EURASIAN & AUSTRALIAN NEPTINI 97 



N. anjana zena Fruhstorfer 



Neptis anjana zena Fruhstorfer, 1905a : 41. West Java. £$ types BMNH. 

 Bimbisara anjana zena (Fruhstorfer) Fruhstorfer, 1908a : 394, pi. 3, fig. 15 $. 

 Neptis {Bimbisara) anjana zena Fruhstorfer ; Fruhstorfer, 191 3 : 620. 

 Neptis anjana zena Fruhstorfer ; Roepke, 1938 : 307, pi. 32, figs. 10 $, 11 $. 



Java. 



N. anjana saskia Fruhstorfer 



Neptis anjana saskia Fruhstorfer, 1899a : 350. Nias. $ type Paris. 



Neptis anjana thiemi Fruhstorfer, 1905a : 41. <J Nias. 



Bimbisara anjana saskia Fruhstorfer ; Fruhstorfer, 1908a : 394, pi. 3,, fig. 16 $. 



Neptis (Bimbisara) anjana saskia Fruhstorfer (syn. thiemi Fruhstorfer) ; Fruhstorfer, 1913 : 620. 



NlAS. 



N. anjana vidua Staudinger 



Neptis vidua Staudinger, 1889 : 64. Palawan. 



Neptis (Bimbisara) anjana vidua Staudinger ; Fruhstorfer, 191 3 : 620. 



None in BMNH. 



Neptis ananta complex 



There has been much confusion in the past in the N. ananta complex between 

 forms which I regard as distinct species : N. ananta Moore and N. namba Tytler. 

 The former species shows slight seasonal variation in India and Burma, still less in 

 China. N. namba appears to show no seasonal variation whatever. Throughout 

 the complex females are very rare. 



In China Leech (1892) regarded the form which I name below N. namba leechi 

 as the typical form of N. ananta. He named as var. chinensis what I regard as the 

 Szechwan subspecies of N. ananta, and implied that both var. chinensis and typical 

 ananta (recte leechi) occurred at the same times and places, which is borne out by 

 such dated material as exists in BMNH. Oberthiir treated both as N. ananta 

 chinensis, regarding leechi simply as a wet season form. Fruhstorfer also regarded 

 both as conspecific, but confused matters by renaming Leech's var. chinensis as 

 f. areus whilst using the name chinensis to denote the form I call leechi. 



In India and Burma Fruhstorfer erred in regarding both wet and dry season 

 ananta as the dry season form of N. ananta and N. namba as the wet season form of 

 N. ananta. Evans regarded N. namba simply as a low level subspecies of N. ananta, 

 giving to it an unduly restricted distribution in Manipur and the Naga Hills. He 

 was probably correct in thinking N. namba flies at a lower level than N. ananta 

 (in Sikkim I took the former some 2000 ft. lower than the latter) but if they were 

 purely altitudinal forms it seems likely that intermediate forms would be found at 

 intermediate altitudes, and such is not the case. Tytler, who probably had un- 

 rivalled experience in the field, originally described N. namba as a distinct species, 



