African Species of the Genus Aeraea. 131 



the hind margin and makes a right angle with the fiftli spot 

 which extends right across area 3. In the h.-\v. the bhick margin 

 is extremely narrow as in halall but the discal row of spots 

 are all present though small, and the second, third, fourth, and 

 fifth are all run together in such a manner as to give the insect 

 at first sight a marked resemblance to A. atolniis. Tliis re- 

 semblance is even greater on the underside, the h.-w. having 

 much pink suffusion, orange submarginal internervular marks, 

 and the hind-marginal ochreous band is only very indistinctly 

 divided into spots by the nervules. 

 I have not seen a female of this form. 



A. nuhara punctdlnta^ subsp. n. PI. V, f. 9 ( (^ ). 



In the British Museum there are several examples of a 

 form of nohara labelled guillemei, Oberthiir. The (^ ^ differ 

 from typical nuhara in being usually larger, and of a rosy 

 red tint. The f.-w. is more rounded, than in typical 

 nohara and the discal spots lie in an irregular line much 

 as in A. chamhezi. The nervules are less markedly black 

 in the apical area. On the underside of the h.-w. the 

 marginal border is formed of large yellowish spots only 

 faintly outlined in black. All the black spots are smaller 

 than in tyjjical nohara. Three $ $ now before me are dusky 

 ochreous brown, and in one the inner edge of the h.-w. marginal 

 black is much suffused. 



Two (J ^ and two $ 9 from the Tring collection present 

 much the same features, but the 9 ? are only a little less rosy 

 than the (^ (^ . 



Whilst many of the above examples present a certain 

 amount of individual variation they all agree fairly closely 

 with OberthUr's figure of guillemei, and I should have 

 been inclined to assign them to that form but for one 

 feature. The figure of guillemei shows the spot in area 3 

 of h.-w. midway between end of cell and inner edge of 

 marginal border, whereas in the forms above described 

 this spot is close to the end of the cell. Since we have 

 two totally distinct species, A. chamhezi and A. mansya 

 existing side by side in the same district and differing 

 outwardly only in the position of this particular spot, I do 

 not think that the present form can be identical with 

 guillemei. 



The latter seems almost certainly the ^ of the species 

 since described by Lathy as A. aciUipennis, with which it 

 agrees very closely in the peculiar arrangement of the 



K 2 



