PAPILIONIN^. 
I uppermost ; and the general resemblance of the insect to the leaflets of 
its food-plant, which in outline is very remarkable, is thus completed, 
j F*. lanceolata having the leaflets darker above and paler below. Mr. 
, Weale further points out that such minutiae as the more glossy upper 
I surface of the leaflets, the slight inflexion of their margins, the slightly 
j ferruginous tint of the mid-rib, and the reticulated venation, are all to 
{ some extent imitated in this chrysalis. The modifications of shape and 
; outline which combine with the colouring to complete this deceptive 
I resemblance are unusually great, when the pupa is compared with 
those of other species of Papilio. Not only is the whole pupa much 
flattened, and the convexity of the ventral and pectoral region balanced 
by an unusual concavity of the dorsal region (with almost a suppres- 
sion of the dorso-thoracic prominence), but the development and ex- 
pansion of the lateral longitudinal ridges is very pronounced. The 
cephalic projections, however, exhibit the most unique form. If these 
had retained the customary conspicuous divergence into two promi- 
nent processes, as in P. Dcmolciis, P. Lyceus, &c., it is obvious that the 
general resemblance to a leaf would have been greatly lessened, and 
the object of concealment to some extent frustrated. These projections 
are, however, brought closely together, so that their inner edges touch 
throughout their length to the very extremity, and their outer edges 
converge to a common point ; and in this manner the top of the leaf 
is accurately represented. 
P. Ccnea is a very near ally of P. Merope, Cram. {Pcqj. Exot., tab. 
151, A, B, and 378 D, e), from West Africa,-*- and it was not until 
1873 that I became convinced that the two forms should be treated 
as distinct species. As regards the , Cema is to be distinguished by 
its shorter wings, darker and more rufescent under-side colouring, 
shorter tail on hind-wings, much fainter inter-nervular dark rays on 
the under side in both fore and hind wings, and broader and more con- 
tinuous (ferruginous-ochreous, not fuscous) discal band on the under 
side of the hind-wings. With respect to the ? s, the first or ordinary 
Southern form {Ccnea, Stoll) — which is imitative of a Southern species 
of Danaince, Amauris Echeria — appears to have no analogue in Tropical 
West Africa ; but the much rarer second form is very like the ordinary 
West-Coast $ Mcwjm named by Fabricius P. Hippocoon, being separable 
very readily, however, by its smaller size, shorter wings, narrower sub- 
apical white bar in the fore-wings, and much larger white patch in the 
hind-wings. The equally scarce tJiird form {Troplionius, Westw.) was 
evidently originally figured from a Southern example ; and its appar- 
ently rare Western analogue, figured by Hewitson (Exot, Butt., iv. 
Papilio xii. f. 40), presents as regards the fore-wings a broader, more 
oblique, almost wholly brick-red subapical bar, but (unlike the form 
Hippocoon of the same region) has quite as broad a patch in the hind- 
^ Fabricius' name oi Brutus was given to the same butterfly in 1781, two years later than 
Cramer's publication of his earlier figures (vol. ii.). 
