Geographical Distribution of Acraea lycoa, A. johnstoni. 5 



tawDy in telekiana, whilst it is whitish in the male type of 

 johnstoni. The same author described at the same time 

 '' Planema" confusa and ^^ Planema" fallax. The latter 

 has already been referred to in connection with lycoa. 

 Flanema confusa is described by Rogenhofer as the male 

 of Butler's type female. In Baumann's " Usambara " 

 (supplement) it is stated that both the male and female 

 were taken. No difference is specified, and the figure 

 subsequently published is stated in the text to be that of 

 a female, though the description facing the plate states it 

 to be a male. In 1893 M, Oberthtir described a number 

 of forms under the name of Acraea proteina, the type of 

 Avhich appears to be a male,* and resembles the insect 

 previously described by Butler as the type female of john- 

 stoni, and is also similar to Rogenhofer's confusa. The four 

 varieties described by Oberthtir are (1) proteina flavescens, 

 which appears to be an ordinary yellow-spotted example 

 of the commonest form oi johnstoni; (2) proteina semialh- 

 escens, sex not stated, an example of which in the National 

 Collection has white spots on the forewing, and tawny 

 hind wings marked with dark inter-nervular rays and 

 exhibiting no trace on the upperside of the quadrate patch, 

 though the latter is clearly outlined on the underside ; 

 (3) proteina semifulvescens, sex not stated, a form which 

 agrees with Godman's male type ; (4) proteina fulvescens, 

 a form which has nearly lost the spots in the forewing 

 and the patch in the secondaries, though they are more 

 obvious on the underside, and all four wings are tawny. 

 It is the peculiar variety which appears to have developed 

 in a mimetic direction synaposematic with Danaida 

 chrysipinis f. doripjncs and Acraea encedon f. daira. 



The next published reference occurs in Butler's note on 

 the forms in Proc. Zool. Soc, p. 113, 1896. Butler was un- 

 aware that the pattern of Godman's male type also occurs in 

 the female sex, and therefore he regarded Godman's type and 

 his own female type as constituting a sexually dimorphic 

 variety. He describes Oberthiir's/w^vescews as synonymous 

 with Rogenhofer's telekiana, whereas the latter is practi- 

 cally the same as Godman's male type, and further he 



* Butler appears to have thought that Oberthiir's proteina was a 

 female. Though the sex of the specimen figvired is not definitely- 

 given as male, the author states, after describing it, that his col- 

 lection contains three males, quite similar to one another. I cannot 

 take this to mean otherwise than that the example figured is one of 

 the three males in question. 



