1920] Holland, Lepidoptera of the Congo 169 



mere color varieties or seasonal forms which have not as yet been recog- 

 nized as such. The genus as a whole presents as much difficulty to the 

 systematist as the genus Argynnis and, in fact, I am disposed to regard 

 it as more difficult than the latter genus. The arrangement and classi- 

 fication of the specimens contained in the collection upon which I am 

 now reporting must, therefore, in certain of the groups be regarded as 

 in a measure provisional. 



I. Perseis Group 



(193) 1. Euphs3dra imitans Holland 



Plate VII, Figure 2, type, 9 

 Euphadra imitans Holland, 1893, Canad. Ent., XXV, p. 3. Aurivillius, 1898, 

 Rhop. ^thiop., p. 185; 1912, Seitz, Gross-Schmett., XIII, p. 190. 



Of this well-marked species, which has never before been figured, 

 there are in the collection one male and three females, all taken at 

 Aledje, the male on September 27, one of the females in July, and two 

 of the females in August 1910. 



II. RuspiNA Group 



I ma}^ say in passing that I assign E. crowleiji Kirby to this 

 group. It is a small species, which Aurivillius in error classifies under 

 Euptera, but I have both males and females which show that the insect 

 is a true Euphcedra. 



(194) 2. Euphsedra ruspina (Hewitson) 



Romalaosoma ruspina Hewitsox, 1865, Exot. Butt., Ill, Romalcrosoma, PI. ii, 

 figs. 6, 7. 



Euphxvdra ruspina Aurivillius, 1898, Rhop. ^?i]thiop., p. 185; 1912, Seitz, Gross- 

 Schmett., XIII, p. 190, PI. XLiib. (In error designated on the plate as E. eleus.) 



Of this well-known species there are eleven males and three females. 

 All of the males and two of the females are labelled as captured at Medje; 

 one female is marked as taken at Gamangui in July. 



III. Eleus Group 



(195) 3. Euphaedra eleus (Drury) 



Papilio eleus Drury, 1782, 111. Exot. Ent., Ill, p. 14, PI. xii, figs. 1, 2. 



Euphwdra eZe(/s Aurivillius, 1898, Rhop. ^thiop., p. 185; 1912, Seitz, Gross-Schmett., 



XIII, p. 190, PI. XLii6. (Middle figure, 9 , erroneously labelled ruspina on 



plate.) 



The figure of E. eleus given by Drury does not appear to be for- 

 tunate. The insect on his plate (loc. cit.) is represented as having the 

 hind wing strongly produced at the anal angle. Such a specimen, so 



