypolimnas 
