24 MR. B. TRIMEN ON BUTTEUFLIES FROM [Jan. 16, 



the same tint, and those of A. hoscce, Saalm., and A. ic/ola. Trim., 

 apparently being always of that colour. Mr. Selous's example has 

 the last spot of the discal series in the hind wings much reduced 

 in size, as well as the basal and subbasal spots, in comparison with 

 the more southern specimens referred to ; the former of these 

 distiuctions approximating it more to the figures given by Grran- 

 didier of Madagascar examples. Mr. Selous notes that this was 

 the only individual of this species met with ; it was flying slowly 

 on an open hill-side. 



14. AcE^A NOHAKA, Boisd. 



Acrcea nohara, Boisd. App. Voy. de Deleg. dans I'Afr. Aust. 

 p. 590. n. 54 (1847). 



A male and female of the usual size from the Mineni Valley, 

 and three small males from near the Yunduzi River, all difEer 

 from the Natahan type-form in the marked reduction of all the 

 black markings ; in the fore wings the subbasal spot below the 

 median nervure is present only in two males, while that beyond 

 middle below first median nervule is absent in all the specimens ; 

 and in the hind wings the third and fifth spots of discal series 

 are wanting. There is also less black on the apical half of the 

 back of the abdomen in both sexes. 



15. AcB^A ASEMA, Hewits. (Plate IV. figs. 3, 3 a, c? $ •) 



Acrcea asema, Hewits. Ent. M. Mag. xiv. p. 52 (1877) ; nee 

 Trim. Proc. Zool. Soc. 1891, p. 68, pi. viii. figs. 9, 10. 



Mr. Selous's series of both sexes of this Butterfly — 3 from 

 Christmas Pass, 1 from Sikuva Eiver, 15 fi-om the Mineni Valley, 

 and 2 from the Vunduzi Eiver — has made it clear that I was 

 mistaken in identifying A\ith A. asema, He\A'its. (founded on 

 examples from Lake Nyassa), the Acraa from tropical South-west 

 Africa described fully by me loe. cit. In order to obtain an 

 independent opinion as to the true A. asema, I sent one of Mr. 

 Selous's specimens to my friend Mr. A. G. Butler, for comparison 

 with the type specimens in the Hewitson Collection, and he reports 

 it as undoubtedly belonging to the species in question. Mr. 

 Hewitsou's brief description of A. asema applies equally well to both 

 the forms concerned, but as it is now settled which was actually the 

 subject of it, and as the S.W. African form must in my opinion be 

 pronounced a distinct species, I propose for the latter the name of 

 Acrcea omrora '. I think it weU to give a fresh description of both 

 sexes of A. asema from the full material supplied by Mr. Selous. 



' For a detailed description of both sexes, the reader is referred to Proc. 

 Zool. Soc. 1891, pp. 68-70. It -sTill be sufficient to uote here that 

 A. omrora differs from A. asema in the following particulars, viz. : — 1, more 

 opaque wings ; 2, on both surfaces a much brighter j-ellower ground-colour : 

 3, a gi-eatly reduced condition of the black spots, which in some examples are 

 little more than dots, and of which in most examples (especially in the hind 

 wings) there is a -varying number quite obsolete ; 4, on the upperside, a 

 narrower, more sharply defined black hind-marginal and apical edging in the 

 fore wings, but a broader, blacker, unspotted, or indistinctly spotted, border in 



