412 JOURNAL, BOMBAY NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY, Vol. IX. 



Mr. de Niceville has also cleared up some confusion which origin- 

 ally existed in the genera Pisola and Capita. As I had fallen into 

 the same error as other workers with reference to these two genera, 

 and had omitted to notice that the insect usually identified as the 

 female of C. jayadeva was correctly the male of P. zennara and vice 

 versa,) the character on which I separated the two genera in the 

 synopsis in my previous paper is quite valueless, as it simply 

 separates the two sexes of one and the same species ; it has therefore 

 been found necessary to take a fresh character on which to separate 

 the two genera. 



The paper* by Colonel Swinhoe referred to above is an excellent 

 example of the pitfalls and inconsistencies into which those fall who 

 found Hesperid genera on male characteristics alone. In this paper 

 Colonel Swinhoe erects two new genera — Caltoris and Burara — which 

 differ from Baoris and Ismene respectively in certain male charac- 

 teristics, but are otherwise identical with them. But, while describing 

 these two genera, Colonel Swinhoe still leaves stigmata and jhora in the 

 genus Aeromachus (presumably because even he had not the heart to 

 separate two such intimate relations), and also retains the genus Ismene 

 for the species atajphus^ jaina^ and amara, ■which differ from oedipodea, 

 the type of Ismene, in the very important male character of not 

 having the costal margin of the hindwing folded over, while the 

 three species themselves differ, inter se, both in neuration and in the 

 development of the sexual patch on the forewing, in which latter 

 respect amara is certainly more distinct from ataphus than vasutana 

 (the type of Burara) is from amara. The description of Burara is 

 also very faulty, as, while Colonel Swinhoe notes the absence of the 

 androconia on the forewing, he makes no mention of the folding over 

 of the costa of the hindwing, thereby leaving it to be implied that in 

 this detail Burara does not differ from Ismene, which is not the case. 



So much for the inconsistencies, and now for the pitfalls. Under 

 Hasora vitta,\ Colonel Swinhoe states that that species can be readily 

 distinguished from Parata alexis by " the entire absence of the very 

 characteristic subgeneric sexual character of Parata, i.e., an oblique 



* It is doubtful if a paper so full of misprints and inaccuracies has ever been published 

 by any scientific Society. 



t This is probably an incorrect identification, the species meant being Easora chabrona, 

 Plotz, 



