BUTTERFLIES FROM THE CHIN HILLS. 651 



differs from Y. asterope, and when the former was originally described 

 it was compared with Y. ariaspa, Y. rara {ariaspa) and Y. norma, 

 but not with Y. aster ope. 



50. Ypthima iaeba, de Niceville. (Plate A, Fig. 5, $.) 

 A single male of the species was obtained by Captain Longe, R.E., 

 in Manipur. I described it as new and sent the type to Mr. de Niceville 

 and found he had just described it from !N.-E. Sumatra under the 

 above name. Its nearest ally is probably Ypthima haldus, Fabricius, 

 but the oeelli on the underside are arranged as in Ypthima huehnerii, 

 Kirby. There is no male-mark perceptible on the upperside. 



51. Callerebia oeixa, Moore. 



Not uncommon at from 3,500 to 5,500 feet in May and June. 



52. ZiPCETES SGYLAX, Hewitson. 



Common, but very local, both at the foot of the hills and in the 

 Upper Chindwin during April. Only found near water. 



53. Epjtes falcipennis. Wood -Mason and de Niceville. 

 A single damaged specimen taken in the Upper Chindwin in April, 



54. Melanitis ismene, Cramer. 



55. Melanitis bela, Moore. 



56. Melanitis zitenius, Herbst. 



The above-named three species of Melanitis occurred commonly in 

 the Upper Chindwin, but were not seen in the hills. 

 Subfamily Elymniin^. 

 57. Elymnias ukdularis, Drury. 



The form named E. tindoria by Moore was common in the Upper 

 Chindwin. 



58. Elymnias (Melynias) patna, Westwood. 



A single male from the Upper Chindwin in May. Though this 

 particular specimen belongs to the form M. patnoides^ Moore, yet I do 

 not think that name should be admitted, since a single male in my 

 collection from Assam also belongs to the form patnoides and not to 

 typical M. patna as one would expect from the locality. In this 

 connection I may state that the male M. vasudeva, recorded by me 

 from Upper Tenasserim and referred to by Mr. Moore in his descrip- 

 tion of M. burmensis in " Lepidoptera Indica," part 19, is a typical 

 male of ili. vasudeva^ and agrees exactly with Moore's figure of that 

 species on Plate 142, figure 1, and does not at all agree wr.b the 



15 



