( 10 ) 



every traveller wants to get into the ' interior,' and away 

 from the coast. Of course, ' some years ' may mean ' more 

 than one,' and the plant having been gathei-ed when dry and 

 dormant the insect may have been delayed in emerging." 



EURYTELA HIARBAS, DrURY (1782), A PROBABLE FORM OF E. 



DRYOPE, Cramer (1775). — Professor Poulton said that he had 

 received a letter from Mr. G. F. Leigh, F.E.S. of Durban, 

 containing the following interesting observation : " I have to 

 record that on two occasions within a week, viz. on the 3rd 

 and 7th of April [1909], I saw Eurytela dryope, in cop. with 

 A'. Jivirhas. and only once in cop. with its own form. I am 

 going to breed from a 2 of E. hiarlas, and perhaps I shall 

 prove that it and E. dryope are forms of the same species, as 

 indeed I quite expect them to be." 



Professor Poulton said he had asked IMr. Marshall his 

 opinion as to the specific identity of these two forms and had 

 received the following reply : " I have long had suspicions as 

 to these two forms ; for not only did Bowker take them paired 

 long ago, but he also caught what appears to be an inter- 

 mediate form, described by Trimen, and named hiarhas var. 

 Jlavescens by Aurivillius. On the other hand, if they are 

 species it is rather singular that their ranges are not coinci- 

 dent. For instance, hiarbas is common in the forest regions 

 of Eastern Cape Colony and even ranges as far west as Knysna, 

 while dryope is not yet known from south of Natal. Again a 

 form of dryope occurs in Madagascar, but no Inarhas, and so 

 forth. Then hiarhas varies geographically in the width of the 



[xxxvi 

 li.w. band, but there does not seem to be a corresponding 

 vai-iation in dryope, as one might expect. They both vary in 

 the angulation of the f.w., but the range of the forms is not 

 quite coincident, for apparently in Angola and the Congo 

 region the southern form of dryope occurs in conjunction with 

 the western form of Inarhas. These are not insuperable diffi- 

 culties in the way of considering the two forms as conspecific, 

 but they emphasise the necessity for proof by breeding before 

 any such view can be properly accepted. I sincerely hope 

 that Leigh will be able to carry out the experiment he 

 suggests." 



A little later Mr, ^Marshall again wrote on the same subject : 



