( 497 ) 



specimens do not differ from West African niavins in " the greater expanse of the 

 white area of the hindwing," and that they are the same (new) form which is 

 described in the present paper, differing conspicuonsly from dominicanus from 

 Mombasa (and other places of East Africa). 



2. Amnuris egialea. — " Only one specimen from Gotala, 18. i. (II." 



The butterflies and some moths collected during Baron von Erlanger's 

 expedition are now in the Tring Museum, except the specimens which Dr. 

 Pagenstecher kept for his collection. Among this material there is an Amauris 

 dated 18. i. 01. and labelled by Dr. Pagenstecher Ajnauris egialea. This specimed 

 is a geographical race of Amax.ris /lecafe, described by us below, and has nothing 

 to do with egialea. 



3. Amauris eckeria.—" f^ome specimens from Galata, 1.3. xii. 00." 



This is a very distinct North-East African subspecies described long ago as 

 Amauris streckeri. It will be found in our list as A. echeria streckeri. 



We mention further that the specimens identified by Dr. Pagenstecher as 

 Ipthima asterope belong to several species, as could easily have been ascertained 

 by referring to the Revision of the genns Ipthima by Elwes and Edwards ; that the 

 North-East African specimens of Precis terea are not the " var. elgica" but a 

 special geographical variety (described in this paper) ; that Precis trimeni from 

 Balta — we have not seen a specimen — is doubtless not trimeni but siinia, namely 

 the " wet phase " of antilope, which latter Pagenstecher enumerates as distinct 

 species after Precis trimeni ; that Precis cuama., put down as a synonym of 

 antilope in the list, is a distinct species ; that the specimens recorded as Precis 

 milonia have notliing to do with that species ; that the specimens recorded of 

 Precis octacia do not belong to the East African but to the West African 

 geographical variety ; that Salamis anacardii and parhassus are distinct species ; 

 that Neptis saclava from Madagascar and Neptis marpessa from East Africa 

 are not identical ; that the specimen of Papilio from Mombasa recorded as 

 leonidas is the very different P. philonoe ; etc., etc. 



Butler made the snggestion that Atella phalantha and columbina are forms 

 of one species ; without however giving any reasons for that assumption. Dr. 

 Pagenstecher has accepted the suggestion as being founded on fact, and brings 

 accordingly columbina as a synonym of phalantha. Now, A. columbina does 

 not occur in the Oriental region, while phalantha does. When searching for 

 characters j)ossibly distinguishing the African from the Oriental phalantha we 

 found at once that ri9/(««i//i« had nothing to do with phalantha. The "mania" 

 for separation had ' enabled us to disprove Butler's suggestion, while the 

 "mania" for simplification has prevented Dr. Pagenstecher from recognising 

 that columbina is distinct from phalantha, as well as from noticing that 

 Aethiopian phalantha are different from Oriental phalantha. 



A systematist who searches for minute distinctions is in a far safer position 

 than the "lumper." Search for small dill'erenccs means intensity and latitude of 

 researcli. Being sceptical in regard to the apparent identity of individuals from 

 zoogeographically different countries, he naturally turns from organ to organ 

 in order to find the expected evidence for the individuals having been born 

 under diilerciit skies. This latitude of study will (!nal)le the systematist very 

 often to show that individuals which appear superficially to be practically 

 identical are members of difierent species (as in Ipthima), and that specimens 

 which ai>pear fo represent conspicnonsly different species are only varietal forms 



