TRIPHYSA. By M. Gaede. 
179 
C» tiphon Rott. (Vol. 1, p. 146, pi. 48 h). Among is is Thunb. one sometimes finds specimens that are tiphon. 
entirely without eyespots on upperside: unicolor Hoffm. — Italica Vrty. is smaller than usual in tiphon. $ unicolor. 
reminds one of iphis, being just as large and having a dark margin to forewings and light base to hindwings. ihilica. 
$ similar to pamphilus in regard to ground colour. Great variability occurs in regard to the number of eyespots. 
Undersides of and $ also like iphis with little red-brown. In the <$ the yellowish band is scarcely indicated 
on forewing, on underside of hindwing an impure white triangular spot near costa and rarely a small one near 
the inner margin as substitute for a band. In the $ the band is better developed on underside of both wings. 
Monti Sibillini. - thimoites Fruhst. is similar to the north german philoxenus Esp. but larger, the blackish thimoites. 
margin double as wide, apical eyespot very large, with nice yellow ringlets. Hindwings generally with 2—4 
very distinct eyespots with wide pale yellow ringlets. Valais. fennana Fruhst. is like satyrion Esp. Upperside fermana. 
grey-brown, blue-grey at base and with fine yellowish antemarginal line. Underside like sinica Alph. from 
Thibet, uniformly dark grey. Hindwings dusted with greenish to the middle. The whitish sub-apical band on 
forewings shorter. Hindwings with 4 white eyespot dots, margin of both wings yellowish. Kashgar. 
C. decolorata Wagn. (11 g) <$ larger and as pale as the $ of semenovi Alph., upperside grey-brown, decolorata. 
Specimens from Urumchi with somewhat darker marginal band on forewings. The yellow-white eyespots 
reflect through faintly on the upperside. A pale band is still indicated on underside of forewings in front of the 
eyespots. Hindwings on underside, especially in basal area, greenish brown, the 3 spots of the median band 
being larger than in mahometana Alph., relatively almost as large as in semenovi. Hi territory. — All 3 species 
are close to sunbecca Ev. 
15. Genus: Tripliysa Z. 
T. phryne Pall. (Vol. 1, p. 147, pi. 48 i) fscherskii Gr.-Grsh. Upper and undersides of wings dark, thereby phryne. 
similar to normal phryne with grey fringes, almost without white marginal line. No eyespots on underside of tscJiers/ ^ i -- 
hindwings, veins of forewings with less white than in nervosa Motseh. N. E. Siberia. - glacialis Bang-H. glacicilis. 
Similar to dohrni Z., in the q the fringes (probably the marginal line is meant) not so pure white as in dohrni. 
In the $ the dark markings of underside strongly reflect through on upperside, also the white discoidal nervure 
on hindwing. Arasagun-gol. gartoki Bang-H. also closely resembles dohrni by its wide light marginal line, gartoki. 
All veins in the partly pale on upperside, especially the discoidal nervure of both wings. On underside of 
forewings eyespots are small, on hindwings they are minute. In the $ they are absent on hindwings, 2 eyespots 
are also distinctly visible on upperside of fore wings, the other dark markings are not distinct. W. Thibet. 
Concluding Remarks. 
In dealing with almost all forms either as species or subform I have kept almost entirely to the views 
expressed in Vol. 1, in order to facilitate the simultaneous use of Vol. 1 and Supplement Vol. 1, which is often 
necessary. If for instance in modern times and owing to the richer material available perhaps a different 
classification of the forms of the group Satyrus geyeri-regeli-hubneri might seem necessary, nevertheless as yet no 
examination of the genitals has taken place either to confirm or refute the various assertions. In the same way 
the sub-division of species such as Ep. lycaon into 3 species lycaon, lupinus, rhamnusia is not practicable for the 
present work, as there is no classification of the sub-races, so that same would have to be distributed haphazard 
over the various species. Similarly in Coen, arcania and satyrion, where the one author is in favour of a sub¬ 
division of the species, the other however has ascertained transition forms. 
A further difference in dealing with the Satyrides (excepting the Genus Erebia ), as compared with 
previous groups, lies in the impossibility of obtaining the numerous races as established, mostly by Fritit- 
storfer, Stauder and Verity. Occasionally the text has already remarked that these 3 main authors are by 
no means always of one mind in regard to the justification of the various races. In fact they often do not even 
mention the races of each other. Further it should be mentioned that the material of the Pungeler Collection 
(which certainly in its arrangement did not attach much value to “races”) often does not agree with the 
descriptions. Such large series as would be essential for the justification of the establishment of a new race, are 
only available in these private collections that are not open to everyone. And inspection of type specimens is 
unsatisfactory, as with such rich material at one’s disposal one can select almost at discretion without proving 
anything; a method frequently adopted by Verity. 
Therefore criticism or selection had to be left alone and this supplement had to confine itself to a classi¬ 
fication according to literature. Just according to the degree that each reader wishes to specialise, each must 
make use of the various names at his own discretion, excluding such that seem to him superfluous. 
