1896.] MR, H. H. DRUCE ON BORNEAN LYCENIDA. 673 
much as in 7’. indra, Moore, but has a much larger white area than 
any females we possess from Continental India. 
Tasuria pomrnus, H. H. Druce. 
This may be the male of 7’. zscus, Hew., Hewitson’s male 
T. iseus being in fact Britomartis cleoboides, Elwes, as pointed out by 
Mr. de Nicéville in the Journ. Bomb. Nat. Hist. Soc. vol. ix. p. 307. 
Dr. Staudinger has sent me a male from Malacca which is very 
close to 7’. dominus, but has a greener shade of blue on the upper- 
side and the orange at the anal angle below is more yellow. I have 
also received a female 7. dominus from Kina Balu, and note that 
the blue on the upper surface is more shining and that the outer 
margin of the fore wing is certainly more convex than in the 
female from Malacca. If Mr. Distant’s type male of 7. relata 
should prove to be a female, then most probably the male referred 
to above from Malacca is the male relata; but for the present 1 do 
not think it is advisable to sink 7. dominus. 
I, however, fail to see how Mr. de Nicéville can form the con- 
clusion, from the possession of a female 7. relata from Perak that 
agrees exactly with Hewitson’s fig. 14, pl. xix., that “ Hewitson 
was correct in the first instance in calling his original type a male” 
(vide J. B. N. H. S. vol. ix. p. 308). 
Mr. de Nicéville has described the genus Britomartis as having 
only two subcostal nervules to the fore wing, and his. B. buto is also 
described as having but two; in the figure given of this species 
(J. B. N. H.S. vol. ix. pl. P. fig. 41), three subcostal nervules are 
distinctly shown, doubtless in error. 
Colonel Swinhoe has lately described Tajuria valentia*, which, 
according to Mr. de Nicéville, is the same as Britomartis cleoboices, 
as that species is the 7’. mantra of the ‘ Butterflies of India, ete.’ 
TAJURIA BLANKA ? 
Tajuria blanka, de Nicév. J. A. S. B. vol. lxiii. p. 39, pl. iv. 
fic. 4, 2 (1894). 
Kina Balu ( Waterstr.). 
Dr. Staudinger has sent a fine female specimen which agrees 
well with Mr. de Nicéville’s tigure and with his description in all 
points, excepting as regards the thorax below, which he describes 
as drab; in the specimen before me it is white. Dr. Staudinger 
writes that it is certainly the female of Pratapa lucidus, mihi. 
The female of P. cippus is, I believe, unknown, so that we cannot 
judge by analogy; but, despite the different appearance of the 
underside, I think it is quite possible that Dr. Staudinger is right. 
Mr. de Nicéville and Dr. Martin record two specimens of Camena 
cippus, Fabr., from Sumatra, but there is no note as to their sex. 
Can these be specimens of my P. lucidus, which certainly occurs 
in Sumatra? If, as I suspect, these two specimens should turn 
1 Tajuria valentia, Swinh. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 6, vol. xvii. p. 358 (1896). 
