— 500 — 
ation I, resembles that of A/anemordes rather than the primary 
models. It is possible that some secondary mimetic approach has 
taken place, a question that can probably be decided by the 
examination of a sufficient series of this form, together with a 
comparison between it and the white-barred form of phegea at 
Entebbe and on the west coast. 
Mimacrea poultoni NEAVE. 
H. ELTRINGHAM has remarked on the great variability of 
this species, of which the commonest form is doubtless, as 
NEAVE originally suggested, a beautiful mimic of Acrea 
sotikensis E. M SHARPE. Some of the forms of this Lycænid at 
Entebbe perhaps gain advantage as outlying members of Combin- 
ation I; for their upper surface pattern is such that, upon the wing, 
there would probably be considerable resemblance to the members 
of this association, especially to the female of A. alciope. Only a 
single specimen of this Mimacrea was captured in the period 
under review, on June 27th, but it is an example of the form referr- 
ed to above. 
Combination II, centred by the females of Planema macarista 
E. M. SHARPE, and P/. alcinoe FELDER (Table Il). 
Mr. S A. NEAVE (loc. cit., p. 212) described one of these primary 
models, viz. the female of Pl. godmani (1) BUTL. (= alcinoe), and 
its beautiful Nymphaline mimic, Pseudacræa tirikensis NEAVE 
(= Ps. hoblevi, female). He also mentions on the same page the 
white-barred form of Elymnias phegea (not taken in the period 
with which the present paper deals), placing it among the mimics 
of the Danaine Butterfly Amauris niavius. I do not doubt that the 
(1) The female P/anema spoken of by Mr. NEAVE was in reality P/. maca- 
vista, which had not at the time been separated from P/. alcinoe in the Entebbe 
district. The same error was repeated by the present writer in « Proc. Ent. Soc. 
Lond. », 1909, pp. LXIII-LXIV. We owe the correct sexing and determination 
ofthe two species in this area to the recent researches of Dr. KARL JORDAN. 
