1902.] BUTTERFLIES OF THE FAMILY LYCiEXID^. US 



no. 1, IS91) in Li/ccenesthes, with a mark denoting that he did 

 not know the species. 



1 have seen Mr. Mathew's type, which is in Mr. Godman's 

 collection, and find that it belongs to the group of which ./. boc/ms 

 Cr. is the best knoAvn representative, but is a much duller insect. 

 We have exactly similar specimens from Rockhampton. 



Waigeum ceramicum, sp. n. (Plate XI. fig. 6.) 



2 • Allied to W. suhccerideum Grose-Smith & Kii'by ^, from 

 which it differs on the upper and under side by the white areas 

 of both wings being much more extensive, and consequently by 

 the brown borders being naii-ower. In addition to the blue 

 scales shown in the figui'e of the upperside of W. siibaerideitm 

 the lower half of the cell of the fore wing is thickly so dusted. 



On the underside of the fore wing the costal and outei- mar- 

 ginal blue lines are alone present, the blue submarginal band and 

 the streak in the cell are wanting. The submarginal band is 

 partially replaced by whitish. On the hind wing the ulti-amedian 

 blue band is replaced by a narrow line, and the yellowish- brown 

 marginal border is scarcely discernible. 



Expanse 2 inches, 



Ilab. Ceram {Wallace; Hope Coll. Mus. Oxon.). 



The type specimen, which is the only one I have seen, is also 

 labelled "Coll. Wallace, RevWtson 1874," and was probably 

 acquii-ed from Hewitson by Professor Westwood as a duplicate, 



Philiris i?fNOTATUS Miskin. 



Pseudodipsas innotatus Miskin, Ent. Mo. Mag. p, 165 (1874), 



Mr, Miskin, in his Catalogue of the Butterflies of Australia 

 (Annals Queensl. Museum, no, 1, 1891), sinks this name as a 

 synonym of P. dias Felder. I cannot, however, agree with him. 

 We have a large series of P. Uias fi'om Ambojaia captured by 

 Doherty, which do not vary, and Avhich I have compared with 

 Felder's type. P. hmotatus has the apex of the fore wing and 

 the outer 'margins of both wings more broadly black- margined. 

 The shape of the fore wings is also quite difierent : in P. innotatus 

 the inner margin is much shorter and the outer margin (which 

 in P. Uias is convex) is much straighter, consequently the apex of 

 the wing is very much more pointed. 



We have a good series of P. innotatus from various j)arts of 

 N. Australia, and I find that these characters are always present, 



Mr. de Niceville has lately (J, A. S. B. vol. xlviii. pt. ii. n, 2, 



p. 265, 1898) stated that Philiris Rober should be sunk under 



PseKjdodvjJsas Feld,, but with this conclusion I do not agree. 



Certainly the venation appears to be almost identical with that 



genus, as indeed it does with Hypochryso'ps ; but the shape of the 



wings in the male is quite different, the hind wing being much 



more elongate towards the anal angle with its outer mai-gin 



neai'ly straight. The antennas also are much longer and moi'e 



gradually and more extensively clavate. 



1 W. suhearulmim Grose-Smith & Kirbj^, Ehop. Exot. vol. ii. ; Oriental Ly- 

 cainidse, p. 35, pi. vii, figs. 4, 5 



