XOVITATES ZOOLOOICAE XXII. 1915. 97 



Kea " or something like that. This specimen belongs to the species I have 

 called and believe to be " nesophila." The underside of nesophila is quite 

 unlike that figured in Rhop. Malay, as felderi, so that if this is the type speci- 

 men it is Incky it is not so labelled ; the upperside agrees well enough with the 

 figure oi felderi. 



The underside figure of the male is clearly of the bulls group, a little blurred 

 or rubbed, that of the female is highly suggestive of nesophila. 



There is in Mr. Bethune-Baker's collection a specimen labelled " Felderi " that 

 agrees well enough with the figure ((?) iu Rhop. Malay. This specimen, however, 

 is not Malayan, but comes from Sandakan, Borneo ; this is not, of course, decisive 

 against its being felderi. 



My information, then, allows me (1) to leave the species alone, (2) to sink ■ 

 it as a synon3-m of nesophila {nesophila in the Tring collection is Blalayau and 

 Bornean), (3) to accept provisionally the Bakerian specimen as authentic. I 

 adopt the latter course as more likely to advance knowledge, even if itself an 

 error — as it proposes a,s felderi a form with strong claim to be a "good" species, 

 but more especially because I believe it more nearly represents the fact. 

 This same locality prodnces ordinary btdis and also sperthis. 

 I conclude, in fact, that Mr. Distant had what I accept &s, felderi — namely, that 

 of which he fignres the male underside, and which is represented in Mr. Bethune- 

 Baker's collection under the name felderi ; he had also, and mixed with them, 

 specimens of what I accept as nesophila. Of these he figured a female, and 

 labelled ^% felderi the male in the Tring Museum. 



felderi on this assumption is a subspecies (or distinct species) of C. bulis, 

 differing from tlie usual form in having the black margins as in santana or 

 thetis — i.e. narrowing to anal angle of forewing, and not extending at all along 

 the inner margin. In this respect it does not differ from the form santana, 

 of which I have a Bornean specimen. 



The genitalia, however, of this specimen i)i felderi differ from ordinary (and 

 usual Bornean) specimens of bulis by the dorsal hooks being shorter and blunter, 

 and by the harpes being expanded to a tdnnt square tip. A variation of this 

 sort is common in C. acuta, but the only specimen of bulis in which I have found 

 it is another Borueau specimen — and in a minor degree a bulis (from Sikkim) and 

 a discalis. This difference in the genitalia might give this felderi some claim to 

 be a " good " species. 



My numerous preparations of the c? appendages of bulis do not present a 

 complete series iu this matter of the harpe, from one extreme form to the other, 

 but in view of the considerable variation iu specimens from each locality, and 

 that I have some localities poorly and many not represented, I conclude that 

 a sufficient number of specimens would show the range of variation to be 

 continuous. 



Some few specimens present the discal mark that is more characteristic of the 

 dentata form of acuta, but the range of variation on the upper surface covers nearly 

 all the ground that de Niceville assigns to the whole group, and it must be agreed 

 that the upper surface at least gives no certain characters by which to separate bulis 

 from the other species of the section. 



C. bulis has a rather wide range : N. W. Himalayas (where it imitates the form 

 angulata of acuta), Sikkim, S. Barmah, Malacca, Beuang, Banka, Sumatra, 

 Nias, N. Borneo. 



