BULLETIN OF THE ALLYN MUSEUM
THE ALLYN MUSEUM OF ENTOMOLOGY
Number 41 10 November 1976
NOTES AND DESCRIPTIONS ON MEXICAN
Lee D. Miller
Curator, Allyn Museum of Entomology
Jacqueline Y. Miller
Assistant Curator, Allyn Museum of Entomology
The subfamily Charaxinae contains some of the most spectacular butterflies
in the world, and for this reason the group long has been a favorite of collectors and
authors alike. The American tropics boast many species, most belonging to the
genera Prepona, Agrias and Anaea, and these are among the most frequently
studied of the Neotropical Nymphalidae. Even so a significant number of new species
and subspecies have been described in these genera over the past fifteen years from
such "well known" areas as Mexico and Central America. This suggests strongly
to us that many such undescribed entities still await discovery throughout the
The Museum's collection of Charaxinae has increased substantially over the
past few years, and several series are of definite interest as new taxa, noteworthy
range extensions or biological oddities. The present paper deals with some of
these butterflies from Mexico. It is hoped that papers may be forthcoming later on
species from further south, but such studies must await additional comparative
There have been many comments on the description of Agrias zenodorus
small by L. Miller and Nicolay (1971). Most of these correspondents have noted
that small might be synonymous with A. z. oaxacata Kruck, 1931. This latter insect
is known from Mexico and Guatemala, whereas small has been taken thus far
only in Panama, although H. L. King (pers. comm.) told us he was fairly certain
he saw one near Turrialba, Costa Rica. Neither insect has been uncovered in El
Salvador, Honduras or Nicaragua, and since Agrias are notoriously sensitive to
geographic isolation, it seemed most unlikely that the two taxa were subspecifically
In material received from Dr. Tarsicio Escalante there were two females and a
single male of A. z. oaxacata from Chimalapa. Oaxaca, very near Kruck's type-
locality. These specimens have made possible a detailed comparison of the Mexican
and Panamanian populations, and this analysis has demonstrated the following
fundamental differences between oaxacata and small: 1) the orange median fore-
wing band on the upper surface includes the base of M3-Cu1 in small, whereas
in oaxacata this band does not include the extreme base of the space; 2) the hindwing
blue patch on the upper surface of small is not so dark as that of oaxacata and
is more extensive, extending well into Ml-M2 (in oaxacata this patch barely crosses
M2 into the space); 3) the orange markings of the under forewing are much less
extensive in oaxacata, less than half the discal cell being orange as opposed to more
than half the cell being orange in small; 4) the yellow banding of the hindwing
beneath is much better developed in small, some of the bands, especially in the
cell and basal areas being broken up and obsolescent in oaxacata; and 5) the ocelli
of the hindwing beneath which are at least partially separate and distinct in small
are completely coalesced and definitely more diffuse in oaxacata. The sum total
of these characters indicates the distinctness of the two taxa. A. z. small actually
seems closer to some of the named Colombian forms, as indicated by L. Miller and
Nicolay (1971), than to oaxacata. As is true of many Agrias, however, the dif-
ferences between the various named forms and subspecies are rather slight, but
at least the differences cited above appear to be consistent between populations.
Prepona brooksiana Godman and Salvin, 1889
Plate II, bottom figures (Holotype 9)
Godman and Salvin (1889: 355) described this species from a single female
taken by Brooks at Coatepec, Veracruz. Later, Godman (1901: 695; pl. 109, figs. 4,
5) figured the Holotype very well and mentioned that Schaus had another specimen
"from Mexico". The male was unknown at the time of the description, and to our
knowledge no specimen of that sex from the type locality exists in any collection.
Alberto Diaz Frances (pers. comm.) has written us that recent specimens have been
taken in the Sierra de Juarez, Oaxaca, and at Villa Juar6z, Puebla. At least the
latter specimen would seem to belong to the eastern Mexican population, and if
it is a male, we hope it will be figured soon in Revista de la Sociedad Mexicana
de Lepidopterologia, A. C., or some other publication.
Descimon, Mast de Maeght and Stoffel (1974) reviewed P. brooksiana and
attempted to make a case for the species coming not from Veracruz, but from the
Sierra de Oaxaca. This practice is questionable, especially since the cloud forest
environments of Veracruz have not been well sampled in recent years. Coatepec lies
very near Jalapa and is in fact nearer to the Sierra Madre Oriental than is Jalapa.
The older writers, especially Schaus, Godman and Salvin, described a great many
species from just such regions, species that have subsequently been taken further
up the slopes in the Sierra Madre Oriental (see for example L. Miller and J. Miller,
1970, regarding Adelpha creton Godman). Many taxa that were described from
this region have not been encountered there in recent years (some have not been
encountered anywhere), a fine example being the magnificent Nymphalis
cyanomelas (Doubleday and Hewitson), an insect that almost certainly came from
the slopes of Mt. Orizaba. The only recent captures of cyanomelas were two males
from the Cerro Miramundo cloud forest on the common border between El Salvador,
Guatemala and Honduras, and on the basis of these specimens we must assume that
cyanomelas is an inhabitant of the poorly known and little collected cloud forest
environments of northern Central America and Mexico.
Descimon, Mast de Maeght and Stoffel (1974) designate a specimen from the
Lagos ("Lagunas") de Montebello, Chiapas, as the neallotype of brooksiana. We
consider that the designation of a specimen from another locality, and drawn
from a totally different gene pool (see below), is dangerous at best and indefensible
at worst. It was precisely this sort of abuse of the allotype cancept that led to the
dropping of the allotype from consideration under the present "Code" (I. C. Z. N.,
1964: Arts. 71-75 and Recommendations). Inasmuch as the "Code" is so explicit
in other matters, we cannot imagine that omission of the allotype from the listings
of acceptable types was accidental.
A comparison of the females of the Chiapas population with the extant
Coatepec and other Veracruz specimens must be undertaken to establish whether
or not the "neallotype" actually represents true brooksiana. Such a comparison
is revealing. We have illustrated the extremes of the Chiapas females we have seen
(13 specimens) on Plate I, bottom right figure, and Plate II, top figures, and a per-
functory comparison with the Holotype of brooksiana will demonstrate some very
real differences. None of the Chiapas females has as extensive orange markings on
the upper surface as does the brooksiana Holotype. The ocellus in hindwing space
Rs-M, above is far better developed in even the darkest Chiapas specimen than in
the Holotype of brooksiana. The ocelli on the under surface of the hindwing are
better developed in Chiapas material than in Veracruz specimens. The forewing
extradiscal band on the under surface is shifted slightly more distad in Chiapas
material. None of these characters can be ascribed to fading of the old Veracruz
specimens, and the characteristics that are readily apparent to separate Chiapas
and Veracruz specimens that may be due to fading have not been included in this
We feel that the differences cited above are of sufficient magnitude to
demonstrate that the "neallotype" of Descimon, Mast de Maeght and Stoffel
(1974) was drawn from a totally different population and gene pool than was the
Holotype of brooksiana. Furthermore, there can be little question that the
"Coatepec" locality refers to the Veracruz one (Godman and Salvin, 1879: xxi),
and not to one in the Sierra de Oaxaca. Travel in the late XIX Century was not so
simple as it is today, and it would not be likely that Brooks would have moved from
Coatepec, Veracruz, to one in the Sierra de Oaxaca without changing the labelling
of his specimens. While there were generalized locality labels for material collected
during that period, use of the term "Coatepec" for a locality many days (or weeks)
travel from this home base was unlikely. Because of the locality and superficial
differences between the Veracruz and Chiapas females, as well as the recent captures
in Puebla (on the other side of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec from Chiapas), we are
unable to accept that the "neallotype" was validly proposed biologically, In fact,
the differences are so great that it is necessary to describe the Chiapas population
as new. We are not, however, going to accord the Chiapas insect specific status,
but rather subspecific. The male genitalia, so distinctive in many other groups, are
almost useless in the present group of Prepona: those of the Chiapas population
are virtually indistinguishable from those of the otherwise abundantly distinct
P. escalantiana Stoffel and Mast de Maeght (1973). A strict adherence to male
genitalic characters would dictate placing both the Chiapas insect and escalantiana
as subspecies of brooksiana, but so many superficial characters are vastly dif-
ferent between escalantiana and the other two butterflies that we hesitate to take
such a drastic step.
Prepona (Prepona) brooksiana diaziana, new subspecies
Plate I, top figures (Holotype 8); bottom figures (Paratypes a and 9); Plate II,
top figures (Paratype 9)
Prepona brooksiana (in partim) Descimon, Mast de Maeght and Stoffel, 1974:
235-238 (not Godman and Salvin, 1889: 109).
Our reasons for not accepting the Chiapas population as nominate brooksiana
are given above, and accordingly we are describing this insect here. The population
is highly variable (none of the females, however, approaching typical brooksiana),
so in the following description the Holotype will be described in full and other
members of the type series compared with it (males) or with the Holotype of b.
Male: Holotype: Head, thorax and abdomen black above clothed with dully
bluish-gray hairs. Head with whitespots anteriad and posteriad of origin of antenna:
cheeks white. Thorax and abdomen clothed with gray ventral hairs. Palpus
black dorsad, white ventrad. Antenna uniform black. Legs clothed with gray
Upper surface of forewing dark fuscous with a broad central reflective area
consisting of scales that reflect deep purplish-blue except near inner margin
where the scales reflect a bright blue; submarginal small fulvous spots from
Rs-M, to Cuz-2A, the end spots being the faintest. Hindwing above also dark
fuscous with a central reflective band of blue (purplish-blue toward costa) scales;
submarginal fulvous spots from Rs-Ml to Cu2-2A, the largest being those in Rs-M,
and Cu1-Cu2, which bear black pupils and blue irides (that in CuI-Cu2 the best
developed of the two). Androconial tuft along 2A of hindwing dull ochreous-
brown. Fringes narrowly white cut with broad black veins.
Forewing below with basal half of cell and area just posteriad of it silvery-gray
with two black spots in cell; outside this area is a rich brown one delimited proximad
and distad with jagged fuscous lines and enclosing a fuscous crescentic line
entirely within cell; between this area and the marginal area is a somewhat paler,
uniformly brownish-gray one delimited by fuscous lines (the subapical one unevenly
developed); marginal area inwardly rich brown, outwardly paler gray-brown with
submarginal whitish shading from MI-M2 to near tornus and enclosing dark
brown circles just outside the distal band from M3Cui to Cu2-2A. Hindwing below
basally dull grayish-brown powdered with whitish scales along anal fold; then a
subbasal silvery white area, widest at costa and distally outside cell at M3 and
pinched off in Cu2-2A, enclosing black spots in costal cell and two in discal
cell and delimited distad by a jagged black line; outer half of wing rich brown
powdered with white scales distad and bearing two black ocelli with white irides
and tan and black rings in Rs-M, and CuI-Cu2, as well as blue-violet submarginal
points from MI-M2 to M3-CuI and Cu2-2A. Fringes deep brown, slightly whitened
Variation (Paratypes): Two of the a Paratypes are similar to the Holotype;
three others have very much reduced fulvous submarginal spots on the fore- and
hindwings; in two others the forewing fulvous spots are totally wanting but the
hindwing ones are completely discernable; and in seven others (also the Descimon,
Mast de Maeght and Stoffel "neallotype" of b. brooksiana) the fulvous spots of the
upper surface are lacking entirely (Plate I, bottom left figure). The blue irides in the
ocelli of the hindwing above are usually as in Holotype, but in one Paratype with
no fulvous above the irides are enlarged and extremely prominent. The under
surface varies little from that of Holotype, the only variation being in the extent
and prominence of the dark brown circles just outside the distal line.
The a genitalia are apparently not distinctive in the group since those from
a specimen of diaziana cannot be distinguished from those of a specimen of
P. (P.) escalantiana Stoffel and Mast de Maeght (1973: 101-105; fig. B).
Length of forewing of Holotype 6 48.2 mm., those of the 15 8 Paratypes ranging
from 46.0 to 52.0 mm., averaging 49.6 mm.
Female: Head, thorax, abdomen and appendages as in 6.
Upper surface of wings similar to that of P. (P.) b. brooksiana, but differing
in the following particulars (9 Paratype most heavily marked with orange: Plate II,
top figures): greenish-blue median patch of forwing more tapered anteriad and
expanded posteriad; submarginal orange fulvous patches much less well developed
on forewing above and never approaching in size those of hindwing above;
ocelli of hindwing above with blue irides much more developed, but double pupils
in Cu2-2A never developed or outlined in fulvous. The other 9 Paratypes range
through a series of gradations to the condition shown by the one least heavily
marked with fulvous (Plate I, bottom right figure).
Under surface as figured (Plate II, top right figure); variation within the series
comparable to that shown by the 8 Paratypes.
Lengths of forewings of the 13 9 Paratypes range from 54.2 to 60.0 mm.,
averaging 55.7 mm.
Described from 29 specimens, 16 males and 13 females, all collected in Chiapas,
HOLOTYPE 8: MEXICO: CHIAPAS: Santa Rosa Comitan (properly Santa
Rosa de las Margaritas, fide Carlos Beutelspacher Baights, pers. comm.); iii.1961
(ex colln. T. Escalante).
PARATYPES: all MEXICO: CHIAPAS: same locality as Holotype: 13
ix.1961, 16 x.1961, 13 iii.1962, 13 x.1962, 19 viii.1963, 13 19 ix. 1963, 53 29 iii.1966,
1 49 iii.1967, 29 iii.1969, 19 ix.1969 (all T. Escalante), 13 19 iii.1975, 28 ix.1975
(all A. Diaz F.); Lagunas de Montebello, 2000 m., 18 (the "neallotype" of P. (P.)
brooksiana of Descimon, Mast de Maeght and Stoffel, 1974), 25.vi.1970 (R. Wind);
Ocozocuautla, 19 vii.1940 (T. Escalante).
Disposition of the type-series: Holotype 6, seven 6 and eight 9 Paratypes
in Allyn Museum of Entomology; one 3 and one 9 Paratypes in British Museum
(Natural History); one 6 and one 9 Paratypes in American Museum of Natural
History; one 3 and one 9 Paratypes in Carnegie Museum; one 3 and one 9 Paratypes
in National Museum of Natural History; three 3 and one 9 Paratypes in collection
of Alberto Diaz Frances; and one 6 Paratype (the "neallotype" of P. brooksiana)
in collection of H. Descimon.
This distinctive insect is named for Sr. Alberto Diaz Frances who first called
it to our attention. He has, directly or indirectly, supplied much of the material
that is known of this butterfly, though relatively few of these eventually became
We have seen one additional specimen that was not included in the type-series
because of its rather vague data. This was a male collected by Sr. Diaz Frances
which bore the label "Chiapas, near Guatemala". The presence of several other
specimens with better data precluded its inclusion in the type-series, but it is a
rather average specimen for the Santa Rosa de las Margaritas-Lagos de Montebello
population and almost certainly came from there.
Most of the confusion regarding this taxon may be laid to Hoffmann (1940:
691) who stated that the range of brooksiana was "Tierra templada de Veracruz
(Coatepec). Interior de Chiapas (Ocozocuautla)." One of the Paratypes ofdiaziana
is figured (Plate II, top figures) from a 1940 specimen taken at Ocozocuautla, and
this may be the source (at least it certainly is one of the sources) of the identification
of the Chiapas insect as identical with the Veracruz one. This single specimen that
we have seen from Ocozocuautla is the most brilliantly marked with orange of
any of the series at hand, and its determination as brooksiana by Hoffmann is
understandable. The long series at hand from Santa Rosa de las Margaritas and
the nearby Lagos de Montebello demonstrates that the Chiapas insect varies
dramatically, even though none of the females from there is as brightly marked
with orange as is the Ocozocuautla one, much less those from Veracruz.
The Chiapas insect cannot be the same as the Veracruz one, as shown above.
The sensitivity of these insects to isolation is shown by the great superficial
differences between true brooksiana and diaziana on the one hand and escalantiana
on the other, even though the male genitalia of the last two are identical. Because
of the genitalic similarities within the group and the very obvious superficial
resemblances between brooksiana and diaziana, we have decided to describe the
latter as a subspecies of the former. Experimental breeding of members of the
complex should prove enlightening with regard to the conspecificity, or lack
thereof, of brooksiana, diaziana and escalantiana.
the subgenus Consul Hiibner
Comstock (1961) resurrected the ancient Hfibnerian name Consul for not only
its type-species, fabius (Cramer), but also for such apparently diverse species as
electra (Westwood) and panariste (Hewitson). Our first impression was that the
six species Comstock included in Consul might not be consubgeneric, but the
characteristics of the male genitalia are such that these species do seem to be closely
related despite their very dissimilar superficial appearances. Three of the species
occur in Mexico: electra is abundant throughout most of the country, fabius cecrops
(Doubleday) is usually not common except in the southern part of Mexico and
excellent (Bates) is quite uncommon and restricted to the southernmost states
that adjoin Guatemala.
We received a long series of Consul from Dr. Escalante that had been collected
near the town of Coahuayana in the state of Michoacan during the summer of 1950.
The vast majority of the specimens were of electra, a male of which is figured in
Figs. 1 and 2. A few specimens were of perfectly typical A. (C.) fabius cecrops, a
male of which is also figured (Figs. 3 and 4). One specimen, here figured (Figs.
5 and 6), was extremely odd combining the characteristics of both species, but
resembling neither. Superficially this specimen seems to be a hybrid between
electra and cecrops. The outline of the forewing shows a hint of the acute apex of
electra, but to a much lesser degree than in that species, and it also demonstrates
some of the prolongation at the end of M:, that characterizes fabius. The ground
color of the upper surface is a uniform rusty ochreous, neither so pale as in electra
7 3 V 4
Figures 1-4, Anaea (Consul) species. 1-2, A. (C.) electra (Westwood), 3 upper
(1) and under (2) surfaces (Allyn Museum photos 012576-1/2); MEXICO: VERA-
CRUZ: Presidio. 3-4, A. (C.I fabius cecrops (Doubleday). 8 upper (3) and under (4)
surfaces (Allyn Museum photos 012576-5/6); MEXICO: OAXACA: Chiltepec.
nor so fulvious as in fabius cecrops. The hindwing tail at the end of M:, is more
spatulate than is that of cecrops, but not so pronouncably so as in electra. The heavy
forewing band across the cell on the upper surface that characterizes cecrops and
is absent in electra is poorly developed, but present, in this single specimen. The
under surface pattern is similar in all of these butterflies, but again that of the
single specimen is intermediate between the configurations of electra and fabius
The male genitalia of the unknown specimen (Fig. 8) are likewise somewhat
intermediate between those of electra (Fig. 9) and fabius cecrops (Fig. 7), resembling
the former in the more finely drawn uncus, but more closely approximating cecrops
in the configurations of the valva, saccus and penis.
The fact that both superficial and genitalic characteristics of the single
individual from Coahuayana are intermediate between electra and cecrops strongly
suggests that that specimen is the result of a natural hybridization between those
Figures 5-6, Anaea (Consul), probable hybrid between A. (C.) electra (Westwood)
and A. (C.) fabius cecrops (Doubleday), & upper (5) and under (6) surfaces (Allyn
Museum photos 012576-3/4); MEXICO: MICHOACAN: Coahuayana. Compare
these pictures with those of electra (Figs. 1-2) and fabius cecrops (Figs. 3-4).
Figures 7-9: S genitalia of Anaea (Consul) species and hybrid. 7, A. (C.)
fabius cecrops (Doubleday), slide M-3185 (Lee D. Miller); MEXICO: MICHOACAN:
Coahuayana. 8, A. (C.), probable hybrid between electra and fabius cecrops,
slide M-3187 (Lee D. Miller); MEXICO: MICHOACAN: Coahuayana. 9, A. (C.)
electra (Westwood), slide M-3186 (Lee D. Miller); MEXICO: MICHOACAN:
Plate I: Prepona (P.) brooksiana diaziana. new subspecies. Top figures:
Holotype 3 upper (left) and under (right) surfaces; MEXICO: CHIAPAS: Santa
Rosa ComitAn (Allyn Museum photos 082376-5/6). This specimen represents the
morph that is brightly marked with orange (see text). Bottom figures: upper surfaces
of Paratype 3 (left) and Paratype 9 (right); MEXICO: CHIAPAS: Santa Rosa
ComitAn (Allyn Museum photos 082376-3 and 082376-7, respectively). These
specimens are referable to the darkest morph of the type series.
Plate II: Prepona (P.) brooksiana subspecies. Top figures: P. (P.) brooksiana
diaziana, new subspecies, Paratype 9 upper (left) and under (right) surfaces;
MEXICO: CHIAPAS: Ocozocuautla (Allyn Museum photos 082376-9/10). This
specimen is the female of the most heavily orange marked morph. Bottom figures:
P. (P.) b. brooksiana Godman and Salvin, Holotype 9 upper (left) and under
(right) surfaces; MEXICO: VERACRUZ: Coatepec (British Museum; Allyn Museum
photos 102173-23/24). The labels were left on this specimen during photography,
hence the loss of detail on the under surface toward the bases of the wings.
With very few exceptions true natural hybrids are quite uncommon in nature.
Most of the cases cited as such prove to be either intraspecific hybrids or separate
species in their own rights. Apparently the most frequent cases of actual interspecific
hybrids occur in instances where one of the parent species is abundant and the
other rare in a locality. The other factor that might work in such an instance may be
the aggressiveness or passivity of the parental species. Obviously if a species
can mate with its own kind it will do so in preference to mating with a congenor,
but if a sexually aggressive rare species is unable to find a suitable mate it is
conceivable that it may mate with a more passive congenor, despite the futility
of such a pairing in an evolutionary sense (sterility, lethality or the like). We suggest
that in cases such as the mating offabius cecrops and electra that the former, being
the rarer species, was the male partner with electra being the female. The male is
the sex that initiates courtship in most butterflies, hence there would be no ad-
vantage in a male electra courting a female cecrops when the appropriate female
is so readily available.
Anaea (Memphis) tehuana Hall, 1917
Comstock (1961: 77-78; pl. 12, figs. 1-2) discusses and very accurately figures
this species. He indicates that he had seen but three specimens, plus a figure of the
type in the British Museum (Natural History): The states of Mexico represented
by the material before Comstock were Guerrero, Campeche and Oaxaca. Our series
is entirely from Piste, Yucatan, a range extension that is not entirely unexpected.
The dates of capture are from July through October, and both the form with rounded
forewings and the one with a semi-acute forewing are represented, seemingly
without regard to season. Most of the male specimens at hand are more heavily
marked below than is the type (Comstock, 1961: pl. 12, fig. 1), but the females are
a good match for the one figured (fig. 2). It is curious that Hoffmann (1940) entirely
overlooked the description of this species, especially since it was described more
than twenty years prior to his catalogue.
Anaea (Memphis) wellingi, new species
Figures 10, 11 (Holotype 6), 12, 13 (Paratype 9), 14 (a genitalia)
Male: Head, thorax and abdomen clothed above with blue-gray hairs; head
and thorax with rust colored ventral hairs; ventral hairs of abdomen gray.Antennal
shaft dark brown above, checkered lighter brown and white below; club dorsally
dark brown, ventrally rusty brown. Palpus clothed with dark brown, gray and white
admixed scales. Legs dark brown with a longitudinal white stripe on outside of
femur and tibia; tarsus dark brown with intersegmental points outlined in white.
Forewing above blackish-purple with basal part brilliant blue encompassing
most of cell to origin of Cu, thence to tornus at its midpoint; a somewhat duller
blue area begins marginally at tornus then curves basad to radial stem, its inner
point being about midway along radial stem. Fringes pale gray. Hindwing above
purplish-black with basal half (excluding anal fold) blue; margin powdered
irregularly with blue scales in which are small black points in Cu.-2A; anal fold
grayish. Fringes gray, darker toward apex.
Most of under surface shiny reddish-brown, but marginal area of forewing and
tornal third of hindwing duller ochreous brown; a complicated pattern of whitish
markings, as indicated in figure and very small black submarginal points in
hindwing spaces Cu,-Cu, and Cu,-2A (two), these latter ones with white adjacent
patches just proximad of them. Fringes of both wings reddish-gray.
Length of forewing of Holotype & 32.7 mm., those of the seven S Paratypes
range from 31.6 to 33.0 mm., averaging 32.4 mm.
Male genitalia as illustrated, more closely resembling those of the xenica
group than those ofgudrun with regard to the configuration of the valva. The general
structure of the uncus, tegumen and penis is closer to that of gudrun, thus confirming
the superficial resemblance.
Female: Head, thorax, abdomen and appendages similar to those of 6,
but the rust color of hairs on head and thorax beneath of 6 a warmer, paler rust in 9.
Upper surface of forewing dark fuscous with inner half of wing exclusive of
costa brilliantly blue. Upper surface of hindwing also deep fuscous with inner half
exclusive of anal fold bright blue; anal fold gray; submarginal black points in
Cu,-Cu, and Cu,-2a (two), the latter two with tiny bluish-white pupils. Fringes gray.
Under surface of wings pale reddish-brown with scattered white markings
as in 3 and additional heavy black ones not on a specimens at hand; one black
submarginal point in Cu,-Cu, and two in Cu,-2A, as in 3. Fringes reddish-tan.
Length of forewing of single 9 Paratype 39.1 mm.
Described from nine specimens, eight males and one female, from the state
of Oaxaca, Mexico.
HOLOTYPE 6: MEXICO: OAXACA: Candelaria Loxicha, 500 m., 19.x.1968
(E. C. Welling M.), ex colln. T. Escalante.
PARATYPES: all same locality and collector as Holotype: 13 18.x.1967;
Figures 10-13, Anaea (Memphis) wellingi, new species. 10-11, Holotype 3
upper (10) and under (11) surfaces (Allyn Museum photos 012576-7/8); MEXICO:
OAXACA: Candelaria Loxicha. 12-13, Paratype 9 upper (12) and under (13)
surfaces (Allyn Museum photos 101476-5/6); MEXICO: OAXACA: Candelaria
19 30.xi.1967; 13 7.viii.1969; 16 14.x.1970; 13 vi.1972; 13 22.vii. 1972; 16 22.ix.1972;
18 no date (one 3 with genitalia slide M-2578, Jacqueline Y. Miller).
Disposition of the type-series: Holotype 3, two 3 and the female Paratypes in
Allyn Museum of Entomology; one 3 Paratype in American Museum of Natural
History; four 3 Paratypes retained in collection of E. C. Welling M.
It is with great pleasure that we name this distinctive new species for its
discoverer, Sr. Eduardo C. Welling M. of M6rida, Yucatan, Mexico, who has dis-
covered many new, rare and unusual Mexican butterfly species during the past
two decades and has shared unselfishly his knowledge with other entomologists.
A. (M.) wellingi is one of the "tailless" Anaea that seem to abound in Mexico and
Central America. It is almost unique, however, in that both the males and females
are without tails, a situation shown by only A. (M.) cleomestra (Hewitson) in the illus-
trations of Comstock (1961). This fact alone suggests that wellingimay not be closely
related to any other species in the group, although the species it most closely re-
sembles superficially, gudrun Niepelt, is known only from the tailless male. The
chief superficial characteristic that separates wellingi and gudrun is the broader,
more diffuse submarginal blue area of the forewing in the former. Genitalically
the two species are abundantly distinct, as can be seen by comparison of our figure
of wellingi (Fig. 14) with Comstock's (1961: fig. 198) figure of the genitalia ofgudrun.
Several new Anaea have been described from single localities, some of which
have later been found to be more widespread, others remaining restricted (see
Rotger, Escalante and Coronado-G., 1965). We have other, apparently equally
restricted, Anaea from other parts of Mexico and from Central America, but we
have not seen enough specimens, or at least good enough specimens, of these other
underscribed species to enable us to describe them here. Such work must await more
and better material and will be the province of future papers.
We are grateful to those individuals and institutions who have cooperated
with us in this study. Thanks are due Dr. F. H. Rindge (American Museum of
Natural History) for searching the collections under this care, to Sr. Eduardo C.
Welling M. for loans and gifts of material, to Sr. Alberto Diaz Frances for loans and
gifts of material and to Dr. Tarsicio Escalante for presentation of much valuable
material to the Museum collection. Especial thanks are due to Mr. A. C. Allyn of
this institution for his photographic assistance and for reading the manuscript.
The authorities at the British Museum (Natural History) kindly allowed Mr. Allyn
to examine and photograph the type specimen of Prepona (P.) brooksiana.
Figure 14, Anaea (Memphis) wellingi, new species, 3 genitalia of Paratype,
slide M-2578 (Jacqueline Y. Miller); MEXICO: OAXACA: Candelaria Loxicha.
Comstock, W. P., 1961. Butterflies of the American tropics. The genus Anaea,
Lepidoptera Nymphalidae. New York, American Mus. Nat. Hist.: v-xiii
+ 214 pp.; ill.
Descimon, H., J. Mast de Maeght and J.-R. Stoffel, 1973-1974. Contribution a
1'etude des nymphalides neotropicales. Description de trois nouveaux
Prepona mexicains. Alexanor, 8: 101-105 (1973), 155-159 (1973, 235-240
Godman, F. D., 1901. See Godman and Salvin, 1879-1901.
Godman, F. D. and 0. Salvin, 1879-1901. Biologia Centrali-Americana. Insecta.
Lepidoptera-Rhopalocera. London, John Van Voorst, 3 vols.
----, 1889. Descriptions of new species of Rhopalocera from Mexico and Central
America. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (6)3: 351-358.
Hoffmann, C. C., 1940. Catalogo sistematico y zoogeografico de los lepidoptero
mexicanos. Primera part. Papilionoidea. An. Inst. Biol., 9: 639-739.
I. C. Z. N., 1964. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature ... London, Int.
Trust Zool.'Nomen.: ii-xix + 176 pp.
Miller, L. D. and J. Y. Miller, 1970. Notes on two rare Mexican Adelpha and
related Central American species. J. Lepid. Soc., 24: 292-297; ill.
Miller, L. D. and S. S. Nicolay, 1971. Two new Charaxinae from Panama and the
Canal Zone (Nymphalidae). Bull. Allyn Mus., (1): 5 pp.; ill.
Rotger, B., T. Escalante and L. Coronado-G., 1965. Una especie y una subespecie
nuevas de Anaea Hiibner (Lepid., Nymphal.). Ciencia, Mex., 24: 141-144; ill.
Stoffel, J.-R. and J. Mast de Maeght, 1973. See Descimon, Mast de Maeght and