846 DE. A. G. BUTLER OS [NoV. 1 6 



upper surface, the white spots on the fringe appear more con- 

 spicuously : the primaries below have larger but less sharply 

 defined white spots on the outer border; the si-'coiidaries have 

 narrower bands, that from the middle of the cell to the abdominal 

 margin being more interrupted but grev and iudistiuct (so that 

 the wing appears to be crossed by a broad belt of greyish white), 

 the dark discal baud curves upwards at its abdominal extremity, 

 the last spot composing it being small and heart-shaped ; the anal 

 area is filled with a quadrate patch of pale sandy brown, forming 

 the outer part of the usual whitish irregular blotch, whicli is more 

 acutely indented on its outer margin ; lastly, the two usual black 

 spots show little (often no) metallic green scaling. Expanse of 

 wings 20-28 millimetres. 



Estcourt, 4000 feet, 2nd, 14th, 15th, and 18th October, 22nd, 

 23rd, 28th, and 29th Xovember, and 13th December ; Erere, 

 3800 feet, 2nd and 4th December, 1896. 



Two other examples previously in the Museum bring our 

 present series up to seventeen examples : none of these are in the 

 least degree intermediate. 



■'0-' 



64. CxcLYRius NOQUASA, Trimeu. (Plate L. fig. 6.) 



Ulundi, 5000 feet, 19th September, 1896. 



•' A local species, apparently confined to the upper districts of 

 this Colony ; when met with, it is generally abundant, frequenting 

 damp low-lymg places." 



65. Lachnocnbma bibultjs, Fabr. 



Malvern, 16th August ; Tugela Eiver, near Weeuen, 30th 

 October, 2nd, 13th, and 14th November, 1896, 



66. Lachnocnema duebani, Trimen. 



Estcourt, 6th, 27th, 28th, and 30th September, 1st, 2nd, and 

 8th October, 24th November and 12th December, Tugela Eiver, 

 12th November, 1896. 



In his letter of October 20th Mr. Marshall says : — " I believe 

 you are right in regarding this as conspecific with L. bibulns ; but 

 I have not sufficient data to enable me to speak definitely, chiefly 

 owing to the fact that in Mashonaland I never distinguished 

 between the two and recorded them all as L. bihuhis in my note- 

 book." 



On the 14th December, however, he writes: — ""With regard to 

 my suggestion that Lachnocnema durhani Mas probably only the 

 dry-season form of L. hibulus, 1 have now not the least hesitation 

 in saying that it is incorrect. The former insect is still on the 

 wing and in good condition, and therefore cannot be a dry-season 

 form of anything else. Moreover, I am convinced that it is not a 

 variety of L. hibulus. In your note on the subject you appear to 

 ignore the fact that there is a decided and constant difference 

 between the males of the two forms, which you will perceive from 

 the specimens I have sent you. 



