On the Synonymy o/Huphina lanassa. 231 



as long as the basal joint. The eyes are rather large and very 

 coarsely faceted. The antennee are as long as the head and 

 thorax together, slightly flattened. The basal joint a little 

 longer than broad ; second joint very short ; third joint about 

 one third longer than broad, narrowed towards its base ; the 

 fourth to tenth joints subequal, shorter than the third, very 

 slightly increasing in width; the terminal joint as long as the 

 two preceding joints taken together, elongate-ovate, rather 

 narrowed towards the apex. Head somewhat as in Pediacus^ 

 but flatter, less narrowed in front, narrowed behind the eyes, 

 but with a distinct portion behind the eye ; surface ratlier 

 strongly and rather closely punctured. Thorax broader than 

 the head, about as long as broad, rather flat, irregularly and 

 rather strongly punctured (with a fine smooth median line), 

 broadest just before the front angles, gradually but not very 

 much narrowed to the base ; the sides almost rectilinear, 

 finely margined ; the posterior angles slightly projecting and 

 acute; the base with two widely separated sharply marked 

 foveas. Elytra somewhat as in Pediacus^ each with the 

 suture and three fine costas slightly raised ; the intervals flat 

 and appearing smooth, but there are a few fine obscure 

 punctures. 



XXXllI. — Note on the Synonymy of Huphina lanassa, a 

 common Australian Butterfly of the Subfamily PierinaJ. By 

 Aethur G. Butler, Ph.D. &c. 



So much confusion has arisen in the synonymy of this species 

 that, after carefully working it out, I feel no time should be 

 lost in putting it straight. 



The species was described by M. Boisduval in his ' Species 

 G^ndral ' (1836), evidently from an old female example from 

 New Holland in which the under surface of the secondaries 

 had darkened to ochreous with age, and in which there chanced 

 to be no submarginal spots (we have a specimen in which 

 the secondaries show only one spot on the under surface). 



M. Boisduval considered his specimen to be a male ; but he 

 so often blundered in sexing his species, that no reliance can be 

 placed upon the statement '' Nous n'avons pas vu la femelle." 

 The description " la bordure des superieures assez large " can 

 hardly apply to a male, unless it be assumed that his method 

 of description was loose, because an equally broad border to 



