76 Ml". R. Trimen on 



Tlie first specimen of this species that I received was 

 taken by Archdeacon Kitton^ of King William^s Town^ in 

 the Perie Bush^ a mountain forest some miles from the 

 town, in April, 1863. This example, a c?, reached me 

 in a very damaged state, and I erroneously considered it 

 to be P. Messalina, StoU, and so recorded it in my '' Rho- 

 palocera Africse Australis," pt. ii. p. 329. Mr. J. H. 

 Bowker subsequently forwarded a number of specimens 

 of both sexes, from the Sogana aud Boolo forests, near 

 the river Tsomo, in Kaffraria. His notes on the species 

 are very graphic and interesting, and I gladly append 

 the more important of them. In February, 1865, he 

 found the ^ " numerous at one spot in the forest, where 

 the large yellow-wood trees had been cut away ; they 

 kept flying in one regular track, more regular than that 

 of any other rapilio that I have seen on the wing." 

 During the next month, he notes the flight as '^low, 

 seldom above the weeds and undergrowth, and rarely 

 extending beyond the ' bush.' " In November, both 

 sexes made their appearance " in great numbers, but 

 disappeared in four weeks' time." In January, 1866, a 

 "fresh brood" came out, and the species was " the most 

 common butterfly at the Boolo," and remained on the 

 wing during February. " The ^ takes a constant course 

 through the forest, returning regularly by the same 

 route ; while the $ keeps about the place, h\xt flyiug at 

 a lower elevation, and does not appear to take the rounds 

 of the c^ . The sexes disappeared together at the end of 

 November, and did not appear again until early in 

 January, when they both came out on the same day. . . , 

 The two pairs I send were taken in copula. The ^ 

 and 9 meet, whirl about amongst the tops of plants in 

 the forest, and, as soon as united, disappear down under 

 the leaves, and have to be hunted up without the net." 



I took both sexes of this species, on the 8th of March, 

 1867, in woods at Tunjumbili, on the Tugela frontier of 

 Natal. The J" s were tolerably numerous, but I only saw 

 two 9 s, and, at the first glance, mistook one of them for 

 P. Cenea, Stoll, * which is still more closely imitative of 



* There is good ground for considering Papilio Cenea to be tlie ? of 

 P. Merope, Cram. No ^ Papilio with the colouration of Cenea is known to 

 exist, while all the specimens of Merope are $ s ; and the colouring of the 

 body, the position of the apical spot of the fore-wings, and the markings of 

 the hind-wings (chiefly on the under-surface) are so much alike in the two 

 forms as to support the belief that they are sexes of the same species, 

 apart from the collateral evidence of habitat, &c. I propose to treat of 



