1909. ] OF THE LEPIDOPTEROUS GENUS LYCNOPSIS. 423 
In one or two instances specimens are mounted so as to show 
the dorsal armature in more natural relations, as one of dilecta 
(23), of selma (29 a). 
It is a matter of congratulation from my point of view, that 
the three species that are especially widely distributed and of 
most protean aspect, viz., argiolus, puspa, and limbata, have 
ancillary appendages that are absolutely distinctive and widely 
marked off in each case from those of any other species and are 
also given to very little variation, geographical or other. It is 
different with the dilecta group of species which do not differ 
widely from each other, and amongst which I think it possible 
there are still one or two undetected species, but my information 
is too imperfect to enable me to deal adequately with this 
section. 
I think the latest complete list of Lycenopsids is that by Dr. A. 
G. Butler in the ‘ Annals and Magazine of Natural History’ for 
1900, ser. 7, vol. v. p. 441. It is curious that though de Nicéville 
(1890) characterises the genus correctly, Dr. Butler should define 
it by one character only, and that one, one that it does not possess 
—the costal vein of the primaries is not united by a cross-vein to 
the first subcostal branch. This cross-vein is rare in Lycenines, 
and it is absent in all the genera having Lycenopsid affinities, 
It is present in the Everids and some few other genera, 
Dr. Butler enumerates 57 Cyanirids and 3 doubtful species. To 
these 60 species there are in addition several further species de- 
scribed since and one or two he had overlooked, making 66 in all. 
Of these two are Everids (Lothrinia), three belong to Notarthrinus, 
and perhaps are hardly Celastrinid, one (pryeri) requires a new 
genus (Artopoetes), leaving 60 to Lycenopsis. Of these 60 forms 
I have not examined 7 or 8, but believe several of them would be 
sunk under other names were that done. The remaining 52 
appear to belong to 30 distinct species, 22 being usually varietal 
forms rather than synonyms, but in either case included in the 
30 “ good ” species. 
I have added photographs of examples of the three genera that 
appear to me to be undoubted Lycenopsids—namely, 45, Megisba 
malaya, 46, Neopithecops zalmora, and 47, Castaliusethion; it will 
be observed that in each of these the dorsal armature is without 
an accessory hook. 
I may begin with those species that I separate from Lycenopsis 
under the genus Wotarthrinus, of which the definition is appa- 
rently Lycenopsis, but with hooks to the dorsal processes of the 
appendages. Of these there are three species, vardhana, binghami, 
and musina, sufficiently different from each other to be doubtfully 
accommodated together in the same genus. In the boldness of 
the teeth of the clasps, musina seems related to the group of 
Lycenopsis containing nedda, shelfordi, corythus, &e. Tf this be 
so, this group would probably be the earliest or lowest species of 
the genus. 
