OCR Text |
Show 384 MR. H. J. ELWES ON S O M E [May 6, The only difference of colour in this form that I see is that the three lower ovate apical glassy spots on the fore wing are in the Naga specimen yellow, not white ; in the Sikkim specimens this colour is paler, and does not extend to the outermost of the three spots. Tbis difference holds good in a very small specimen of histrionicus type from Mandi in the N.W. Himalaya, which from its size I at first thought to be altissima. In this respect the variety shows some resemblance to C. sikkimensis, but I can distinguish all specimens of the latter with certainty. As this form appears in Sikkim at least to be confined to high elevations, I propose to call it C. histrionicus, var. altissima (Plate XXXIII. fig. I). CAMPYLOTES SIKKIMENSIS, n. sp. (Plate XXXIII. fig. 22.) This species I have long hesitated to separate from the last, which it resembles closely in size, but as I have now four specimens and have seen others in Messrs. Druce and Moore's collections which agree pretty closely, I am obliged to give it a name. o" $ • Differ from C. histrionicus in their much smaller size (o*46-51 mm., § 51-61 mm. in expanse); in having all the marks on the fore wing pale yellow, which are vitreous white in C. histrionicus; in the hind wing the red stripes are divided near the margin by a black line, outside of which the markings are yellow as in C. desgodinsi, Ob. In one specimen only this character fails, making it intermediate between C. sikkimensis and C. histrionicus var. altissima, but on the underside the apex of the hind wing clearly distinguishes it from the latter. At the apex of the fore wing are two additional spots not seen in any specimens of histrionicus, though in two of the var. altissima there are small white specks in the same position. On the underside the markings are also different, and leave no doubt in m y mind that this is a different species. It occurs rarely on Tonglo at 10,000 feet with the last, where I took a male in August 1886, and received three others in the same collection, made by natives in the Chumbi Vallev, which contained the new butterflies I described in P. Z. S. 1882, p. 398. Among the numerous beautiful Heterocera sent me by Mr. Doherty were 7 specimens of a Campylotes, which though it agrees in pattern and colour pretty fairly witb Campylotes desgodinsi1, is so much larger and brighter in colour, that I can hardly place it under that species. As, however, intermediate forms may occur, 1 propose to call it CAMPYLOTES DESGODINSI, var. SPLENDIDA, n. var. (Plate XXXIII. fig. 3.) The subjoined comparison is made with a specimen from Ta-tsien-lo in East Tibet, and with a photograph of three others, for which I am indebted to the kindness of M . Charles Oberthiir. Much larger, expands 80 m m . as compared with 58 mm.; very 1 Epyrgis desgodinsi, Oberth. Et. Ent. livr. ix. p. 18, t. xi. fig. 10. 2 The difference shown in the Plate between the abdomen of this species and that of fig. 1 does not really exist, and is caused by the yellow bands of the sides showing above in its more distended state. |