1018 Additions: PIERIDAE. Bj' J. Rober. 



Cerberus. Cat. cerberus G. & S. from Costa Rica which has remained unknown to me, has been described 



as follows: ,,? wings sooty, the usual white band (on theforewing broken up into spots) proceeds from the costal 

 margin of the forewing behind the discal cell and extends to the proximal margin of the hindwing, almost 

 disappearing fine (white) spots at the discal cell of the forewing, the usual row of submarginal and on the hind- 

 wing also marginal white spots; forewing beneath almost as above, the submarginal spots larger, with 5 j^ellow 

 marginal lines, the discal bands of the hindwings running across the discal cell, parted by the veins, the other 

 submarginal band distally deeply serrate, also parted by the veins, at the margin itself triangular and at the 

 base of the wing white spots, between the veins small lines, that in the discal cell prolonged, the latter saffron- 

 coloiu-ed like the marginal spots. (J hitherto uiiknown. We have but 1 $ of this species, differing from all the 

 others known to us. It may be the most closely allied to tomyris Fldr. (22 f ), but a comparison of the figures 

 clearly exhibits the differences." 



Cat. pinava (22 b), according to Lathy cfc Rosei^"beeg, is said to be boliviana Btlr. 



Cat. vapina (p. 70), according to Lathy cfc Rosenberg, is said to be synonymous with incerta Dogn. 



Cat. philomene (p. 71) which we figure on t. 194 c, is by no means identical with colla (22 b), as Lathy cfc 

 Rosenberg pretend. 



Cat. hopfferi (22 c), according to Lathy & Rosenberg, is said to be identical with pinava DM., 

 but they do not state what they think the insect to be figured on t. 22 b as pinava; also in this case, if the 

 said authors are correct, the discription is insufficient; the description, however, does by no means agree in 

 every respect with hopfferi, for which reason the denomination of this species as hopfferi will have to be 

 adhered to. 



Cat. modesta (22 e) is said not to agree with the type and the latter to resemble pinava Dbl. ; Lathy & 

 Rosenberg would have set a meritorious example by figuring the species which have been insufficiently described 

 or not figured, since these species cannot be cleared up without any figm-es of the types. - — • The species figured 

 on t. 22 e as modesta is said to be strigosa Btlr. (p. 72), but the description of the under surface does in no way 

 fit the species figured by us as modesta. Butler compares it with ctemene (22 c), the correct determination 

 of which has not been contested by Lathy cfe Rosenberg. 



Cat. affinis (22 d), according to Lathy & Rosenberg, is said to be identical with philone Fldr. ; the 

 latter is said to occm' in Venezuela and Ecuador, whereas affinis has been established from Colombian specimens ; 

 presumably there are nevertheless differences between both; a comparison with the type is not possible, since 

 the latter is in England. 



(ilbina. Cat. albina L. & R. {— zebra Fruhst.) (194 b) is presumably a conspicuous local form of hebra (22 d); 



zebrella. the under surface is lighter, and the light stripes of the forewing are more yellow. Bolivia. — zebrella Fruhst. 

 is smaller and darker without any white apical stripes of the forewings. Peru. 



scurra. Cat. scurra Stgr. i. I. (194 c) differs above and beneath to such an extent from manco (194 c) that 



it must be considered as a separate species. From the Upper Amazon (Peru). 



hithyna. Cat. bithyna Stgr. i. I. ? (194 c) differs above very much from all the other species, as the figure shows, 



whilst the under surface is very much like that of pitana. Colombia. 



philonarche. Cat. philonarche Fldr. (194 c). We figure the two species lying before us, which presumably belong to 



this species. The descriptions bj' the authors Felder are mostly of such a kind that the species described cannot 

 be ascertained from them. The specimens figured vary a little from each other above and beneath, though not 

 to such an extent that they would have to be considered as the representatives of different species. Habitat : 

 Colombia (Cauca Valley?). 



jjhUais. Cat. philais Fldr., philone Fldr., and potamea Fldr. What we have said of the philonarche, also 



pMlone. refers to the original descriptions of these species. There are no specimens before us that might correspond 



^ " ' with these species, not even in a questionable way. Patria: of philais and philone: Colombia; of potamea: 



Venezuela. 



pieridoides. Cat. pieridoides Fldr. is presumably the somewhat darkened form of pieris (22 a), the patria of 



which is Colombia (as stated Bogota). 



Mbneri. Cat. hubncri L. tfc R. (194 c) from Southern Brazil (Leopoldina and Sao Paulo) is a smaller form with 



narrowed white markings of hithys (22 d). The habitat stated by the authors, ,,Peru", is presumably incorrect. 



flaromacu- Cat. flavomaculata L. ds R. is the southern form (from Costa Rica) of tentila (22 g), differing beneath 



lata, ^y orange instead of yellow markings. We cannot ascertain whether the following form differs sufficiently 



zeneda. from it. — zeneda Fruhst. ,,,^ considerably smaller than teutila Dbl. (22 g) from Mexico, with a much narrower 



whitish median band above on both wings. The $, however, has a broader orange median zone. Habitat: 



Costa Rica." 



troezene. Cat. troezene Fld^-. according to the author's figure, is a species with a yellow upper surface, somewhat 



like marcapita (22 g), smaller, with small, yellow apical spots of the forewings, a distinct yellow patch in the 



cell of the forewing, hindwing with a black margin as in paradoxa (22 g), distinct yellow marginal spots and 



