1920] Holland, Lepidoptera of the Congo 195 



males. They were all taken at Medje. except a pair caught at Munie 

 Katoto and a male taken at Risimii in September 1909. One rather 

 dwarfed specimen is recorded as taken in April, the rest from July to 

 September, but by far the larger number in the month of August. The 

 insect is not a race of C. heckeri Herrich-Schaeffer, but undoubtedly a 

 valid species. 



(265) 4. C3nmothoe confusa Aurivillius 



Cymothoe confusa Aurivillius, 1SS7, Ofvers. Sv. Vet.-Akad. Forh., XLIV, p. 310; 

 1912, Seitz, Gross-Schmett., p. 146, Pis. xxxiva, h, and xxxvia. 



One male taken at Niangara, November 20, 1910. 



(266) 5. Cymothoe colmanti Aurivillius 



Cymothoe colmanti Aurivillius, 1898, Ent. Tidskr., XIX, p. 180, fig. 6; 1912, 

 Seitz, Gross-Schmett., XIII, p. 147. 



A single male captured at Gamangui, Februarj^ 4, 1910, is referred 

 to this species. It corresponds very closely to the description and figure 

 given by Aurivillius, and the very slight differences may be due to the 

 fact that the specimen is a trifle worn and the marginal borders of the 

 wings are not quite as distinctly marked as in the published figure. 



« 



(267) 6. Cymothoe cyclades (Ward) 



Plate VII, Figure 6, d" 

 Harma cyclades W.\ed, 1871, Ent. Mo. Mag., VIII, p. 119; 1874, Afr. Lep., p. 14, 



PI. XI, figs. 4, 5. 

 Cymothoe cyclades Aurivillius, 1912, Seitz, Gros.s-Schmett., XIII, p. 147, PI. xxxivfe, 

 cf. 



One male taken at Medje, July 8, 1910. I refer this specimen to 

 Ward's species in spite of some minor, apparently individual, differences. 

 It agrees very closely with specimens which I have from the tropical 

 western coast and which I do not hesitate to identify with C. cyclades. 



(268) 7. Cymothoe diphyia Karsch 



Plate VI, Figure 6, 9 

 Cymothoe diphyia Karsch. 1894, Ent. Nachr., XX, p. 211. Aurivillius, 1912, 

 Seitz, Gros.s-Schmett., XIII, p. 149, PI. xxxva, d". 



Ten males caught at ]Medje, one in April, the rest in July and 

 August, and one female, w^iich I believe I am right in as.sociating with 

 the males, though it does not quite agree with the brief characteriza- 

 tion of the female given by Aurivillius (loc. cit.). As no figure of the 

 female of C. diphyia has thus far been published and all we know about 



