African Species of the Genus Acraea. 197 



A faint black line round hind margin bordered inwardly by a 

 paler ochreous band about r5 mm. wide. The internervular 

 spaces of the discal area orange ochreous. Black spots as 

 follows : — A discal row of eight, first in 7 near middle, second in 

 6 nearer margin, third in 5 immediately beneath second (or very 

 slightly more distally placed), fourth in 4 close to end of cell, 

 fifth in 3 a short distance from end of cell ; sixth, seventh, and 

 eighth, in 2, Ic, and lb, all in a straight line at right angles to 

 inner margin. A spot in 8 close to precostal, two in basal half 

 of cell, a basal and a subbasal in Ic, and la, and a subbasal in lb. 



Head and thorax black with a few small white marks. Ab- 

 domen black at base with lateral orange spots, remainder orange 

 ochreous. Claws unequal. 



$ resembles (J but the brick red is entirely replaced by 

 ochreous brown. On the h.-w. underside the basal and marginal 

 portions are whitish. Some red marks at base of cell, Ic, and in 

 lb and la. Spots all as in (J . Abdomen black with small 

 wliite lateral spots. 



A . asholoplintha rvbescens^ subsp. 



(^ . Expanse 58-62 mm. Differs from the type form in 

 having the ground-colour of the h.-w. rosy red. In the f.-w. 

 the greater part of area la, the middle of lb, base of 2, and a 

 part of cell are also flushed with rosy red. Dark areas sepia 

 black. The black border of h.-w. is about 1 mm. broad. All 

 the black spots are decidedly larger. The underside is as in the 

 typical form but the colours are more brilliant. 



9. Like the (^ but with the rosy red areas replaced by white. 

 Dflrk areas paler than in (^ and h.-w. broader and inwardly 

 suffused. 



Suffert's description of the $ asholoplintha applies to this 

 form, but he states that it is " coloured as in the ^." 

 The figure accompanying the description is an uncoloured 

 photograph and appears to represent the black and wliite 

 $ described above. The figure thus appears to be correct 

 and the description wrong, but up to the present I have 

 been unable to find an explanation of the discrepancy. 

 When Trinien described the ruhcscens form he had only 

 one example of each sex, and suggested that possibly the 

 black and white $ might be exceptional and that there 

 might also be a $ coloured like the ^. Since that time 

 the Oxford Museum has acquired further examples, but 

 they furnish no evidence that the $$ are ever other than 

 black and white. 



