1900.] L. de Niceville— Note on Calinnga. 151 



cannot be used for the genus of Butterflies proposed by Boisduval in 

 1832. In 1888 Mr. H. J. Elwes placed the genus in the Ngmplialinm. 

 In 1892 Mr. J. H. Leech placed it in the Nymphalinze. In 1898 Dr. Karl 

 Jordan placed the subfamily Gallviagiwe [sic !] in the family Nympha- 

 lidse. Lastly in 1899 Mr. John Watson noted that the genus has " A 

 great similarity to the Papilionidas (subfamilies Papilioninse, Parnassiinm, 

 and Pierinse), and to the NymphaliJse (subfamily Danainse, but not to 

 the subfamily which includes the genus Hypulymnas*) ." In writing to 

 me on February 10th, 1900, Mr. Watson says that the genus " Must be 

 placed next to (not in) the Danainse" 



Mr. Watson notes that the egg as far as he has been able to study 

 it with very insufficient and imperfect material, i.e., the broken upper 

 portions of two eggs of Calinaga davidis, Oberthur, obtained from the 

 dried body of the female, shews that Calinaga is near to the Danainae, 

 i.e., to the genera Hestia and Danais. I have nothing to urge against 

 this conclusion, in fact I agree with it so far that I think it probable 

 that Calinaga is allied to the subgenus Badena of the genus Danais. 

 The acquisition of a perfect freshly deposited egg would, I may nole, 

 settle definitely at once and for ever the position, of this anomalous 

 genus. I may note that Mr. W. Doherty has pointed out that Badena 

 nicobarica, Wood-Mason and de Niceville, has 16 vertical ribs on the ew 

 and that Badena vulgaris, Butler, has from 14 to 16 vertical ribs, and 

 25 cross-lines. When the egg of Calinaga is discovered it will be in- 

 teresting to note if the vertical ribs and cross-lines agree with those of 

 Badena. Mr. Doherty describes the eggs of the Danainse as " Much 

 higher than wide, leathery, radiate, with numerous broad flattened ribs 

 and distinct cross-lines, reticulate over a small area at the apex." The 

 micropyle of the eggs of butterflies is of little or no value for classi- 

 ficatory purposes. 



As regards the foreleg, which in the male is very hairy, imperfect, 

 having but a single joint to the tarsus, while in the female it is perfect, 

 having five tarsal joints, the terminal joint furnished with a pair of claws 

 a pair of paronychia, and a pulvillus, Mr. Watson notes that the female 

 of Calinaga " Shews in its tarsal structure the most ancient type of leg 

 of the whole of the Nymphalidse" I have examined the forelegs of both 

 sexes of Calinaga, which I could not do in 1886 when I dealt with the 

 genus in the second vol. of " The Butterflies of India, Burmah and 

 Ceylon," as at that date I had seen no female, from which it is clear that 

 the genus cannot be placed in M. Constant Bar's group Tetrapoda, in -which 

 both sexes have the forefeet or tarsi imperfect, the Tetrapoda being 



# Recte Hypolimnas. 



