SOTTERFLIES FROM THE CHIN HILLS. (i75 



271. Hesperia galea, Fabricius. 



A single specimen at 5,500 feet. I quite erroneously recorded this 

 species from the South Chin Hills under the name H. zebra, Butler. 

 This latter species which, I have no doubt, is quite distinct, is 

 readily separable by the obsolete spotting of the upperside ; the 

 regular banding of the underside of the hind wing is not such a good 

 point of separation, since in true H. galha the bands, especially the 

 medial one, are fairly sharply defined. Mr. de Niceville appears to 

 find some difficulty in separating H, evanidus from H. galha, but I have 

 not met with the same difficulty in examining the long series of 

 both species in the British Museum ; the former has the underside 

 chequered or spotted and not banded, and is to my mind quits 

 distinct. H. geroii, milii^ has a very similar chequered underside to 

 H. evanidus. 



Subfamily Pamphilin^. 



272. Pamphila gemmata, Leech. 



A fairly common species on the high ridges near Fort White ; alto- 

 gether twelve specimens were obtained during March and April at 

 from 6,500 to 7,500 feet. 



M. Oberthiir has recently (Etudes d' Entomologie, vol. xx, p. 40, 

 (1896), erected the genus Aubertia for this species and its allies on the 

 grounds that, like Hesperia, Noctua and Agrotis, the genus Pamphila 

 is a receptacle for all species the generic location of which is doubtful. 

 While, however, I fully agree with M. Oberthiir that Pamphila is 

 used as a waste-paper basket, yet in this instance I think the genus 

 has been rightly employed for gemmata, and I am unable to say how 

 Aubertia differs from Pamphila, nor has M. Oberthiir diagnosed the 

 genus, and till he does so the separation of the genus has little value. 

 M. Oberthiir also tries to make out that his name demea should have 

 priority on qv gemmata. Leech, on the grounds that the latter author did 

 not figure the species and states that " It is quite impossible to 

 identify Lepidoptera with accUiticy without a good figure, and de- 

 scriptions are quite useless unless amplified by a figure." This argu- 

 ment, it is perhaps needless to say, is quite inadequate to upset undis- 

 puted priority of publication. M. Oberthiir also claims that Mr. Leech 

 took an unfair advantage of him in the manner in which he published 

 his descriptions of the present and some other species, but, this is a 



