56 



AFRICAN MIMETIC BUTTERFLIES 



AMAURIS ECHERIA. 



Stoll, Suppl. Cram., p. 135, pl.29,ff.2, 2b (1790). Kheil (var. sieckeri), B. E. Z., xxxiii, p. 393, Fig. 



Trimen, Trans. Linn. Soc, xxvi, p. 521, pi. 42, (text) (1889). 



f. 3 (1869). E. M. Sharpe (var. jacksoni), Proc. Zool. Soc, 



Godart {vaillantina) , Enc. Meth.,ix, p. 183(1819). p. 633, pi. 48, f. 2 (1891). 



Trimen, Metamorph. S. Af. Butt., i, p. 58 (1887). Aurivillius, Rhop. Aeth., p. 39 (1898). 



Plate V, Figs. 10, 13. 



AMAURIS ALBIMACULATA. 



Butler, An. N. H. (4), xvi, p. 394 (1875). Trimen, Trans. Linn. Soc, 26, p. 521, pi. 42, 



Boisduval [echerta var.), Voy. Deleg., ii, p. 589 f. 7 (1869). 



(1847). Butler (hanningtoni) , Proc. Zool. Soc, p. 91 



(1888). 

 Plate V, Fig. 4. 



I have taken these two species together, in order to make a comparison between them, 

 apart from the various species of other genera, which appear to be modified in mimetic 

 association with their patterns. They were for a long time considered to be merely varieties 

 of the same species, and as such were described by Trimen in his work on the South African 

 butterflies, and also by Prof essor Aurivillius in his ' Rhopalocera Aethiopica'. Messrs. Roths- 

 child and Jordan have, however, shown (Novit. Zool., 10) that they are certainly distinct 

 species. Whilst A. alhimaculata appears always to have white spots on the fore-wing, these 

 marks in A. echeria are sometimes white and sometimes ochreous. The general appearance 

 of the two insects is much the same, but they may be distinguished by the following differ- 

 ences. The sexual brand jn the male alhimaculata is longer than in echeria. In both sexes 

 of A. alhimaculata the underside of the abdomen is as pale as, or paler than, the median band 

 of the hind-wing, whilst in echeria it is as dark as the marginal area of the hind-wing. In 

 alhimaculata the white spot on the palpus is always in the form of a streak, whilst in echeria 

 it is in the form of a dot. This latter feature is perhaps the easiest to recognize at a glance, 

 and forms a very ready means of distinguishing between the species. 



Trimen describes the larva and pupa of A. echeria as follows : — 



' Larva. Black with narrow blue and orange longitudinal stripes. Median dorsal stripe, 

 from 5th to 13th segment, very narrow, bright blue ; subdorsal lateral stripe interrupted, 

 yellow-orange ; spiracular stripe (superior) interrupted, pale-orange (inferior), festooned 

 on each segment, yellow-orange. Spiracles faintly ringed with light blue. Skin slightly 

 rugose. Head smooth, black. Five pairs of rather short, divergent, subdorsal black filaments, 

 springing respectively from the 2nd, 4th, 6th, iith, and 12th segments. 



' Pupa. Thick, short, gibbous, moderately angulated. Shining silvery golden ; the 

 angles and points defined with markings of red and black, attached by tail only.' 



The butterfly is described as having a slow and graceful flight, though capable of rapid 

 movement when alarmed. It frequents the neighbourhood of woods, though fond of flying 

 across open spaces. After examining a long series of both echeria and alhimaculata, I find 

 that both species are liable to occasional variation in the direction of a brown ground-colour 

 in place of the usual black. A brown example of echeria is shown on Plate V, Fig. 10. This 

 specimen I received from German East Africa, and on further inquiry was informed that it is 

 not at all uncommon in that region. In alhimaculata the discal pale patch in the hind- wing is 

 frequently almost white, whilst in echeria it is always ochreous. Echeria extends from Cameroon 

 to the Cape, whilst alhimaculata seems to be centred in the Natal region, extending to North- 



