116 
is wanting in aurifer. I strongly suspect Mr. Tepper has not 
yet seen the true “aurifer,” but is referring to ‘“ @nea,” Miskin. 
Sir W. MacLeay did not confuse two species when he gave Mr. 
Tepper the name “ discifer,” H.8., this name, as I mentioned. 
being synonymic with ‘‘ /ucanus.” Kirby’s Synonymic Catalogue, 
quoted by Mr. Tepper, is not a masterpiece on the subject, and 
sadly requires revising. Mr. Tepper has miscontrued my remarks 
with regard to this species frequenting ‘‘Stinkwort.” It is 
incorrect to say I “suggested” this as being the food-plant. I 
mentioned the fact of its “ frequenting” stinkwort for the benefit 
of those interested in our branch of Natural History, and the 
reference is not misleading. 
Oeyris, MWeste. 
Before making any remarks in answer to Mr. Tepper’s criti- 
cisms, I would advise him to study Miskin’s revision of the genus 
(Proc. Linn. Soc., N.S.W., 1890), wherein the doubts and differ- 
ences of several species are set at rest. What I wrote on this » 
genus is substantially correct, and admits of no doubt, with the 
exception perhaps of O. amaryllis. In reference to this species, 
I have recently received a communication from Mr. E. Guest, of 
Hoyleton, stating that he has taken this species and “oretes” in 
cop. This almost convinces me that they are one and the same 
species, but what I cannot understand is the well-marked differ- 
ence on the underside of the two species. In thesexes of all the 
other species the markings of the underside are identical, and it 
seems very strange that such expert Lepidopterists as Hewitson 
and Miskin should make mistakes. Miskin says Hewitson’s 
figures represent females of both ‘‘oretes” and “amaryllis.” Mr. 
Tepper says it is the male ‘‘oretes” which is shown. I possess 
what is said to be female “ orwtes.” It is the identical species 
which Miskin identified and based his conclusions on, but really 
I must acknowledge that the specimen is not in a condition to 
decide with any accuracy as to it being a female, as Miskin makes 
it. In conclusion, I may here say that I intend to keep the 
two(?) species separate until confirmatory evidence is forthcoming 
to show that they are one and the same species. I think that 
Mr. Tepper’s remarks respecting “idmo” and “halmaturia” call for 
no special remarks, but as he has challenged my decisions I must 
retaliate. I here again state that the so-called female “halma- 
turia,”’ Tepp., is the male of idmo, Hew., and the so-called male 
“halmaturia” is identical with Felder’s figure of the male “‘otanes.” 
Miskin is in error in supposing it, 7.¢., ofanes, to be a small form 
of “genoveva.” Any one has only to compare the published de- 
scriptions of the above-mentioned species to see that there is no 
difference. Kirby’s inclusion of Hewitson’s “ otrontas” (I pre- 
