g8 J. N. ELIOT 



but later merged it in AT. ananta, and described the opposite sexes of N. ananta 

 (male) and N. namba (female) as N. ananta learmondi in the South Shan States. 



I think it is quite certain that in N.E. India, Burma and Tonkin N. namba is 

 correctly placed as a species distinct from AT', ananta, with which it flies, though 

 probably at lower average elevations. This opinion is supported by the fact that 

 AT. namba occurs unchanged throughout the area whereas N. ananta occurs in three 

 separate subspecies, with a fourth occurring in the N.W. Himalayas whence AT. 

 namba is unknown. 



In Western China (Szechwan) the differences between AT. ananta chinensis and 

 AT. lamba leechi are less clear cut. However I feel reasonably certain that they are 

 distinct species there also, and not mere dimorphs or seasonal forms. In the 

 Upper Mekong Valley N. ananta occurs in a distinct subspecies nearer to the Burmese 

 than to the Szechwan subspecies, whereas N. namba leechi occurs unchanged, judging 

 from two males which may be wrongly labelled. If mislabelling has taken place it 

 would seem that N. namba is absent from the valley, probably because the height 

 at some 7000 ft. is too great ; in any case it is added negative evidence that the 

 two species are not seasonal forms of one another. 



In Formosa there is but a single form of the complex, which differs from both 

 AT. ananta and AT. namba more than these two do from one another, and which I 

 therefore treat as a distinct species AT. taiwana Fruhstorfer. All recent authors 

 have treated AT. taiwana as a subspecies of AT. ananta, and the fact that only one 

 form occurs in Formosa may be held to support the view that the complex consists 

 of only one species. 



Dissections of the male genitalia have not helped greatly to establish whether 

 there are one, two or three species in the complex. The first set of dissections, 

 showing subspecific variation along fairly constant lines in N. ananta and a rather 

 constant form of clasp (tapering, with the terminal projection twisted) in AT. namba, 

 suggested that there might be good grounds for separating these two species by the 

 male genitalia, but when I made many additional dissections to check these results 

 I found that the apparent differences became blurred, especially in Burma. In 

 Text-figs. 58-73 I show a number of clasps representing average types for various 

 forms from different localities. 



Neptis ananta Moore 



N. ananta chinensis Leech 



(Text-figs. 58, 59) 



Neptis ananta var. chinensis Leech, 1892 : 197, pi. 19, fig. 2. Omei Shan. <$$ types BMNH. 

 Bimbisara ananta chinensis f. areus Fruhstorfer, 1908a : 392. West China, syn. n. q* type 



Paris. 

 Neptis ananta chinensis i. areus (Fruhstorfer) Stichel, 1909 : 178. 

 Neptis (Bimbisara) ananta chinensis f. areus (Fruhstorfer) Fruhstorfer, 1913 : 619. 

 Neptis ananta-chinensis-albicans Oberthur, 1916 : pi. 410, fig. 3510. $ type BMNH 



Albescent variety. 



Western China (Szechwan). 



