PROF, J. O. WESTWOOD ON THE URANIID#. 529 
and reaching in a fine curved line to the anal margin just above the anal angle, with 
several dark lunules between it and the tail. M. Boisduval, evidently overlooking 
Cramer’s figure, described and figured the same species in Latreille’s Appendix to the 
second edition of the ‘ Régne Animal’ under the name of C. d’urvillii, with the following 
description, which is stated to be from his pen :— 
“ CoRONIS D’URVILLU.—Dessus des premieres ailes d’un brun olivatre, ayant prés de 
la base et vers le milieu une bande oblique dentée en scie blanchatre, celle de la base 
plus ou moins violatre, celle du milieu un peu lavée d’olivatre sur son cété interne qui 
seul est denté, l’extrémité offre prés de la frange une double ligne grisitre, dont la 
plie externe denticulée: ailes postérieures se terminant par une queue médiocre, un 
peu spatulée et offrant sur le milieu une bande d’un bleu violet vif, trés-large prés de 
la cété et finissant en pointe pres de Vangle anal. Dessous des quatres d’un brun 
olivatre pale, avec une bande blanche sur le milieu de chacune, et l’extrémité @un 
gris jaunatre. Cayenne; de la collection de M. Boisduvyal.” 
Notwithstanding the statement of M. Boisduval that the type was in his collection, 
M. Guenée, who was allowed by him the unlimited use of his collection, overlooking 
Boisduval’s description, says that he only knew C. d’urvillii by Latreille’s figure, and 
that he could not, therefore, describe its colours; whilst he describes C. orithea from 
“Cayenne, un ¢ Coll. Bdv. Cette magnifique espéce est toujours trés rare.’ It is 
evident, therefore, that M. Boisduval had altered the name of the specimen in his 
collection from d’urvillii to orithea, probably in consequence of the observation of 
M. Blanchard in the Crochard edition of the ‘ Regne Animal,’ that the two insects were 
synonymous. 
The insect which I have represented in P]. LXXXVII. fig. 3, appears to me to be 
sufficiently similar to Cramer’s figure of the species to allow it to be described as the male 
thereof, the figures both of Cramer and Boisduval above referred to evidently representing 
female insects, whilst the two specimens in the Hopeian Collection, one from Columbia 
(collected by Chesterton) and one from Papagaya (collected by Rogers), are males, 
having a triangular patch of luteous hairs on the underside of the fore wings near the 
middle of the posterior margin nearly concealed by the costal portion of the hind wings 
(and hence overlooked by all writers on these insects), whilst the hind wings have a 
patch of rough black scales on the upperside between the base and the blue spot. 
The fore wings above are of a very rich maroon-brown colour, the basal fourth 
part of the wing varied with very slender purplish white lines, forming several more or 
less oval dark patches. The outermost of these lines is slightly waved at its junction 
with the principal veins. At a slight distance beyond the middle the wing is traversed 
by a distinct, nearly straight, narrow, whitish fascia, extending from the costa, where 
it is a little dilated, to the anal angle, where its inner margin is a littleincurved. ‘This 
fascia is marked on the costa with two short brown marks, the inner one of which 
extends in a much more slender condition along the inner edge of the fascia. The 
