of the Genus Teracolus, Swatns. 499 
has a dry-season upperside and the male has a dry-season 
underside; but the underside of the female exhibits wet- 
season characters on the lower surface of the wings. The 
nearest approach to a wet-season form of 7’. fausta is repre- 
sented by a pair received from Fao, barely distinguishable 
from the male of my 7’. orzens. 
T. solaris of Swinhoe (and formerly of the Museum series), 
=T’. ortens (part.), Butler, is the true wet-season form of 
India, and 7’. rosaceus the dry-season form ; but so intimately 
is this connected with J’. faustina and fausta through the 
Persian examples above referred to, that it cannot be regarded 
as a distinct species, but can only be spoken of as the Indian 
development of 7. fausta; even as a race it could only be 
arbitrarily separated by restricting it to Indian examples. 
On the other hand, Mr. Marshall’s action in placing the 
Arabian JT. vi as a synonym of 1’. fausta shows want of care, 
or, perhaps, of discernment, in noting its entirely different 
wing-outline. 
75. Teracolus vi. 
Teracolus vi, Swinhoe, P. Z, S. 1884, p. 437, pl. xxx. figs. 6, 7. 
Aden, Arabia. 
This species is allied to J’. fausta, to which it bears a 
general resemblance; it, however, differs in its shorter, 
broader wings, with more arched outer margin, in the much 
yellower tint of the under surface, from which the discocellular 
spots have almost wholly disappeared, whereas the discal 
markings, though soft and blurred, are distinctly discernible 
both in primaries and secondaries. 1. vi is undoubtedly a 
dry-season form which has no other phases, and is as distinet 
a species from 7’. fausta as are T. fulvia and T’, tripunctatus. 
76. Teracolus fulvia. 
Idmais fulvia, Wallace, Trans. Ent. Soc. 1867, p. 392, pl. ix. fig. 5. 
Teracolus solaris, Butler, P. Z. 8S. 1876, p. 135. 
Teracolus Palliseri, Butler, Ann, & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 6, vol. i. p. 418 
(1888). 
Khandesh, §.W. India. The type, in the Museum 
collection, is said to be from Scinde, but this is probably an 
error. Mr. Marshall has confounded 1’, solaris with T. fausta 
and 7. fulvia with 1’. tripunctata ; but all are easily separable. 
T. solaris is simply T. fulvia, being based upon Wallace’s 
type of that species. 
