( 30 ) NOTES ON SATUBNIDAE ; WITH A PRELIMINARY REVISION OF THE FAMILY DOWN TO THE GENUS JUToM/'J/ns, AND DESCRIPTIONS OF SOME NEW SPECIES. By the HON. WALTER ROTHSCHILD. BEFORE begiuuiug this paper I must give a few g'oueral remarks to make the scope of it clear, and also somewhat to explain my position. Here, as in my articles ou Sphingidne, I liave based my work on Mr. Kirby's Catalogue of Heteroccra, which 1 employ for the sake of convenience to arrange my col-lection by. Many of my readers will, no duiilrt, be much surprised tu lind such a difference between the style, extent of researcb, and general drift of tbis article, and one I am about to publish on the Old AVorld Papilios (exclusive of Africa) ; in explanation of this I must state that the present paper is intended to indicate merely a few of the most obvions errors and new facts which struck me on arranging my collection, while the article on Papilios is one of three or four papers which are intended to pave the way for a final entire and critical revision of the families Papilioninac, Sphiiigidue, and Satiir/iidae, which are the families of Lepidoptera I take most interest in, and of which I believe I have an almost, if not rj^uite, unrivalled collection. In the course of the work connected with this paper, I carefully studied Mr. Ilampson's Mutks of India ; and, although I consider it an admirable work, which suiiplied a great want, I cannot agree with certain of its author's views. The chief of those I object to is that he considers differences of structure, if very slight, as only worthy of marking sections of a genus; but I consider them of generic value, because, if a genus is small, it is much more easy to find the affinities of a sjiecies; and so if there are any permanent characters, however slight, I prefer to separate the insects exhibiting them into a genus rather than a section. It is much more convenient to call an insect at once Caligula simla than Saturuia (Section ll.)simla. Where not otherwise stated the types of the new species are in the Tring Museum. COSCINOCERA. In this genus C. omphalc Butl. sinks as a synonym of t'. hercules (Misk.), for I have specimens from Queensland and New Guinea which agree 2'erfectly with the type of ('. omphale from New Ireland. I have a specimen, however, which is said to be from German New Guinea, which has the ocelli in all four wings much smaller and nearer the base of the wings ; this I pro))ose to call Coscinoccra hercules (Misk.) ab. butlcri ab. nov. RHESCYNTIS. Here I only have to remark that I have a Una /'I'mali; of J\/t. mortii (Perty) from British Guiana, while the species was originally described from South Brazil. This shows that ith. mortii (Perty) has almost the same range as I'll. Iiippodamia (Cram.), of which hitter, I may add, I have sjiecimens from Central America, Britisii Guiana, Dutch Guiana, and linizil.