+e 
1896. ] BUTTERFLIES OF THE FAMILY HESPHRIID&, 75 
ParpanEopss, Butl. 
256. P. pprpus, Cram. 
3. Papilio edipus, Cram. Pap. Exot. iv. pl. ccelxvi. figs. BE, F 
(1782). 
Pardaleodes edipus, Butl. Ent. Mo. Mag. vol. vii. p. 96 (1870); 
Kirby, Syn. Cat. p. 625 (1871). 
Plastingia edipus, Ploetz, 8. E. Z. vol. xl. p. 358 (1879), 
vol. xlv. p. 148 (1884). 
Pardaleodes edipus, Watson, P; Z. 8S. 1893, p. 117. 
2. Cyclopides sator, Doubl. & Hew. Gen. Diurn. Lep. pl. lxxix. 
fig. 4. 
Pamphila? sator, Westw. 1. ¢. p. 523 (1852). 
Pardaleodes sator, Kirby, Syn. Cat. p. 625 (1871). 
Plastingia sator, Ploetz, 8S. E. Z. vol. xl. p. 358, & vol. xlv. 
. 148. 
e Pardaleodes sator, Watson, P. Z. S. 1893, p. 117. 
Hab. Tropical West Africa. 
After a very close study of the matter in the light of long 
series of specimens, consisting of several hundreds of examples, 
I am satisfied that this is the correct synonymy of this species, 
which is very closely allied to the next, and with which it has 
been no doubt, so far as the female of that is concerned, frequently 
confounded. ‘The crucial test for discriminating between the two 
species is the fact that in P. incerta, Snell., the anterior wings in 
both sexes show no translucency in the spots above vein 2, whereas 
in P. edipus the spots between veins 2 and 3and 3 and 4, the spots 
at the end of the cell, and the three small subapical spots are 
invariably transluceut. By holding the specimens up to the light, 
it is always possible to decide to which of the two species they 
belong. 
I am at a loss to account for the fact that several authors report 
the male and the female of both P. edipus and P. sator to have 
been contained in collections examined by them. ‘This is done by 
Ploetz in his paper upon the Lepidoptera collected by Buchholz. 
So far as my observations extend, every specimen of P. sator, 
correctly determined to be such by comparison with the very good 
figure given by Doubleday and Hewitson in their work, has been a 
female. I have seen hundreds of specimens, and many pairs 
taken in coitu, and am sure of this determination. 
257. P. inceRTA, Snellen. 
3. Pamphila incerta, Snellen, Tijd. voor Entom. 1872, p. 29, 
pl. 10. figs. 10, 11, 12. 
Q. Hesperia coanza, Ploetz, 8. E. Z. vol. xliv. p. 232 (1883). 
Pardaleodes coanza, Watson, P. Z. 8. 1893, p. 117. 
Hab. Tropical West Africa. 
The female of this species resembles the male of the preceding, 
P. edipus, but the point of discrimination enables an easy decision 
to be made in all cases, as I have already shown. 
