OCR Text |
Show 1896.] BUTTERFLIES O F T H E F A M I L Y HESPERIID^E. 13 Pardaleodes interniplaga, Mab. C. R. Soc. Ent. Belg. 1891, p. lxxiii. Celcenorrhinus interniplaga, Holland, Ent. News, March 1894, pi. iii. fig. 2. Hab. Fernando Po (Hewitson); Cameroons (Mabille); Bule Country (Good). I am unable to discover any valid specific differences between C. meditrina, Hew., and C. interniplaga, Mab. I have a good series of specimens in my collection, some of which agree positively with either form, differing only in size and the greater or less distinctness of the marginal spots. 30. C. MACULATUS, Hampson. (Plate III. fig. 4.) Coladenia maculata, Hpsn. Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. (6) vol. vii. p. 183. Hab. Sabaki River, E. Africa (Hampson). This species is a very near ally of C. meditrina, Hew. Two specimens, a male and a female, contained in the collection of Dr. Staudinger, were taken by Mocquerys at Gaboon. The female differs from the male in having the maculations of the secondaries greatly reduced in size. While these specimens do not agree absolutely with the type of maculata, Hpsn., they are by far too close to warrant a separation. 31. C. BISERIATUS, Butl. (Plate III. fig. 3.) Plesioneura biseriata, Butl. P. Z. S. 1888, p. 97. Plesioneura hoehneli, Rogenhofer, Ann. Hofmus. Wien, vol. vi. p. 463, pi. xv. fig. 10 (1891). Hab. Kilimanjaro (Butler) ; Tropical Africa (Rogenhofer). I think the above synonymy will be found to be quite correct. 32. C. ATRATUS, Mab. Pardaleodes atratus, Mab. C. R. Soc. Ent. Belg. 1891, p. lxxiv. Celcenorrhinus collucens, Holl. Ent. News, March 1894, p. 90, pi. iii. figs. 3, 4. Hab. Cameroons (Mabille ; Good). The type of P. atratus being before m e as I write, I am convinced that I made an error in m y identification of it upon the occasion of m y visit to Mons. Mabille. The insect I labelled atratus, if there has been no confusion since made in the labelling of the specimens in the collection of Dr. Staudinger, is the following species, and the true atratus is the species I figured and named collucens. Dr. Staudinger warns me that Mons. Mabille has in a few cases apparently confused his types: this is one of those cases in which I am almost positive that such a confusion has arisen; but we must accept the type as determining controversy, and as the insect labelled autographically as Pardaleodes atratus by Mabille in the Staudinger Collection is unmistakably my |