Rays 
Dr. Eltringham on African Species of Genus Neptis. 533 
The larvae are but little known. That of dwmetorwn will 
be described under that species. 
The present paper is an attempt to deal with the forms 
and species of the Ethiopian region, though it cannot 
claim to be a complete revision, owing to lack of sufficiently 
long series of many forms. It may be that collectors 
generally, deceived by the great monotony of pattern and 
colouring, have neglected the genus in the belief that com- 
paratively small series of specimens were sufficiently ’ 
representative. It may be that some of the forms are really 
comparatively rare. In either case the fact remains that 
many species are but poorly represented in collections, 
whilst the difficulty of identification has led to numerous 
errors of nomenclature. So far no serious effort seems to 
have been made to investigate the relationships of the 
various described species, though at the same time, con- 
sidering the fine distinctions and in some cases almost 
indescribable differences between what are really separate 
species, the literature of the genus is not wanting in certain 
shrewd diagnoses of their affinities. 
As a problem in taxonomy the genus presents a number 
of difficulties, some of which in the absence of adequate 
material still remain unsolved. There are genera of Lepi- 
doptera in which the male armature furnishes good and 
constant characters, enabling us to confirm or amend con- 
clusions founded on outward and more easily observed 
features. In other cases we know that these anatomical 
structures are of so simple a nature that they are of little 
value in specific diagnosis. 
In the African forms of Neptis we have in some instances 
instability of pattern combined with variability of anatomi- 
cal structure, each condition tending to throw doubt on 
conclusions based on the other. Some species can be 
isolated with ease on well-differentiated characters of the 
male armature. In other cases we have forms very 
different in outward appearance, but not constantly dis- 
tinguishable in the anatomical characters. If, for example, 
we take two forms A and B, of different pattern, and dissect 
and examine the genitalia, one mounted specimen of each 
may show recognisable differences. If, however, we take 
another example of A the armature may present differences 
from the first specimen of A, such differences being as great 
as those between B and the original A. Again, we may make 
preparations from two examples C and D, whose external 
