1G8 Dr. T. A. Chapman on 



are of the same tyj)e as in the rest of the genus Glaucvpsi/che, 

 though with a distinguisliing character that does not, I 

 think, preclude their belonging to it. 



On Plate V are photographs of the appendages of G. 

 ]ja])hos and G. chcmjbdis. Very good figures of the ap- 

 pendages of G. cyllarus and of G. melano'ps will be found 

 m Tutt's " British Lepidoptera," vol, xi, pi, xxxi (p. 299), 

 these being the only European species of the group. 



I figure here rough camera sketches of the clasps of 

 these four species, and also of G. couperi, an American 

 species. The few other species I have examined, such as 

 G. lygdamas and G. lycormas, have clasps very close to 

 those of G. couperi and G. cyllarus. 



The form of clasp, with spine parallel to distal margin, 

 is characteristic of Lycaena and Glaucopsyche. The two 

 genera may be distinguished by the myrmicicole habits 

 of Lycaena, Glaucopsyche living on ordinary vegetarian 

 diet. 



The clasx3s sketched show the spine to be smooth on 

 both margins in G. charybdis, G. couperi and G. cyllarus, 

 as it is in other species of Glaucopsyche mentioned, such 

 as lycormas and lygdamas. The new form from Cyj)rus 

 is the only one I have met with with the distal margin 

 toothed, 



G. 2y(f'2^hos has the clasp narrower than in the other 

 forms, the distal end is markedly oblique, in the others 

 it is so slightly so, as to allow the clasps to be described 

 as approximately rectangular. G. charybdis has a flange- 

 like ridge (marked a in sketch) and the same ridge is seen 

 in G. cyllarus. This is really a slight fold or fullness, 

 marking the line of one of the attachments of the clasp 

 to its base. It is absent in other species such as G. couperi 

 and G. paphos. 



The figure of G. melanops is given on account of the close 

 resemblance of G. paphos and G. charybdis to it. Yet the 

 clasps cei-tainly suggest that G. melanops should be in a 

 distinct genus. In this connection I should like to com- 

 ment on an opinion I appear to have held in 1910, as 

 rejjorted in Tutt's " British Butterflies," vol. xi, p. 299. 

 1 there suggested putting G. onelanops in Lycaena; this is 

 obviously inadmissible, as it is not myrmicicole and the 

 form of the clasp is also strongly against it. The latter 

 character, no doubt, appears to forbid its being a Glau- 

 copsyche (type lygdamas). I propose nevertheless to leave it 



