<" ule SOO OD ees Ebene Mae une De i 7 ae Gee & 
tea rages Patt Se Le See ‘ i 
ee, os Sty ager ° \ 
African Species of the Genus Neptis. 571 
an examination of several preparations convinces me that 
it would be impossible to decide on the anatomy alone 
between the two species, if indeed they are really speci- 
fically distinct. The case is the more remarkable in that 
whilst the armatures are so similar they are entirely different 
from that of any other species examined. 
25. Neptis BIaFRA. PI. XXII, fig. 2 (proz.). 
Ward, Ent. Mo. Mag., 8, p. 121 (1871); Afr: Lep., 
p. 12, pl. 9, ff. 1, 2 (1874); Auriv., Rhop. Aeth., p. 168 
(1898); Auriv., in Seitz, Macrolep., p. 201 (1913); Holl., 
Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., pl. 8, f. 3 (1920) (prox.); Non 
Holl., Ent. News, pl. 9, f. 10 (1892). 
CAMEROON. 
Ward’s description of this species is as follows :— 
Male. Upperside. Both wings brown black; f.-w. the cell 
crossed by three diagonal white marks, the outer one the largest, 
the inner one near the base the smallest; beyond the cell three 
parallel horizontal white streaks, the upper one the smallest; below 
midway two clear oval white spots; h.-w. crossed midway by a 
broad band of white, this band is also continued slightly into the 
f.-w.; fringe of both wings white; following the outer margin of 
both wings four white bands, the first from the margin very narrow, 
second rather broader, third broad especially on the h.-w., fourth 
narrow and rather undulating on the h.-w. 
Underside resembles upperside, with the white markings generally 
broader. Expanse 2-3 in. 
Ward’s figure, which is rather rough, agrees with the 
above description. I have never seen an example exactly 
like the figure, and certainly there is no specimen in the four 
great British collections. The most characteristic features 
are the three white marks in f.-w. cell, in which it differs 
from paula, which has one diagonal and one longitudinal 
mark, and the secondary white band in the h.-w. Un- 
fortunately the type has been lost, M. Oberthiir informing 
me that it was missing when he acquired Ward’s collection. 
The species, if it be a species, has been much confused with 
other forms, especially owing to the figure published by 
Dr. Holland (Ent. News, supra). This figure represents a 
form but little removed from typical nysiades. This error 
was sufficiently confusing, but the same author has only 
