1896. ] BUTTERFLIES OF THE FAMILY HESPERIID 2. 13 
Pardaleodes interniplaga, Mab. C. R. Soc. Ent. Belg. 1891, 
» xxii. 
J Celenorrhinus interniplaga, Holland, Ent. News, March 1894, 
pl. iii. fig. 2. 
Hab. Fernando Po (Hewitson); Cameroons (Mabille); Bulé 
Country (Good). 
Iam unable to discover any valid specific differences between 
C. meditrina, Hew., and C. interniplaga, Mab. I have a good 
series of specimens in my collection, some of which agree positively 
with either form, differing only in size and the greater or less 
distinctness of the marginal spots. 
30. C. MacuLatus, Hampson. (Plate ITI. fig. 4.) 
Ooladenia maculata, Hpsn. Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. (6) vol. vii. 
p. 183. 
Hab. Sabaki River, E. Africa (Hampson). 
This species is a very near ally of C. meditrina, Hew. Two 
specimens, a male and a female, contained in the collection of 
Dr. Staudinger, were taken by Mocquerys at Gaboon. The 
female differs from the male in having the maculations of the 
secondaries greatly reduced in size. While these specimens do 
not agree absolutely with the type of maculata, Hpsn., they are by 
far too close to warrant a separation. 
31. C. BIsERiAtUS, Butl. (Plate III. fig. 3.) 
Plesioneura biseriata, Butl. P. Z.S. 1888, p. 97. 
Plesionewra hoechneli, Rogenhofer, Ann. Hofmus. Wien, vol. vi. 
p- 463, pl. xv. fig. 10 (1891). 
Hab. Kilimanjaro (Butler) ; Tropical Africa (Logenhofer). 
I think the above synonymy will be found to be quite correct. 
32. C. atratus, Mab. 
Pardaleodes atratus, Mab. C. R. Soc. Ent. Belg. 1891, p. lxxiv. 
Celenorrhinus collucens, Holl. Ent. News, March 1894, p. 90, 
pl. iii. figs. 3, 4. 
Hab. Cameroons (Mabille ; Good). 
The type of P. atratus being before me as I write, I am con- 
vinced that I made an error in my identification of it upon the 
occasion of my visit to Mons. Mabille. The insect I labelled 
atratus, if there has been no confusion since made in the labelling 
of the specimens in the collection of Dr. Staudinger, is the 
following species, and the true atratus is the species I figured and 
named collucens. Dr. Staudinger warns me that Mons. Mabille 
has in a few cases apparently confused his types: this is one of 
those cases in which I am almost positive that such a confusion 
has arisen; but we must accept the type as determining controversy, 
and as the insect labelled autographically as Pardaleodes atratus 
by Mabille in the Staudinger Collection is unmistakably my 
