451 



NOTE ON ACHAEA PECTINICOBNIS BETH. - BAK. 

 By Miss A. E. PEOUT, F.E.S. 



In his paper on the " Voyage de M. Maurice de Rothschild " 

 (Heteroceres, p. 422) Monsieur Le Cerf calls attention to the divergence 

 between the specimen identified by me as Achaea pectinicornis 

 Beth.-Bak. {Ophiusa pectinicomis Beth.-Bak., A.M.NM., 8, III, 462, 

 1909, Congo F.S.), and the typical specimen as figured by Sir G. Hampson 

 in Cat. Lep. Phal., XII, p. 497. It may perhaps help in the elucidation 

 of this species if I add a further note to what Monsieur Le Cerf has 

 said. 



Unfortunately, I have not had access to the type of this species, so 

 that the determination can be only provisional ; especially as the five 

 £ cT and one 2 in coll. Joicey appear to have the mid-tibia non- 

 spinous. A descaled $ mid-tibia shows no sign of any spines. But 

 amongst the removed scales are a number of dark, pointed bristles (or 

 exceedingly fine and easily detached spines), which probably misled Sir 

 G. Hampson into regarding the mid-tibia as spinous ; a mistake the 

 more easily made as the underside in this species is typically that of the 

 genus Achaea. Unless the drawings in Cat. Lep. Phal. (like that of 

 the palpus) are entirely incorrect, it is probably these bristles which 

 the artist has depicted as spines. The specimens in coll. Joicey (from 

 Sierra Leone, Congo River, British East Africa, and three without 

 data) vary considerably, some being almost identical with the form 

 figured in Cat. Lep. Phal., some nearer to that figured by Monsieur Le 

 Cerf ; but allowing for this variability, they agree perfectly with the 

 figure and description in Cat. Lep. Phal. The palpus is always as in 

 Monsieur Le Cerf's figure (6a, II), not as figured by Hampson ; but it 

 will be noticed that Hampson distinctly says in his text " third joint 

 long " and that it is so drawn in the figure of complete insect, so that 

 the drawing of head in the dissection is presumably in error. The 

 frontal tuft appears to wear very quickly. In the five $ $ in coll. 

 Joicey the antennal pectinations are as in the specimen figured by 

 Monsieur Le Cerf, not as drawn in Cat. Lep. Phal. In the complete 

 figure here, however, the tip of the shaft appears to be missing, which 

 may partly account for the discrepancy. 



