the Rhopalocera of the Dollman Collection. 243 
rarely met with except as a small and easily searched shrub. 
Many hundreds of larvae were obtained in this way—such 
of the larger trees as were searched gave no results what- 
ever.” 
In the larval state the two species may be readily differ- 
entiated by their heads. In fulgurata the cephalic horns 
are long, rather pointed and broadly red-brown at apex; 
in etheocles they are “ short and blunt’; and further, in 
etheocles “all the larvae had the median pair of small 
points [between the larger cephalic horns] light yellow,” 
whilst in fulgurata they “ are always black or very dark.” 
“ The larvae were found during every month of the year 
except August, during which month the kabulwebulwe is 
leafless. The eggs are laid on the upper surface of the 
leaves. The pupal stage lasts from three weeks to a month.” 
This species has hitherto usually been considered a form 
of etheocles. But the two species occur together, and are 
readily separable without fear of confusion. The chief 
points in which the male of fulgurata differs from that of 
etheocles are : the rather lighter, bluer shade of the blue-green 
ground-colour, the size of the two subapical spots—much 
larger and more crescentic in fulgurata than im any race 
of etheocles—the fusion of the submarginal dark green spots 
with the marginal strip of the same colour, and the length 
and conspicuousness of the internervular marginal pale 
lines. Dewitz gives an excellent figure of the male in Nov. 
Act. Ac. N. Cur., Vol. 50, t. 17, f. 10 (1887), under the name 
of C. ephyra var. The size and shape of the two subapical 
spots and the submarginal and marginal markings of the 
female correspond very closely to those of the male and 
serve to distinguish it readily from females of C. etheocles. 
All the females obtained by Dollman correspond to the 
phaeus form of C@. etheocles, and may be known as 9 f. mima, 
form nov. (B.M. Type No. Rh. 060 9). I see no reason 
to suppose that the female figured by Dewitz (l.c.), and 
having a white band to the fore-wing, is not also a female of 
this species. The marginal markings are identical with those 
of 2 f. mima, and by no means those of C. etheocles, 2 f. 
mamca Trim. This form has been named f. lunigera 
Roths., Nov. Zool. vii, p. 488, 1900. 
Further evidence of the distinctness of C. etheocles and 
C. fulgurata lies in the particulars as to differences in the 
larvae, food-plants and imaginal habits given by Dollman. 
And, in addition, a series of preparations of the genitalia 
