1909. ] OF THE LEPIDOPTEROUS GENUS LYCHNOPSIS, 421 
between the spots of two specimens of the same species until an 
examination of the appendages led me to believe they might be 
the same species, and with this indication an identity of the 
arrangement of the spots in both could easily be accepted. 
Considering these difficulties, it is not to be wondered at that 
some confusion has, hitherto, existed as to certain species. The 
wonder is that the amount of accuracy, that actually obtains, has 
been achieved. I would, however, sincerely beg no one to name 
any more “species” until he has fairly located them as new or 
otherwise, by examining the appendages, which give an uncertain 
answer in very few cases, 
What appealed to me as perhaps the most interesting circum- 
stance I have unearthed, is the remarkable (apparently mimetic) 
variation that occursin LZ. argiolus. Possibly the hope of meeting 
with similar cases urged me to continue the researches. Though 
other species present considerable variations of the same character, 
their number and range is far short of that of argiolus. It 
remains, however, very possible that many more similar cases 
are still to be discovered when larger series of specimens from 
the different Malayan islands are available for full discussion. 
I have not found any account of the ancillary appendages of 
this group, but I am not a successful searcher of literature; still, 
I believe no such account exists. Some observations have, how- 
ever, been made, as I find that Doherty (J. A. S. B. 1886, p. 134) 
refers to the value of the “ Prehensores” for distinguishing the 
species of the group. I cannot discover, however, that he 
afterwards published any details. 
Though I have examined the ancillary appendages of various 
Lepidoptera of many different families, I am much impressed 
with the fact that my knowledge is really very superficial and 
fragmentary. The result is, that in defining the generic characters 
of these organs in Lycenopsis, | do not experience very much 
confidence. 
Throughout the Lycznide it is hardly too sweeping a state- 
ment, so far as my observations go, to define the dorsal armature 
as consisting of two lateral halves with more or less of a hiatus 
between them, each lateral half carrying near its base a paramere 
or appendage, articulated to 1t so as to be freely movable and more 
or less curved, bent, or twisted. In a few genera the two lateral 
halves coalesce in the middle line. In Lycenopsis we have a 
remarkable specialization of these dorsal processes, a specialization 
by way of simplification or loss of parts. The movable paramere 
or hook is quite wanting. 
This specialization 1s so remarkable as at least to justify the 
inclusion in the Lycenopsids of all genera that show this special- 
ization, of which at present I have only recognized Castalius, 
Megisba, and Neopithecops. Of those genera apparently near 
that possess these hooks, such as Pithecops, Niphanda, &c., 
the only one that I incline to regard as Celastrinid is Zizera, 
