Geographical Distribution of Acraca lycoa, A. johnstont. 5 
tawny in ¢elekiana, whilst it is whitish in the male type of 
johnstont. The same author described at the same time 
“ Planema” confusa and “ Planema” fallax. The latter 
has already been referred to in connection with lycoa. 
Planema confusa is described by Rogenhofer as the male 
of Butler’s type female. In Baumann’s “ Usambara” 
(supplement) it is stated that both the male and female 
were taken. No difference is specified, and the figure 
subsequently published is stated in the text to be that of 
a female, though the description facing the plate states it 
to bea male. In 1893 M. Oberthiir described a number 
of forms under the name of Acraea proteina, the type of 
which appears to be a male,* and resembles the insect 
previously described by Butler as the type female of john- 
stoni, and is also similar to Rogenhofer’s confusa. The four 
varieties described by Oberthiir are (1) proteina jlavescens, 
which appears to be an ordinary yellow-spotted example 
of the commonest form of johnstont; (2) proteina semialb- 
escens, sex not stated,an example of which in the National 
Collection has white spots on the forewing, and tawny 
hindwings marked with dark inter-nervular rays and © 
exhibiting no trace on the upperside of the quadrate patch, 
though the latter is clearly outlined on the underside ; 
(3) proteina semifulvescens, sex not stated, a form which 
agrees with Godman’s male type; (4) proteina fulvescens, 
a form which has nearly lost the spots in the forewing 
and the patch in the secondaries, though they are more 
obvious on the underside, and all four wings are tawny. 
It is the peculiar variety which appears to have developed 
in a mimetic direction synaposematic with Danaida 
chrysippus f. dorippus and Acraea encedon f. daira. 
The next published reference occurs in Butler’s note on 
the forms in Proc. Zool. Soc., p. 113, 1896. Butler was un- 
aware that the pattern of Godman’s male type also occurs in 
the female sex, and therefore he regarded Godman’s type and 
his own female type as constituting a sexually dimorphic 
variety. He describes Oberthiir’s fulvescens as synonymous 
with Rogenhofer’s telekiana, whereas the latter is practi- 
cally the same as Godman’s male type, and further he 
* Butler appears to have thought that Oberthiir’s proteina was a 
female. Though the sex of the specimen figured is not definitely 
given as male, the author states, after describing it, that his col- 
lection contains three males, quite similar to one another. I cannot 
take this to mean otherwise than that the example figured is one of 
the three males in question. 
