Ixi 



forest, and may occur in comparatively thin bush. Pseudo- 

 pontia paradoxa seems to be limited to the Western Equatorial 

 faunistic region of Africa though it occurs nearly up to the 

 extreme edges of it. I have taken it in South-west Katanga 

 not very far from the Congo-Zambesi watershed, and in 

 Uganda it is not uncommon in forested country as far east 

 as the forests at the western and southern foot of Mt. Elgon. 

 Though a forest species, it is not rigidly restricted to dense 

 forest and deep shade. Leuceronia pilaris is a typically 

 dense forest insect and never occurs outside such a habitat. 

 It has a relatively short season on the wing, and is usually 

 fairly abundant where it occurs. It is found in dense forest 

 areas across Uganda into Kenya Colony as far east as the 

 foot of the Nandi Escarpment. Both P. paradoxa and L. 

 pilaris have the same sluggish, floating flight as L. medusa. 

 This is particularly striking in the case of L. pharis, in view 

 of the active and vigorous flight of its allies, 



3. Pseudopontia paradoxa ; its Affinities, Mimetic Relations, 

 and Geographical Races. — Dr. F. A. Dixey said that he had 

 been asked to supplement Prof. Poulton's communication 

 with some remarks on the structure and probable affinities 

 of this curious and isolated form. It was first described by 

 Felder (Pet. Nouv. Ent., i, No. 8 (1869), p. 30) in the year 

 1869, from a specimen captured at Calabar. He considered 

 it to be a Pierine allied to Pontia {Nychitona Butl.). His 

 name for it was Globiceps paradoxa. 



In 1870 Plotz (Stett. Ent. Zeit. (1870), pp. 348, 9, Taf. Ill 

 (sic), fig. 1 a~f. N.B. The plate itself is numbered Taf. II) 

 described and figured Pseudopontia calabarica, which Hewitson 

 (Pet. Nouv. Ent., No. 15 bis and No. 23, 1870) rightly pointed 

 out to be the same insect as Felder's Globiceps paradoxa. 

 Hewitson went on to say that the' insect was evidently a 

 moth, and to criticise Plotz's figure on the ground that the 

 artist had represented the antennae as knobbed, thus giving 

 it the deceptive appearance of a butterfly. In his opinion 

 that it was a moth, he was followed by Butler (Cist. Entom. 

 i (1870), p. 57). R. Felder (Pet. Nouv. Ent., No. 24, 1870) 

 replied to Hewitson's strictures by publishing an accurate 

 figure with the antennae knobless, as in nature. He gave 



