2 
Psyche 
[Vol. 91 
History of Classification 
The first attempt at classification within Adelpha was made by 
Godman & Salvin (1884, 1901) with their revision of the 32 species 
reported from Central America. At that time some 70 species were 
known for the genus. In their treatment, Godman & Salvin discuss 
Adelpha and its relationship to Limenitis and note that several 
species (bredowi, populi, Camilla, lorquini) are difficult to assign to 
either genus. Distribution of such characters as eye pubescence, 
venational differences, variation in proportions of male leg seg- 
ments, and peculiarities of male genitalia within Adelpha- Limenitis 
is surveyed. Classification of the 32 species begins with isolation of 
A. bredowi (eyes smooth in front) from all others (eyes hairy in 
front) and continues by arranging the other 31 species using gross 
features of wing pattern. The result is eleven groups, six of which are 
represented by single species. 
With Fruhstorfer (1907) came the first and only published 
revision of the entire genus Adelpha. The 90 species treated are 
assigned to two main groups based upon the length of the forewing 
discal cell; short = Adelpha group, elongate = Heterochroa group. 
Upon this division, Fruhstorfer comments, “Anatomically there are 
also two series [male genitalia with or without clunicula] of species 
distinguishable. They, however, do not agree with those based upon 
the structure [discal cell length].” The linear arrangement of species 
within the largest group ( Heterochroa with 82 species) reflects 
presumed relationships based upon wing pattern features. 
Fruhstorfer touches upon but does not pursue the possibility of a 
closer than realized alliance between New and Old World groups. In 
his introduction he notes that the male clasping organs of Adelpha 
“. . .approach those of the [Old World] genus Pantoporia (Athyma) 
in such a way that. . .it would be quite impossible to ascertain where 
organs or photes [sic] of them belong to, which are not denomi- 
nated.” Concerning the male valves, he further observes, “. . .there 
exist also nearly square ones with 2 or 3 small acicular teeth 
(resembling a Limenitis [Mo duza] pro cr is from India and Ceylon).” 
Fruhstorfer’s revision included a number of misidentifications, 
which presumably were corrected by Hall (1938) following examin- 
ation of the original material. 
At the time of his death (1968) W. T. M. Forbes had made a good 
deal of progress on a revision of Adelpha, and his manuscript is in 
