( 469 ) 



(5) C'evtain Timor individuiils of poh/tes theseus come in the liarpe (f. 30) 

 very near poh/tes pcrirrsus from Sangir and Talant (f. 3o), and tliis again is very 

 cloi-:e to polijtes alcindor from Celclios (f. 34). 



(0) The harpe of polytes ulplienor from the Pliiliijpiuc and Sulla Inlands is in 

 the height of the blade nearer related to poh/tes theseus from Java and the lesser 

 Snnda Islands than to poh/tes theseus from Borneo and alcindor from Celebes, 

 ivhich subspecies are geographically the nearest to ulj^henor ; while, on the other 

 hand, the apex of the harpe is in all the stibspecies inhabiting Celebes, the 

 Philippines, f^angir and Talaut, the Snlla Islands, and the Moluccas, somewhat 

 curved upwards (and towards the dorsal margin of the valve), and not turned up, or 

 rarely so, in poh/tes theseus. 



(7) The subspecies most cousjiiouously different in the harpe is P. poh/tes 

 alphenor, while the subspecies most conspicuously different in the shape and pattern 

 of the wing is P. poli/tes niranor. 



'■ Papilio euchenor; f. 51 to 04. 



This insect is purely Pajman, being found in New Guinea, the Aru and Kei 

 Islands, the D'Entrecasteaux Islands, Woodlark Island, and ou New Britain and New 

 Ireland; it has uo near relative. Up to 189.5 the specimens from these various 

 locahties had been treated as identical; Mr. Rothschild in his Revision found, 

 however, that the individuals in his collection from the Bismarck Archipelago are 

 in both sexes conspicuously different from the New Guinea specimens, and that, on 

 the other side, the individuals from Aru are in the Jemaie sex, not in the »iafe, also 

 constanth/ diiferent as far as the great material examined can be taken as furnishing 

 a proof of a constancy of distinction. Lately, Mr. Rothschild observed, moreover, 

 that the specimens from New Ireland arc again in lioth sexes distinguishable from 

 the individuals from New Britain ; so that there are four well recognisable forms, 

 to which is to be added a fifth from Woodlark Island * described as a distinct 

 species some forty years ago, but scarcely different in the c? iu external features 

 from the New Guinea form. The question is now, are the five forms one species, 

 or do they belong to more species ? An answer is in this case extremely difficult to 

 give : first, because euchenor stands quite isolated amongst the Indo-Australian 

 Papilios, and thus does not allow us to compare the distinguishing characters of 

 other forms assumed, or j)roved, to be specifically distinct ; secondly, because the 

 main portion of New Britain, which geographically is nearest to New Guinea and 

 hence may perhaps be inhabited by an euchenor form intermediate between the 

 New Guinea form and the New Britain form, is entomologically an entire blank, all 

 the specimens received from New Britain being caught in the north-east of the 

 island. The external characters of the various forms, however, allow us to set at 

 rest the question ; as ohsolescens from Aru and Kei, and yodarti from Woodlark, 

 are in the male not always distinguishable from euchenor from New Guinea, these? 

 three forms have to be treated as subspecies of one species (the name of which is 

 euchenor'). 



The two forms from the Bismarck Archipelago, de/iiUs from New Britain and 

 no(ohibernicus from New Ireland, have several conspicuous characters in comnK)n 

 by which they are diffcientiated from euchenor euchenor, euchenor ohsolescens, and 

 euchenor i/odarti, while the differences between depilis and novohibernicus are 



• And perhaps a sixth from the D'Entrecnstoau.x Islands. 



