1921] MouLTON : Malaipian Butterflies. 159 



The nomenclature adopted is that used m Seitz's 

 " Macrolepidoptera of the World," unless otherwise stated. 

 The method of printing the subspcctfic name in less pro- 

 minent type than the generic and specific names was 

 adopted in mv " Hand List of the Birds of Borneo " ' and 

 my paper on the " Tlie Butterflies of Borneo.- The reten- 

 tion of the author's name for a species even when followed 

 by a subspecitic name was also adopted in those papers. 

 Both courses appear to me to be an improvement on the 

 usually accepted method of writing trinomials, and have 

 since received the official approval of the British Association 

 Committee on Zoological Nomenclature. 



All the species of Danainae now known from Malaysia 

 are listed in this paper and numbered consecutively from 

 1 to 52. Under each species all the Malaysian subspecies 

 are listed but not numbered. 



A list of the literature quoted is placed at the end of 

 this paper. The footnotes refer thereto. 



Fam. NYMPHALIDAE. 



Subfam. DANAINAE. 

 Genus Hestia, Hiibn. 



The foiu- Malaysian species of this genus fall into two 

 groups or subgenera : - 



«. Wings eloif^J'tt' i»n<l weak ; hind wing with 

 three irregular dark spots (the outer one 

 small) in space between costal nervure and 



lirst iiut)costal nervule Hestia. 



a'. Wings rounded and stronger ; hind wing with 



only two irregular spots in costal interspace Nectaria. 



le structural differences between these two " groups " 

 as given l)y Frulislorfer do not ap|)ear to be sulticiently 

 marked or constant to be of much assistance. The second 

 subcostal nervule of the fore wing arises as a rule very 

 slightly nearer to the apex of the ceU in Hestia males than 

 in Nectaria, but in Hestia females there are some in which 

 the origin of this nervule is just as far from the apex of the 

 cell as in the Nectaria species. The second character given 

 by Fruhstorfer, viz. length of lower discocellular in the 

 hind wing, is also variable and not markedly distinct in the 

 two subgenera. The sui)erficial characters given in the 

 above key, however, wUI serve to distinguish the two 

 subgenei-a^ quite clearly. 



%. 



' MouLTox, 1914, pp. 127-8, 131 et seq. 



'MouLTON, 191.'), pp. 198, 200 et seq. 



' FRUnsr()UKi:R, 1910, p, 218. 



M follow Bingham in using the term "subgenus" for sub- 

 divisions of a genus, rather than de Niceville who used the term 

 *' group." Fruhstorfer uses both terms, the latter ranking as of 

 less importance than the former. The distinction between 

 (lillerences of " subgeneric " and (lillerences of " group " impor- 

 tance nmst necessarily be a mailer of personal opinion, probably 

 I)roductive of more confusion and discord than clearness. In this 

 paper, therefore, genera, when divided at all, are split into sub- 

 genera only. 



