1945] Notes on Neotropical Plebejince 35 
0.07 broad) from the tip of the body. Lamella 0.2 long laterally, 
twice shorter dorsally. 
Measurements (in mm.): aedeagus 0.43, suprazonal portion 
0.11, subzonal 0.32 with breadth (in lateral view) 0.06; penis 
0.4, furca 0.5, sagum about 0.3 by 0.2. Breadth of inner granu- 
lation 0.9, with average length of teeth 0.01; breadth of outer 
granulation about 0.4. Vertical/Horizontal extension of uncus: 
forearm 0.14/0.03, humerulus 0.045/0.16, shoulder 0.11/0.09, 
lobe 0.2/0.06. Valve 1 with breadth 0.33; teeth 0.01 and smaller. 
The high development of the auroral element in the ground 
of chilensis and collina is approached among the Plebejince only 
by the upperside of the Sonoran Plebulina emigdionis and by 
the intense coloration of the forewing underside in certain indi- 
viduals of the Spanish Aricia idas Rambur (rechristened at one 
time “ ramburi ” by Verity). 1 The upperside of the females 
oddly recalls certain Australian Lycaenids belonging to a widely 
different subfamily. 
The underside maculation in chilensis is of a dispositional 
type frequently met with in Plebejince (and Glaucopsychince ) ; 
the tendency on the part of the II macules in forewing to assume 
a very distal position (quite normal of course in the case of 
Cu 2 +1A) as well as the rather proximal (“glaucopsychoid”) 
position of R S II in hindwing and the weak pigmentation of the 
I (split) macules, with an aurora visible only in Qq of hind- 
wing (in some specimens but absent in the female type), occur 
in several palsearctic and nearctic species of both subfamilies. 
The insulae and outer cretules are conspicuous on the upperside 
of the male and are still more conspicuous in Blanchard’s fig- 
ure of endymion which on the whole differs from chilensis only 
in being rather thoroughly dusted with blue structural scales 
(that are sparsely represented basally and along the hindwing 
dorsum in one of my males of chilensis ). In my specimens of 
collina (a much smaller species) the distal position of the II 
macules R 4 to Cu 4 is still better marked and I RM (weak in 
chilensis ) is quite absent — a rather unusual character. In the 
hindwing, however, where II macule R s is as proximal as in 
chilensis the resemblance to the latter species abruptly stops at 
that interspace: the posterior rest of the wing produces in con- 
1 One would like to suggest that in the future no such renaming, however nec- 
essary, should be valid unless the author of the new name redescribes the species 
or subspecies and selects a holotype. 
