276 H. STEMPFFER 



Azanus Moore is characterized by its undivided uncus, which is more or less 

 excised at its apex, its short robust subunci and its reduced tegumen, features 

 typical of the sub-family Everinae, which it also resembles in venation viz. fore wing 

 with ii veins, with n and 12 confluent. 



Although the genera Brephidium Scudder and Oraidium Bethune Baker include 

 very few species I think they should be placed in a subfamily to themselves, the 

 Brephidinae. Their male genitalia are of such a peculiar structure and differ so 

 markedly from those of all other genera of Lycaenidae that they cannot be included 

 in any of the other subfamilies. 



I propose to restrict the subfamily Zizeerinae to the two genera Zizeeria Chapman 

 and Zizina Chapman. It is characterized by an uncus divided into two slender 

 lobes, slender curving subunci long slender curved valves with long stiff bristles, and 

 a flask-shaped penis, with pointed apex and a vesica bearing numerous spines. 

 Chapman included in the subfamily Zizeeriinae the genera Actizera Chapman and 

 Zizula Chapman. I have above (p. 275) stated my reasons for taking Actizera out 

 of the subfamily Zizeeriinae. As for Zizula their male genitalia have one feature 

 found in the Zizeeriinae, namely the stiff valvular bristles, but they have also one 

 feature in common with the Brephidiinae, namely a penis shaped like a bird's beak. 

 The Zizeeriinae are found in the Indo-Malayan, Ethiopian and Palaearctic zones, 

 the Brephidiinae in the Ethiopian, neotropical and Sonoran zones, the species of 

 Zizula in Indo-Malayan, Ethiopian and neotropical zones. There is probably some 

 relationship between these archaic groups which probably originated before the 

 breaking up of Gondwanaland. 



There remains only the genus Lycaena Fabricius, which has very few species in the 

 Ethiopian fauna, but is well represented in the holarctic zone. It comprises the 

 " Coppers " so familiar to British entomologists and must be included in a separate 

 subfamily. As to the name to be given to this subfamily, I hesitate between 

 Lycaeninae and Heodinae ; although the former is the correct name in accordance 

 with the Rules of Nomenclature, there is a risk that it might be confused with 

 Lycaeninae, sensu Aurivillius, by those entomologists who are not specialists. 



It is not difficult to foresee that criticisms will be levelled at my conclusions, indeed 

 I am well aware of some that can be made. It is abundantly clear that most of the 

 proposed subfamilies, namely the Liphyrinae, Thestorinae, Pentilinae, Mimacraeinae, 

 Miletinae, Aphnaeinae, Plebeiinae, Everinae, Brephidinae, Zizeerinae and Lycaeninae 

 are based on well defined structural characters. To distinguish the Lipteninae from 

 the Epitolinae or the Lampidinae from the Theclinae is much more difficult. Why, 

 one might ask, split up the African Lycaenid fauna into so many fragments when 

 eight subfamilies suffer for the whole of the palaearctic fauna ? Why erect a sub- 

 family to include only two genera each with only a few species ? Why propose a 

 modification of the generally accepted sequence of genera when, on my own admis- 

 sion, the reasons for this are debatable. 



The answer is that the African fauna, at any rate as far as the Lycaenidae are 

 concerned, is far richer and much more varied than that of the palaearctic region. 

 During the Tertiary period, Europe was subjected to so many large scale changes of 



