( xvi ) 
Professor Poulton reminded the Fellows of Mr. Guy A. K. 
Marshall’s conclusion that E. locUdbergi and mima were forms 
of the same species (Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1902, pp. 491, 
492), and of the exhibition of specimens relied on as evidence 
(June 6, 1906 : Pi’oc. Ent. Soc. Loud., 1906, pp. liii, liv). He 
felt that Mr. A. I). Millar was to be greatly congi’atulated on 
his success in obtaining this long-wished-for proof of a most 
impoi’tant and probably far-reaching conclusion. 
Professor Poulton considered that the uniform offspring 
of the mima parent (/>) could not be explained in the same 
manner as the predominant cenea offspring of P. dardaims in 
Natal; for according to Mr. G. F. Leigh (Proc. Ent. Soc. 
Lond., 1906, p. Ivii) mima is the rarer of the two forms in 
Natal, whereas in the same area cenea is by far the commonest 
of the dardaims females. 
The comparison of the results obtained by Mr. Millar in (a) 
and (b) suggested a Mendeliau relationship between the two 
forms.* It Avas interesting to compare the records of two 
broods obtained from llypolimnas misipjms (Proc. Ent. Soc. 
Lond., 1909, pp. xxxvi, xxxvii). 
Professor Poulton ahso exhibited a set of 6 Euralia anthedon, 
iJoubh, and 4 E. dnbia, Beauv., captured in the same locality, 
Oni, 70 miles east of Lagos, by Dr. W. A. Lamboru (Dec. 1908- 
Dec. 1909). Anthedon was the western representative of 
niahlbergi, dubia of mima, and noAv, after the proof obtained 
by Mr. Millar, it became almost certain that the Av^estern 
butterflies also were the dimorphic foi’ms of a single species. 
He trusted that Dr. Lamborn Avould be able to obtain indis¬ 
putable proof of this conclusion. 
Professor Poulton considered that it was convenient at this 
point to correct an error for Avhich he Avas responsible in Rev. 
K. St. Aubyn Rogers’ paper in Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1908, p. 
489. Euralia hirbyi, But!., mentioned and figured (PI. XXVII, 
fig. 5) in this memoir, Avas not a distinct species, but the male 
* Since tlie date of the meeting I have had the chance of discussing 
the facts witli Mr. L. Doncaster, Avho agrees that the two forms are 
probably a Mendeliau pair, but considers that we have not at present 
sufficient evidence to decide whether viahlbergi or mima is dominant. 
Mr. Doncaster agrees that the last result, recorded by Mr. Trimen in the 
foot-note on p. xv, makes it probable, but by no means certain, that mima 
is the dominant.—E. B. Poulton, March 21,1910. 
