NoVITATES ZOOLOGICAE XSIlt. 1916. 30* 



Taenaris kirschi occidentalis subsp. nov. 



<?. Above differs from k. kirschi in being much darker and browner ; the white 

 on the forewing is more diffused and ill-defined, being also suffused with greyish 

 brown ; on the hindwing it differs in only having the basal third whitish and 

 this much suffused. Below it is much darker, and the white is not saturated with 

 orange buff. 



? . Above has much more white on forewing and much less on hindwing. 

 Below it presents the same differences as the $ does. 



Hab. Kapaur, 3 SS, 1 ?, December 1896— January 1897 (W. Doherty). 



Taenaris kirschi interfannus subsp. nov. 



S. Differs from k. kirschi and k. occidentalis above in the much greater extent 

 of white on the forewing, and differs from k. occidentalis in being much whiter on 

 the lower half of the dark outer two-thirds of hindwing and on abdominal area. A 

 . second $ has the dark areas silver-grey but distributed in the same proportions. 

 Hab. Humboldt Bay, 2 $$, September— October 1892 (W. Doherty). 



Taenaris kirschi convergens subsp. nov. 



$ . Above differs from k. kirschi in the orange golden costal area of forewing 

 and the almost obliterated white area of forewing. On the hindwing it has less 

 white than k. kirschi but more than k. occidentalis. All the white is suffused with 

 brownish. Below the white on both wings is much reduced, and the anal ocellus is 

 very conspicuous from its very broad deep orange border. 



Hab. Fergusson Island, 1 S, July— December 1894 (A. S. Meek). 



Taenaris mailua littoralis subsp. nov. 



<$ ?. Differ above from m. mailua in being paler grey. 



? . Below is generally whiter on hindwing. 



Hab. Milne Bay, 8 <$<S, 6 ? ?, November 1898 (A. S. Meek). 



Morphotenaris 



Here I have nothing to add, and only give drawings of two hitherto unfigured 

 forms. 



Morphotenaris schönbergi littoralis Bothsch. 

 (PI. III. f. 4) 



Morphotenaris schönbergi wollastoni Rothsch. 

 (PI. IV. f. 5) 



Sticb.ophtb.alma 



Here there are several points to mention. 



Stichophthalma sparta Nice v. 

 (PI. IV. f. 6. 8) 



Herr Fruhstorfer has placed this as a subspecies of howqua, which was entirely 

 due to the S being unknown. It is a quite distinct species allied to louisa. 



