1942] 
Near die N eonympha 
71 
“Euptychia Pyracmon, sp. n. female. Alae supra fuscae, linea 
post alarum medium posita fusca, extus rubro marginata, anti- 
carum subintegra, posticarum lunulata: anticae margine postico 
paulo fuscescente, ciliis cinereis: posticae margine apicale 
paulo fuscescente, margine anali rufescente, maculis tribus (or 
two. V. N.) submarginalibus nigris, interna minima: corpus 
cinereofuscum; antennis supra fuscis, subtus albidis, prae 
flavescentibus, cinereo fasciolatus. Alae subtus ochreae cinereo 
variae, f asciis duabus mediis irregularibus ferrugineis: anticae 
linea submarginali undulata apicem non attingente (this char- 
acter cannot be constant. V. N.): posticae linea submarginali 
lunulata argintea, apud marginem analem intus ferrugineo 
marginata, ad apicem maculas duas binas argenteas formante, 
maculis duabus mediis marginalibus nigris, macula permagna 
subanali cinerascente: corpus ochreo cinereum. Exp. alar. unc. 
1 14/16. Hab. Oajaca (Mexico). B. M. 
Closely allied to E. gemma from which it differs in being 
much larger, having the apex of the fron wings subangulated 
and the outer margin of the hind wings sinuated; the wings 
above reddish in some parts, with much larger marginal black 
spots; below the central streaks are more distinct, reddish and 
different in outline.” 
The last distinction is a mistake, gemma showing the same 
peculiar serrate projections of the second discal, secondaries 
underside (a character carried to a still further extent in the 
closely allied pephredo Godman [1901, Biol. Centr. Am. Rhop., 
II, p. 657; III, pi. 8, fig. 12, mislabelled “gemma”] which thus 
stands towards hilaria Godman [1901, Biol. Centr. Am., II, 
p. 658] in the same way as pyracmon does towards henshawi ) ; 
otherwise the description is reasonably clear and has been re- 
peated in a condensed form 45 years later by Weymer who 
alludes to the male too — at least I think he does, because of 
two details, the “reddish” aureoles in secondaries upperside, 
and the “dentate” lines in secondaries underside; but his refer- 
ence to the sexmark as being “large” is extremely unfortunate 
(though in keeping with the general mess Weymer makes of 
the N eonympha ) . 
Pyracmon from a North American pair may be described 
thus: 
