( 464 ) 



in most examples frmu all parts of New (ininea is tliat off. 2. The length of the 

 ]irojectiou varies about from 1 : 2. 



The free apical projection of the harjie varies iu a similar way Iq outline aud 

 height, as will be seen by comparing f. 2 to 6 ; the extremes which came under our 

 notice are shown in f. 4 and 5, the length varying about from 2 : ;5. The normal 

 size of the apical projection is that of f 2. 



The specimens from British New Guinea, the D'Entrecasteaux Islands, and 

 Woodlark Island have in the harpes no character by which we could distinguish them 

 from the individuals from Northern New Guinea. 



b. P. aegeus aegetis from Queensland and New South Wales ; f. T to 11. 



Though the Australian form of aegeus is in respect to the wing-pattern very 

 constant as compared with aegeus ormenus, the variation in the genital armature is 

 just as great as in the New Guinean subspecies. The male corresponds in the 

 2iattern of the forewing to aegeus ormeiius c?-ab. ormenus. 



The commonest forms of the submediau projection met with are shown in 

 f. Sand 11; on the whole, the basal edge of the projection is more vertical than 

 in aegeus ormenus, but this does not apply to every specimen ; the character is 

 especially often obvious in the individuals from New South ^Vales and Southern 

 Queensland. The apical projection is in a few examples a little higher than in 

 aegeus ormenus. F. 7 and 8 are taken from two specimens from Cairns, North 

 Queensland ; f. 9 represents an individual from Cedar Bay, thirty miles south of 

 Cooktown ; f. lit, with an abnormally high and slender submediau projection, is 

 taken from a Queensland individual without exact locality, while f. 11 represents 

 a New South Wales individual. The variation in the length of the submediau pro- 

 jection is iu this selected series not so great as in f. 2 to 6, as we did not find an 

 individual in which the submediau projection was as feebly developed as iu f. 5. 



The importance of the differences exhibited in f. 2 to 11 will at once become 

 obvious when we compare the harpes of the two nearest allied species. 



3. Papilio iuopinatus; f. 12. 



P. aegeus is on the Tenimber Islands represented by an insect which is 

 comparatively very constant in external characters, and is iu colour aud imttern 

 always separated from P. aegeus by a wide gap. Though the absence of inter- 

 mediate specimens is not a proof that the Tenimber insect named inopinatus is 

 specifically distinct from P. aegeus, we have to treat inopinatus as a species for the 

 following reasons : the external diflf'erences between inopinatus and aegeus are greater 

 than, or as great as, the differences between the relative forms which are regarded 

 as distinct species ; if lowi and mai/o are kept separate from memnon — rumanzo- 

 rius, (leiplionte.s, and deipghts as distinc't from deiphohus — gamhrisiiis sjiecifically 

 separate from aegeus, then inopinatus is likewise to be treated as a distinct species. 

 Further, the variation within the male sex of P. aegeus from New (iuinca, 

 Australia, Aru, Kei, and Baiida Islands takes place between such limits that the 

 difference between the extremes is not so great as that between aegeus and 

 inopinatus ; the same aj)plies to the variation oi i\iaX female form of ormenus which 

 corresponds to the/eynale of inopinatus. 



Thus we think it fairly safe to consider inopiiuitus specifically distinct. The 

 evidence is to some extent corroborated by the difference exhibited by the harpe. A\ a 



