1889.] W. Dolierfy — Certain Lycrc-iiiclro /row, Tjimer Tennmrim. 409 



XXIII. — On certain Lycrouidas /coHi Loiver Tenasserim. 

 By William Doherty, Oincinnati, U. S. A. 

 [Received Aprfl 8th :— Read 3rd July, 1889.] 

 (With Plate XXIII.) 



Tho folio-wing list includes most of tlie Lyccenidm taken by me iu 

 Tenasserim from January to March, 1889, inclusive. I have been unable 

 to identify four or five Arliopalas near A. vihara and metamuta. And 1 

 cau only mention the few species of Lampides and Nacaduba which I 

 happened to pin. Consisting wholly of low-country species (with but 

 one exception), taken in the driest part of the dry season, the list repre- 

 sents only a part of the Tenasserim Lyccenidce.. When all the species 

 are known, those of the mountains and those of the valleys, those of 

 the wet season and those of the dry, it seems to me quite possible that 

 the number may be doubled. 



Tho Mergui species were taken at the Taw-jaung monastery a few 

 miles from the town, in low-country forest near the coast. Tlie species 

 marked Myitta were taken at my various camps in the Tenasserim 

 valley, near tho Siamese border, east of Tavoy. Except one species — 

 Surendra florimel — they were all taken below one thousand feet altitude. 



After devoting much time to the study of the structure of butterflies, 

 and filling several note-books with descriptions of the young larviB, tarsi, 

 scent-organs, prehonsors, scales, etc , I had in 1887 the great mis- 

 fortune to lose most of them in the Malay Archipelago, together with a 

 great collection of insects. The chief survivors were my notes on the 

 egg, a part of my drawings of prehensors, aad the descriptions of a few 

 genera and species partly of this family which had been prepared for' 

 publication in 1 886, some of which will appear iu Mr. de Niceville's 

 " Butterflies of India." I have therefore been obliged to commence 

 afresh, and as yet my material is too small to achieve one of my prin- 

 cipal objects, a proper classification of the Lyownidm. So the following 

 attempted generalizations must be held as provisional only. 



In 1886, I divided the family into six subfamilies, based chiefly on 

 the form of the egg To these another must be added, the Lipliyrinm, 

 which besides our single Indian species, includes, perhaps, a few African 

 forms. In four of the six other subfamilies, the egg seems to afford 

 good clwaeters for defining them, though a few small genera, which I 

 have as yet studied but imperfectly, seem difficult to place. The two 

 other groups, which I called the Theclince and Amhlypodince had better 

 be united, forming a large mass of genera and species very difficult to 

 arrange. In the Amblypodias especially, the egg seems to lose much of 



