358 Mr. A. G. Butler on Butterflies from the South Seas. 



a more powerful build ; it is, however, allied to E. La^jeT/rousei 

 and JE. sejyulchralis. 



3. Euploea Schmeltzi. 



Euploea Schmeltzi, Hemcli-Schaffer, Stett. ent. Zeit. 30 Jalirg. n. 1-3, 

 p. 70. 11. 4, pi. 1. fig. 8 (1869). 



One specimen. (Upolu ?) South-Sea Islands. 



Differs from the figure in the ' Zeitung ' in having no sub- 

 marginal spots above or below ; but in the subapical spots of 

 the front wings, and the central spots on the under surface, it 

 exactly agrees with Dr. Herrich-Schaffer's species. 



4. Euploea Helcita. 



Euploea Helcita, Boisduval, Bull. Soc. Ent. France, p. 15G (1859). 



One individual. South-Sea Islands. 



The E. Eschscholtzu of Felder, as figured by Dr. Herrich- 

 Schaffer, is only a dwarfed specimen of this species, which is a 

 race of the following. 



5. Euploea Eleutho. 



Danais Eleutho, Quoy & Gaimard in Freycinet's Voy. pi. 83. fig. 2 (1815). 

 Three examples ( ? ). South-Sea Islands. 



This is distinct from E. Augasii of Felder, which I erro- 

 neously referred to it in my paper on this subfamily, published 

 in the '■ Transactions of the Entomological Society.' 



6. Euploea Herrichii. 



Euploea Herrichii, Felder, Reise der Novara, p. 344. n. 477, pi. 39. figs. 3,4 

 ('' 1865 ") = ^. Proserpina, Butler, in P. Z. S. p. 300 (1866). 



Two specimens. Fiji Islands. 



As the question of priority with regard to the species de- 

 scribed in the * Novara ' seems unlikely to be satisfactorily 

 settled, I am quite willing, for the benefit of science, to with- 

 draw my claim. There are, however, three interesting ques- 

 tions respecting the publication of the second part of the work 

 which as yet I have not seen answered : — First, if the letter- 

 press for the part was ready with the plates, why did the notice 

 on the cover of the preceding part state that the plates for the 

 succeeding part (and not the plates and letterpress or the j9ar< 

 itself) would shortly be ready ? Secondly, if the uncoloured 

 part was to be had upon application to the publisher in 1865, 

 there is still no published evidence that any copies were pub- 

 licly sold that year. Thirdly, if such copies were sold, were 

 they obtained by favour? and was the uncoloured form the 

 complete form of the work, since some of the figures on the 

 plates are not recognizable without colour? I should say not. 



