recently (1920, l.c.) reasserted that this figure represents ~ 
M. Oberthiir has kindly sent me a photo- 
Ward’s biafra. 
572 Dr. H. Eltringham on the 
graph of Ward’s figure, and it agrees with the copy we 
have at Oxford. 
The differences between Ward’s figure and that of 
Dr. Holland (Ent. News, 1892) are as follows :— 
Warpb’s FIcure. 
F.-w. cell with white trans- 
verse spot near base followed 
by a longer transverse mark 
and a long transverse streak 
across end of cell. 
Of the three anterior discal 
white streaks in f.-w. that 
nearest costa is very small and 
faint. 
Following the discal band of 
spots is a very distinct though 
slender white line. 
Following the above slender 
line a well-developed white line 
formed of spots gradually in- 
creasing in size as they approach 
costa, till that in 6 is quite a 
large spot 7 x 15 mm. 
H.-w. white discal band about 
6 mm. wide. 
Following the discal band is 
a narrow white line arched in 
la, 2, 3, and 4 proximally 
convex. 
Distal to above line a band 
of white spots, their proximal 
outline well arched (proximally 
convex). This band is quite 
2 mm. wide in 2 and 3. 
HoLuaNnn’s FIGure. 
Three white dots in cell, the 
outermost rather elongated. 
This streak though smaller 
than the rest is well developed. 
This line obsolescent. 
Corresponding line very faint. 
Ditto about 4 mm. 
No such line present. 
Only a faint line in this 
position. 
It will thus be seen that whether the insect figured by 
Holland in 1892 be a form of biafra or not, it certainly 
differs greatly from Ward’s own figure of the species. 
Dr. Holland, in spite of his emphatic assertions to the 
