African Species of the Genus Neptis. 575 
A white dot distally placed in area 4, and a series of three well- 
separated elongated spots or streaks in 5, 6, and 9. Distal to these 
discal spots and following their contour a very fine line of greyish- 
white scales. Beyond this a well-developed white line, broken into 
spots by the nervules. Finally two delicate submarginal lines. 
“ Hind-wing with a discal band about 3-4 mm. wide from inner 
margin to nervule 6, the spots of which are distinctly separated by 
the nervules. Distal to this a very faint line, rather paler than 
the ground-colour, followed by a narrow white secondary band of 
quadrate spots separated by the nervules. Two delicate sub- 
marginal lines. 
“Underside. Pattern of upperside repeated, but the white 
marks more pronounced on a paler ground. Fore-wing white on 
costa at base. Cell streak larger and more sharply outlined. Above 
end of cell two or three additional white streaks. White sub- 
marginal bands much more distinct, especially inner one, which is 
widened to about 1:5 mm., and there is an extra distal line at apex. 
‘“ Hind-wing with a white costal band from base to middle of 
costa. The secondary discal band composed of spots much larger 
than above.” 
This species most nearly resembles paula Staud., but is 
quite differently marked in fore-wing cell above and below. 
Ward’s biafra is also similar, but has three transverse 
white stripes in cell. All three differ from other described 
species in having a secondary white discal band on the 
hind-wing. The male clasper of the present species 1s 
quite different from that of paula. 
28. NEPTIS SEXTILLA. 
Mab., Le Natural., 2, p. 99 (1882); Hist. Mad. Lep., 1, 
p- 174 (1887); Auriv., Rhop. Aeth., p. 167 (1898); in 
Seitz, Macrolep., p. 201 (1913). 
MADAGASCAR. 
I am unable to give any information with regard to this 
species beyond Mabille’s description. The latter refers to 
a figure on a plate which appears never to have been pub- 
lished. The author describes it as allied both to saclava 
and kikideli. It would seem unnecessary to reprint here 
the original description, which though lengthy unfor- 
tunately gives little idea of the appearance of the insect. 
Aurivillius in Seitz (/.c.) places it next after paula, though 
merely on probability. The type is apparently unknown, 
and so far no other example has been noted. 
