Professor E. B. Poulton on the genus Euliphyra. 505 
capture. They were 2m coité on a dry twig in the centre of 
a dead bush, and as I disturbed them they fell and separated, 
and I was obliged to scramble to catch them.” 
It will be seen by reference to Plate X XVII, figs. 1-4, 
that the condition of the butterflies is not so poor as might 
be inferred from the above note. The specimens have been 
compared with the male type and the female in the British 
Museum and they are closely similar—Lamborn’s female 
having a slightly heavier dark marginal band. 
2. Euliphyra mirifica, Holland (see the accompanying 
Plate XX VII, figs. 5-11). The male of this species was first 
described in “ Psyche,” 5, p. 423 (1890), again described 
and both upper and under surfaces figured in 1893 in Smith 
and Kirby’s Rhop. Exot., 23, Lycaen. Afr., p. 89, t. 20, 
f. 11-12. The single specimen was bred by the Rev. 
A. C. Good on the upper waters of the River Ogové, Gaboon, 
having been “ developed from ‘a very singular chrysalis, 
short and thick, and unlike anything of the kind I have 
observed before, which was found upon the ander side of 
a large leaf. It was black in color.’” (‘‘ Psyche,” 1. ¢., 
p. 423.) 
Aurivilius, having discovered Hewitson’s mistake, 
referred to on p. 504 gave the name hewitsoni (Rhop. 
Aethiop., p. 286, 1898) to the female type of “ leucyania”’ 
in the collection of the British Museum. I have compared 
both under and upper surfaces of Lamborn’s 5 females with 
this type, and they are certainly the same species. The 
3 males have been carefully compared by Mr. H. Eltring- 
ham and me with the excellent figures and description of 
Dr. W. J. Holland’s male specimen in Rhop. Exot., and we 
have no doubt that they are the same spe@ies. Hewitson’s 
female “leucyania”’ and Aurivillius’ female “‘ hewitsoni ”’ 
become the female of Holland’s mirifica, and Hewitson’s 
original specimen, after serving temporarily as the female 
type of two species, is finally found to belong to a third. 
Of Lamborn’s 5 females, D (Plate X XVII, fig. 8) is almost 
exactly similar to Hewitson’s specimen, and, like it, shows 
an exceedingly faint trace of a white mark below the cell 
of the hind-wing on the upper surface, corresponding to the 
position of the strongly marked white bar on the under 
surface. The trace is very faint and has not been repro- 
duced in Hewitson’s figure referred to above. The other 4 
specimens—H, F’, G, and H (Plate XXVII, fig. 9)—have the 
same faint mark rather more strongly emphasised, although 
