458 DR. T, A. CHAPMAN ON THE SPECIES (Apr. 27 
26 a. biagi Beth.-Baker, P. Z. S. 1908, p. 117, pl. vill. fig. 11. 
There is a specimen in the British Museum labelled coalita 
with appendages hardly distinguishable from those of biagi. 
a 
27. drucei Beth.-Baker, Ann. Mag. N. H. ser. 7, vol. xvii. p. 102; 
P. Z. S. 1908, p. 117, pl. vin. fig. 16. 
This well-marked species has appendages belonging to the 
dilecta-group. The dorsal processes are larger than in dilecta and 
the clasps broader, the spinous process much more developed, 
and with teeth more obviously on its surfaces as well as its 
margins. 
28. akasa Horsf. Desc. Cat. Lep. E. I. Co. p. 67, pl. i. figs. 1, La 
(1828). 
This species is not likely on its general characters to be con- 
founded with any other. The appendages show it to belong to a 
rather large group of species in which the terminal spinous process 
ig much reduced in size, but is still fairly developed, turned 
inwards, but separated by a gap from the inner margin of the 
end of the clasp. 
29. camene de Nicév. J. Bomb. N. H.S. ix. p. 278, pl. O. fig. 22, 
1895 (June ?1895). 
29 a. selma H. H. Druce, P. Z. S. 1895, p. 573, pl. xxxii. fig. 10 
(Oct. 1895). 
Lam unable to see any difference in the appendages of these 
two forms or indeed in the flies themselves. 
There is a specimen in the Tring Collection from Mt. Dulangan, 
Mindoro, that must be referred to this species. The clasps are 
rather broader basally than in the typical specimens and the 
lateral proximal process of the ring 1s smaller, shorter, and 
sharper. These differences are, however, quite within the limits 
of what may be ascribed to geographical variation. 
A specimen labelled “‘ Perak—Curtis” differs rather more, and 
Tam doubtful whether it may not be entitled to specific rank; 
even if so, it is exceedingly close to camene. The clasps are 
larger and bolder, and what may be called the neck occurs some- 
what higher up. The fly itself is very dark on the upper side, 
differing from camene much as lugra does from musina. The 
under side is not definitely distinguishable, and this chiefly makes 
me regard it as a geographical form. As camene dates from 
Perak, it may really be that this is actually the typical form of 
cumene. 
A specimen from Sarawak in the Tring Museum is very small 
and delicate (25 mm. expanse), with upper side very like dilecta, 
except a broader border to fore wing, expanding towards costa. 
