[ 101 ] 



VI. A Revision of the Oriental Hesperiida;. By H. J. Elwes, I.B.S., F.L.S., F.Z.S., 



and James Edwards, P.E.S} 



Received April 1-i, 1896, read June 2, 1896. 



[Plates XVIII.-XXVII.] 



Although Mr. F. Moore had previously described many genera and species of 

 Hesperiidae, the majority of which are sound and well characterized, yet this large and 

 difficult group of Buttei-fiies was, perhaps, less known than any other in the Old 

 World before Mr. de Niceville and Captain Watson began to pay attention to it; 

 and until Captain Watson's paper on the classification of the family in the Proceedings 

 of this Society for 1893 laid down a fair basis for its arrangement, Elwes had not 

 attempted to arrange his own collection, which contains a far greater number of 

 species and specimens from the Oriental region than that of the British Museum, 

 on which Watson based his work. 



On proceeding to do so, Elwes found numerous species which Watson had not seen, 

 and which required a detailed examination in order to decide their specific and generic 

 position. This he would not have been able to undertake without the able assistance of 

 Mr. Edwards, who has given all his spare time for nearly three years to the task of working 

 out the large mass of material which has passed through their hands during that period, 

 including much necessary dissection of the genitalia and the comparison of their 

 generic characters with those given by Watson. How far the characters drawn from 

 a careful examination of the male genitalia can be properly used in deciding questions 

 of specific identity or distinction is a point which by some entomologists has been 

 questioned ; and a very considerable practice in making this examination, and great 

 experience in estimating the value of the characters observed, are necessary in order 

 to form an opinion on the subject. But those who have most experience and who 

 have devoted most time to this study are, we think, practically agreed that these 

 characters are of great importance and assistance, and the question has been so well 

 stated by Messrs. Godman and Salvin in the 'Biologia Central!- Americana,' 

 Rhopalocera, vol. ii. p. 245, that we cannot do better than quote their remarks, in 

 which we fully concur. 



They say : — " As in the foregoing families, we have examined the male secondary 

 sexual organs and find an almost endless variety of structure. We have not ventured 



' The Editor of the Society's Publications wishes it to be understood that he is not responsible for the 

 nomenclature used in the present memoir, which deviates in several points from that habitually employed by 

 the Society. — P. L. S. 



VOL. XIV. — PART IV. No. 1. — October, 1897. p . 



