ih tee 8a Se 
two Inpteninae collected by C. O. Farquharson. 467 
Butterflies,” Oxford, 1910, p. 89), and the black margin 
of the hind-wing upper surface is narrower. In other 
words the differences are those commonly characteristic 
of the genus Terzas, viz. of the Pierine models. 
J. Rober in an article on mimicry (Entom. Mitteilungen, 
vol. x, nr. 1, Jan. 5, 1921, p. 23) disputes Doflein’s conclu- : 
sion (Hesse and Doflein “ Tierbau und Tierleben,” vol. ii, 
1914, pl. ix) that eras is the model of Cuitrinophila, 
because the special protection of Zerias has not yet been 
proved, and because of the difference in size. But such 
a difference between model and mimic is common and 
unimportant; for, as Mr. F. A. Heron has pointed out, 
apparent size is determined by distance (Proc. Ent. Soc., 
1903, pp. Ixv, lxvi). Furthermore, the resemblance 
deceives the insects themselves; for one of the Oni males 
referred to on p. 465 was observed by Lamborn, on Aug. 
5, 1910, to be eagerly pursuing a male of Terias senegalensis 
Boisd., and both were taken in a single sweep of the net. 
Although this Terias is not so good a model as brigitta 
the two insects would closely resemble each other on the 
wing. ‘The correspondence between the patterns of the 
sexes referred to above supplies further evidence of mimetic 
association. 
I have now had the opportunity of studying Doflein’s 
plate, and find that the figures of Citrinophila similis and 
its model Terias brigitta Cram. are copied from Dr. 
Eltringham’s work, published in 1910 (ibid., p. 89, pl. ix. 
figs. 27 and 22, respectively). 
Dr. Dixey has kindly written the following note on the 
mimicry of Citrinophila tenera :— 
“Of the three common species of Terias which occur 
in the same locality as Mr. Lamborn’s specimens of 
Citrinophila tenera, viz. T. brigitta Cram., T'. regularis 
Butl., and 7. senegalensis Boisd., the resemblance is closest 
to T. brigitta. The correspondence between the male 
Lycaenid and the male Pierid is remarkably exact; that 
between the respective females is also quite good, but in 
this latter case there are some interesting differences. 
The aspect of 7. brigitta 2 varies according to season, and 
the aspect of C. tenera, 2 f. similis presents features 
which belong to the wet phase of 7. brigitta 2 together 
with some that are characteristic of the dry. The dark 
border to the hind-wing in the similis 2 suggests the 
“wet-season’’ phase of 7. brigitta 2, while the uniform 
