by C. N. Barker. 285 
AFTERWORD. 
Since writing the above I have received from Dr. Horn a letter, 
dated Berlin, March 7th, 1920, in reply to one from me of February 
2nd, in which I pointed out that the form I had attributed to 
neglecta was not that form, but a distinct species for which | 
proposed the name reliqua. Unfortunately Dr. Horn had in the 
interim come to the same conclusion, and had forwarded the 
description for publication of a geographical race of this form or 
species from Kassai, Congo State, Central Africa, to which he has 
given the name ob/iquo-gracilienea, and which he thinks represents 
the parent form. This claim, however, can only be substantiated by 
proof that its distribution is greater than that of re/iqgua, which as I 
have shown previously is very large, embracing known localities so 
far apart as those of Natal, Transvaal, Orange Free State and 
Southern Rhodesia. Accompanying his letter, Dr. Horn kindly 
forwarded me a type of his obliquo-gracilienea male. It is 
undoubtedly the same species or sub-species as my re/iqua, only 
differing from it in its light bronze instead of dark bronze ground 
colour, and in the more important details of the antenne, which are 
shorter with the terminal joints, beyond the 4th, considerably broader 
and more compressed. Dr. Horn’s insect has priority of publication, 
so my synonomic table, Section C, No. 8, should read : 
C’. obliquo-gracilienea, Horn, race or sub-sp. re/tqua, miha, 
form or variety damara, Per. ! 
ERRATA ET CORRIGENDA. 
The following errors in my previous paper (Annals of the Durban 
Museum, Vol. II., Part 4), require correction :— 
Page 175, line 6, to read Bushmanland for Bechuanaland. 
Page 188, Plate XX V., No. 16, Bushmanland for Bechuanaland. 
Page 179, lines 4-5, to read Umvuma for Umvuma River. 
Page 185, Distribution Table for race neglecta, to read Umvuma 
for Umvuma River. 
