Breeding of the Nynvphaline Geoius Eitrcdia. 509 
even an ordinary amount of variation seemed scarcely to 
occur in either of them to any noticeable degree. The 
only marked instances of variation I came across were 
those recorded by me (as “ Var. A”) in “ S.-Afr. Butt.,” I, 
p. 285 and footnote (1887) as of a ^ and a ^ of mima, 
in which the enlarged white spots of the forewings and the 
almost white merely yellowish-edged patch of the hind- 
wings showed an approach in the direction not of wahl- 
hergi, but of the West-African chibid, Palis., and of the 
Madagascar E. drucei, Butl., considered by Aurivillius * 
to be a variety of dulha. But Mr. A. D. Millar, having 
lately written to me that he possessed an example uniting 
the characters of wahlhergi and mima, I replied pointing 
out the interest attaching to it; and he has now forwarded 
an excellent photograph by Mr. D. James (see Plate LXV) 
of this intermediate individual—apparently a ^—side by 
side with bred examples of the loahlhergi and mima 
forms. It will be seen that while in the forewings this 
specimen in the main agrees as to its chief markings with 
wahlhergi, the inner-marginal white patch is reduced by 
its lower half being much clouded with fuscous scales (the 
submedian nervure being broadly clouded with black); and 
that in the hindwings the white area is greatly reduced 
to the size and shape of that in mima. Besides this, in 
both fore and hindwings appears the sub-marginal series of 
rounded white spots so characteristic of mima, but never 
present in \oahlhergi. Moreover, Mr. Millar points out 
that while the blue iridescence characteristic of wahlhergi 
is retained in the forewings, there is a slight tinge of 
the ochrey-yellow of mima on the reduced white patch of 
the hindwings. The rarity of examples partaking of the 
characters of both mimetic forms of this sub-species of 
* Anrivillius (Ehop. Aetliiop., p. 150, 1899) queries whether E. 
diffusa, Butl., of Madagascar (figured by Mabille in Grandidier 
Madag. Lep. I, pi. 18a, f. 4, 1885-7) be not a “hybrid” between 
E. drucei and E. madaffascariensis,^La.h. (u form close to im/dtergi); 
and also whether E. daemona, Stand., from Camaroon (“Iris,” iX, 
pi. 2, f. 1, 1896) be not similarly a “hybrid” between E. dnhia and 
E. anthedon. Of the latter case I can give no opinion, not having 
seen Staudinger’s figure; but Mabille’s figure of the Madagascar 
diffusa does certainly much resemble the photograph of Mr. Millar’s 
e.xample uniting the features of mima and wahlhergi —the forewings 
being almost identical, but the hindwings ditfering conspicuously in 
the whitish space being very much larger—scarcely less than in 
madagascariensis or wahlhergi. 
L h 2 
