1896.] BurafBEvMUs of the rAMitY hbspbbIid^. 13 



Pardaleodes interniplaga, Mab. 0. E. Soc. Ent. Belg. 1891, 

 p. Ixxiii. 



GelmnorrJiinus interniplaga, Holland, Ent. News, March 1894, 

 pi. iii. fig. 2. 



Hah. Fernando Po (Hewitson) ; Cameroons (Mabille) ; Bule 

 Country (Good). 



I am unable to discover any valid specific differences between 

 G. meditrina, Hew., and 0. 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. MAOULATUS, Hampson. (Plate III. fig. 4.) 

 Goladenia maculata, Hpsn. Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. (6) vol. vii. 



p. 183. 



Hah. Sabaki Eiver, E. Africa {Hampson). 



This species is a very near ally of 0. 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. BiSEEiATUS, Butl. (Plate III. fig. 3.) 

 Plesioneura biseriata, Butl. P. Z. S. 1888, p. 97. 



Plesioneura hoehneli, Eogenhofer, Ann. Hofmus. Wien, vol, vi. 

 p. 463, pi. XV. fig. 10 (1891). 



Hah. Kilimanjaro {Butler) ; Tropical Africa (Eogenhofer). 

 I think the above synonymy will be found to be quite correct, 



32. C. ATBATTJS, Mab. 



Pardaleodes atratus, Mab. 0. E. Soc. Ent. Belg. 1891, p. Ixxiv. 



Gelcenorrhimis collucens, Holl. Ent. News, March 1894, p. 90, 

 pi. iii. figs. 3, 4. 



Hah. Cameroons {Mahille ; 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. MabUle. 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 



