A KEY TO THE ASIATIC GENERA OF THE HESPERIID^E. 413 



glandular streak on the fore Wings above." The next line reads 

 " Genus Parata^ Moore," but if Parata differs from Easora only 

 in an admittedly " subgeneric sexual character," why treat it as a 

 distinct ' { genus." The same remarks, mutatis mutandis^ apply to the 

 re-erection of the " genus " Pyrgus^ which differs [teste Swinhoe) 

 from Hesperia in wanting the " sub-generic " character of a tuft 

 of hair on the hind tibise. In this case, however, the pitfall is of 

 greater depth, as, though Colonel Swinhoe is quite right in saying that 

 Pyrgus and Hesperia differ as stated above, yet he has unfortunately 

 overlooked the fact that the species galba, for which he re-erects the 

 genus Pyrgus, differs from syrichtus, Fabricius, the type of Pyrgus, 

 in the absence of the sub-generic sexual character of a costal fold on 

 the forewing, so that, arguing on Swinhoean lines, the generic 

 name Pyrgus is no more appropriate to galba than is the name 

 Hesperia. 



In this same paper Colonel Swinhoe describes eight new species of 

 Hesperiidce of only one of which mention will be found in the lists of 

 species below, as I consider that the rest of them belong to species which 

 have already been described and named. The eight species are 

 Isma isota, Caltoris onchisa, Halpe aucma, H. marta, H. ivantona^ 

 H. perara, H. teliga, and Astictopterus kada. What is described as 

 Isma isota is simply the male of Z. cephala , which species differs 

 sexually precisely in the points which Colonel Swinhoe has laid stress 

 upon ; Z. cephala was : originally described from a female, and the type 

 is in the Hewitson collection at the British Museum, while in the 

 general collection at the same Museum there is a series of both 

 sexes which Colonel Swinhoe apparently omitted to consult 

 before describing his 1. isota. " Caltoris " onchisa is an aberration of 

 " Caltoris^ austeni. I have seen the two specimens described, and 

 can state with certainty that the C( pale subapical fascia" on the 

 forewing, which is the sole distinguishing character of onchisa, is not 

 natural, but is the result of an accident either before or after capture, 

 while the fascia is not of the same extent in both specimens ; I suspected 

 the nature of the fascia when I saw the specimens, and have since myself 

 obtained a specimen of Baoris conjuncta, which has a precisely similar 

 fascia ; the marking is in all probability due to the insects having been 

 stained by moisture while in their " papers." In the description the 



