NYMPHALID.E. 169 



median stripe white, though not so brilliant as that of fore- 

 wing ; beyond band, and near inner-margin before it, a silver- 

 grey tint ; violet spots more lustrous than in $ ; dull-yellow 

 lunular streak beyond them more apparent, and green-tinted 

 at anal angle. 



Var. A. (Cithceron, Felder). 



$ . Fore-wing : on inner-margin, where the two transverse 

 rows of blue spots meet, a large blue space, formed by their 

 junction ; three or four spots on hind-margin, near anal angle, 

 bluish instead of yellowish. Hind-wine/ : central band 

 whitish towards inner-margin, not extending to costa, save 

 by two or three separate blue spots ; lunules on hind-marginal 

 edge pale-yellowish instead of bluish, but, as in typical $ , 

 becoming obsolete towards costa. UNDER-SIDE. Coloured 

 and marked as above described, but the irregular olivaceous- 

 whitish transverse stripes wanting, or barely indicated by a 

 slightly paler tint, though the striae that bound them are 

 distinct and strongly-marked. 



$ . More violet-glossed than above described ; median band 

 of hind-wing bluish-white instead of creamy-yellow. Fore- 

 wing : spots forming inner transverse row white, but larger, 

 more contiguous, than in typical ? , the band they compose 

 not so completely interrupted on first median nervule, and 

 continued interruptedly to inner-margin, where it is some- 

 times faintly tinged with bluish ; spots in outer row as above 

 described, but less distinct, the lower ones sometimes obso- 

 lete. Hind-wing : bluish-white median band rather wider on 

 costa ; rows of blue spots and yellow lunules as in typical ? , 

 perhaps a little broader. UNDER-SIDE. Very similar to 

 that described. Fore-wing : white transverse stripe from 

 costa a little broader, especially on inner-margin. Hind- 

 wing : median white stripe wanting, but indicated by a paler 

 space, the striae bounding it very distinct. 



Woods and forests. Not uncommon. 

 December (m) May (m). 



At first sight, Folder's Cithceron would almost seem a good 

 and distinct species, especially if one only regarded the upper 

 surface of the female. I find it, however, impossible to 

 consider it as distinct from N. Xiphares, Cram., on a careful 

 comparison of several specimens of both sexes with those of 

 the species just named. The upper-sides of the males, and 

 the under-sides of both sexes are so identical in pattern, and 

 so nearly identical in colouring, that it is difficult to regard 

 them as distinct. Messrs. Felder, while mentioning how 

 nearly allied their species CitJiceron is to Xiphares, ground 

 its rank to be considered distinct upon the differences ob- 



