280 H. STEMPFFER 



Coremata present Coremata absent 



Epitolinae 

 Phytala elais Doubleday Hewitson Poultonia ochrascens Neave 



Phytala hyeltonides Aurivillius Powellana cottoni Bethune Baker 



Stempfferia carcassoni Jackson Epitolina dispar Kirby 



Aethiopana honorius Fabricius Epitolina catori Bethune Baker 



Epitola ceraunia Hewitson 

 Hewitsonia boisduvali Hewitson 



There is no point in pursuing this matter further. The lists above clearly demon- 

 strate that the presence or absence of coremata does not provide a character of valid 

 generic significance, and even less of tribal value. In order to separate the Lip- 

 teninae from the Epitolinae we are forced back on the venational characters of 

 Aurivillius' system. In fact, as I have already indicated, the two subfamilies are 

 not sharply definable, Iridana providing a transition from one to the other. 



Clench includes the Mimacraeinae within his Liptenini. I must confess that I do 

 not understand why he fails to accord them subfamily rank, for they constitute a 

 perfectly homogeneous, very specialized group in which the male genitalia are so 

 uniform that they are rarely even of use in separating species. I cannot accept 

 Pseuderesia eleaza in any way as providing a transition in genitalia characters 

 between Mimeresia and the Lipteninae, in Mimeresia as in Mimacraea the uncus is 

 formed of two very large semicircular asymmetric lobes, each bearing a long tapering 

 similarly asymmetric horn on its terminal margin and the tegumen is much reduced. 

 The genitalia indeed are without any exception asymmetric in every species. On the 

 other hand in Pseuderesia eleaza, although admittedly the tegumen is equally 

 reduced, the uncus is formed of two long perfectly symmetrical foliaceous processes, 

 and there are neither semicircular lobes nor accessory horns ; I freely admit that in 

 eleaza the uncus is more deeply divided and the tegumen narrower than in the other 

 species of pseuderesia, in consequence of which it occupies a somewhat isolated 

 position in the genus, but I do not see any necessity to erect, for the other species of 

 Pseuderesia, the new genus Eresiomera based otherwise on the shape of the fore wing 

 and the pattern of the markings on the hind wings. If the shape of the wings is 

 taken as a generic criterion, Epitola should be subdivided into at least three genera 

 according to whether the four wings are falcate (posthumus), dentate (hewitsoni) or 

 slightly convex (cercene) . To accept wing pattern as a generic character is to return 

 to the mistakes of earlier authors who put Azanus isis in Castalius and Euchysops 

 crawshayi and most of the species of Harpendyreus in Cyclyrius. 



In the same way, I see no merit in restricting the genus Phytala to its type species 

 P. elais, and erecting for all the other species the new genus Hypophytala, on the 

 basis of the large size of elais and the much smaller expanse of all the other species of 

 Phytala, and the presence of a protuberance on the dorsal surface of the penis in 

 hyettoides, which is lacking in elais. In my view this protuberance is not a good 

 generic character, since it is to be found in many other Epitolinae, for example, 

 Deloneura millari Trimen, Poultonia ochrasceus Neave, Batelusia zebra H. H. Druce, 

 Epitola posthumus Fabricius, Epitola urania Kirby and others. 



