270 NOTITATES ZOOLOGICAE XXII, igi?!. 



The genitalia of the males of algiriae and «a«a.are less different than one 

 would expect. The distinctions are microscopical and so very slight that they can 

 hardly be employed for identification purposes. The clasper (or valve, = plenrnm of 

 ninth segment) is somewhat broader apieally and more ronnded in algiriae than 

 in Sana. The armature of the clasper consists of a long ventral process which 

 extends to the apex of the clasper, and two short, concave dorsal processes 

 wliich are jilaced close together. This armatnre is the same in the two species, 

 except that the dorsal processes are a little slenderer and slightly less curved in 

 algiriae. 



The great similarity, almost amounting to identity, in the male genitalia of the 

 two Algerian Cerocala is of special interest from the point of view of systematics 

 and phylogeny. The similarity is weighty evidence that algiriae and .mna are 

 closely related, in spite of the difference in the lengths of the cells of the hindwing, 

 in the tarsal claw-segments and the male antennae ; and, on the other hand, shows 

 that the apjiarent absence of olivions distinctions in the genitalia mnst not fo ipso 

 be taken as proving specific identity. There are a large nnmber of distinct species 

 of Lepidoptera which we cannot separate by the genitalia, and there are also 

 Lepidoptera which we can identify with certainty only by the genitalia. 



Both species of Cerocala are common in the dry districts of the High Central 

 Plateaux of Algeria, as well as in the desert. The larvae are not vet known. 



ON FAFILIO DIA'OXI Grose-Smith (1900) AND FAPILIO 

 KUEIINI HoNR. (1886) FROM CELEBES. 



By Dr. K. .JORDAN. 



(With 4 text-figures). 



THE most interesting collection of Rhopnlocero which our friend Dr. L. Martin 

 made during his stay at Paloe, Central Celebes, in lOI'i and 1913, contains 

 a long series of a Papilio which Dr. ^lartin identifies as P. kuehni in Iris, 1914, 

 p. 68 ff. We have drawn his attention to this error, the species not being huehni, 

 but dixoni. But Dr. Martin, in litt, expresses the opinion that dixoni and kuehni 

 are the same species, since his series shows all intergradations between specimens 

 with a red discal baud and red snbmarginal lunules on the hindwing (= di.roni) 

 aud specimens which have only the red band (= kuehni'). The series oi $ S which 

 Dr. Martin has been good enongh to cede to the Tring Museum certainly contains 



these intergradations, but the extreme individuals which lack the snbmarginal 



spots, and which Dr. Martin believes to be kuehni, are nevertheless dixoni, not 

 kuehni. There is no kuehni in the series. 



The differences between dixoni and huehni are very marked. We have one S 

 and two ? ? of kuehni and fourteen S S of dixoni. The ? of dixoni has been 

 figured by Grose-Smith in l\ho/i. Exot. iii., Papilio, pi. 21. fig. 3. 4 (1901). 



The wings are mnch narrower in kuehni than in dixoni, particularly in the 

 male, as shown in our text-figs. 1 and 2. The upperside of both wings of the male 

 oi kuehni is much more uniformly purplish blue than in dixoni, the pale stripes of 



