RHOPALOCERA 
39 
Family HESPERIDiE. 
Ovum —Large, opaque, dome-shaped, smooth, or vertically and 
transversely ribbed. 
Larva —Long, cylindrical, naked ; bead large and very bard, 
thorax narrowed in front, so as to form a long neck. 
Pupa —Attached by the tail, and concealed in a loose cocoon 
formed by drawing several leaves together, or by wrapping 
up a single leaf. 
Imago —Six perfect legs in both sexes, often spined. Wings 
with the discoidal cell of bindwing slenderly and often in¬ 
completely closed, subcostal nerv.ure of forewing always 
with four branches, all four emitted beyond the end of cell. 
Insects of small or moderate size, and rapid flight. Body 
of most very robust; head large ; eyes prominent; antennae 
wide apart at base, with a thick club or strong curved 
hook at tip ; palpi short, very broad, closely pressed against 
the face, densely squamose ; forewings triangular, often 
with a transverse row of three sub-apical spots; in male 
often an oblique bar of raised scales, sometimes a costal 
fold. 
Range —The Eesperidse are found throughout Australia and 
Tasmania, but are absent from Hew Zealand. The genera 
Eesperilla and Trapezites appear to be almost confined to 
the Euronotian region. 
Messrs. Meyrick and Lower, in their recent Revision of the 
Australian Eesperidse (R.A.EL), recognise 79 species, with 29 
unrecognised and reputed Australian forms : they estimate that 
the number will eventually reach 100 species. This revision 
has supplied a much-felt want, but I cannot agree with all the 
conclusions arrived at; several names are sunk as synonyms 
without any reason being assigned, and an examination of pub¬ 
lished descriptions does not appear to confirm their view; their 
localities in some instances do not agree with my own ex¬ 
perience. The use of large genera in this family, where many 
forms are typically Australian, is worthy of note, for the sexual 
male stigma forms at once a well-defined character to distin¬ 
guish Eesperilla from Trapezites . In this family, with a few 
alterations in the sequence of species, and extending or dimini¬ 
shing the range, I have followed Messrs. Meyrick and Lower 
(R.A.H.), and have indicated where I differ from them. Their 
use of the genera Telicota and FJrynnis does not appear much 
better than the old Famphila , as they do not use those genera 
as restricted by Watson or Elwes and Edwards. 
Where many species are so superficially alike, there is little 
wonder that a great number of unrecognised species occur, 
