THYRIDIDAE OF AFRICA AND ITS ISLANDS 49 



Additional material. Uganda: 2 <$, Toro, Kibale Forest, v. 1966 (Carcasson), 

 in NMK; Democratic Republic of the Congo: i <$, Katanga, Kolwezi, i.1967 

 {Allard), in NMK; Nigeria: i <$, Ibadan, viii.1960 {Caswell), 2 $, Benue (Brown); 

 Senegal: 2 <$, 2 $, Sebikotane, x.1968 (Berhaut). 



These additional specimens are as variable in pattern as those already described 

 (Wh alley, 1968 : 10) but the shape of the genitalia is similar. The possibility of 

 subspeciation in this species is still to be resolved. 



D.fumida Whalley, 1968 : 11. Map 15. Tanzania; Kenya; Rhodesia. 



D. lutescens Whalley, 1968 : n. Map 21. Tanzania; Kenya. 



Additional material. Tanzania: 13 <$, Ilonga, ii-iii.1963 (Robertson). These 

 specimens from Ilonga are more orange-yellow than the original series. This species 

 has been bred from Ritchiea sp. (Capparidaceae) [D. G. Sevastopulo, in litl.]. 



D. crassa (Walker), 1865 : 827. Map 21. Zambia; South Africa. 



No previous type-selection has been made for this species ; I designate as LECTO- 

 TYPE the male labelled, S. Africa: Pt Natal, BM slide no. 8338, in BMNH. 



D. magnified Whalley, 1968 : 13. Map 22. Sierra Leone; Ivory Coast; Demo- 

 cratic Republic of the Congo; Uganda; Kenya. 



Additional material, Kenya: i J, Kakamega, x.1966 (Carcasson & Forbes-Watson) ; 

 1 $, Kakamega, xii.1966 (Carcasson & Forbes-Watson); 1 $, Kakamega, iii.1966 

 (Carcasson & Forbes-Watson) in NMK; Sierra Leone: 2 $, Bo, vi.1967 (Revell). 



The female of this species (PI. 5, fig. 15) was not known when the original des- 

 cription was made. It is similar in colour and pattern to the male. Wing, 19 mm. 

 The genitalia (PI. 50, figs 285, 286) are similar to those of D. incognita and D. 

 subsignata. It can be separated from these species by the much stronger sclerotiza- 

 tion round the ostium, less tightly convolute duct and much larger signum. Apart 

 from being the first female of D. magnifica, the specimen from Kenya is only the 

 second female specimen of the three species in the magnifica-group. When this 

 species-group was described, the single female of D. incognita was only doubtfully 

 associated with that species (Whalley, 1968 : 14), partly because of its close similarity 

 to the female of D. subsignata with which the adult might be confused on pattern and 

 partly because this single female was not from the type locality. However, in the 

 case of the female of D. magnifica, the size and pattern agree with the male specimen 

 collected at the same time and in the same locality, this male is indistinguishable 

 from the holotype. The genitalia of the female incognita and the female subsignata 

 could only be separated with difficulty and this added to the doubt of the correct 

 association of the female incognita. Now that the female of magnifica is known and 

 the genitalia are similar to the female of incognita there is less doubt of the 

 correctness of this association. With two of the species in the magnifica-group 

 with such similar female genitalia and the similarity between these and the female 

 of the subsignata-group, the affinities between these species are of particular interest. 

 The males of the magnifica-group and subsignata-group are quite different (Whalley, 

 1968 : 13) and the discovery of the female of the third species (amani) in the 

 magnifica-group will be of interest. The two male specimens from Sierra Leone 



