58 DR. W. J. HOLLAND ON THE AFRICAN (Jan. 14, 
GaEGENEs, Hiibn. 
(Philoédus, Ramb.) 
200. G. NosTropamuUs, Fabr. 
Hesperia nostrodamus, Fabr. Ent. Syst. ii. 1, p. 328 (1793). 
Papilio pygmeus, Cyr. (nec Fabr.) Ent. Neap. pl. li. fig. 5 (1787) ; 
Hibn. Eur. Schmett. i. figs. 458-460 (1798-1803). 
Papilio pumilio, Hoffm. Ill. Mag. iii. p. 202 (1804). 
Hesperia lefebvrii, Ramb. Cat. Lép. And. p. 90, note (1858). 
Pamphila nostrodamus, Kirby, Syn. Cat. p. 598 (1871). 
Hesperia nostrodamus, Staud. Cat. d. Lép. p. 35 (1871). 
Gegenes nostrodamus, Wats. P. Z.S. 1893, p. 104. 
(For full synonymy consult works on European species.) 
Hab. Mediterranean coasts of North Africa. 
201. G. Horrentora, Latr. 
29. Papilio niso, Linn. Mus. Ulr. Reg. p. 339 (1764); Syst. 
Nat. i. 2, p. 796 (1767). 
3d. Hesperia hottentota, Latr. Encye. Méth. vol. ix. p. 777 
(1823). 
Hesperia letterstedti, Wallgr. K. Sv. Vet.-Akad. Handl. 1857 ; 
Lep. Rhop. Caffr. p. 49. 
Pamphila letterstedti, Trim. Rhop. Afr. Austr. vol. ii. p. 300 
1866). 
Pamphila hottentota, Staud. Exot. Schmett. vol. i. pl. 99 (1888). 
Pamphila hottentota, Trim. 8. Afr. Butt. vol. iii. p. 314 (1889). 
Gegenes hottentota, Wats. P. Z.S. 1893, p. 104. 
Q. Thymelicus brevicornis, Ploetz, 8. E. Z. vol. xlv. p. 290 
(1884). 
Hab. Southern and Western Africa as far north as Senegambia. 
I follow Mr. Trimen in disregarding the somewhat forcible plea 
of Prof. Aurivillius for the identification of Latreille’s species with 
the Papilio nso of Linneus, and the substitution of the latter 
name. The copies of Clerck’s figures given by Prof. Aurivillius do 
not carry conviction with them. They may apply to several other 
obscure African forms as well as to the species named by Latreille, 
and the description given by Linnzus is wholly inadequate. We 
shall for ever be in the dark as to the species intended by Linnezus. 
The identification defended so learnedly by Prof. Aurivillius lacks 
altogether that positiveness which in such a case is essential, and 
is at best merely opinionative. In letters and orally Mons. Mabille 
has stoutly maintained to me the identity of Latreille’s species 
H. hottentota with the species recently described by Mr. Trimen 
under the name obumbrata (see p. 59). The females of G. obwmbrata 
are positively undistinguishable from the females of G. hottentota, and 
1 am inclined to think that the form characterized by Mr. Trimen 
is a dimorphic variety. Typical males of G. hottentota and males 
of the form obumbrata are found in my collection, having been 
taken on the same day and in the same locality im cottu with 
