( 506 ) 



Central America, while the form of the Greater Antilles is an immigrant from 

 Venezuela ? AVe are not going to deny that in a given ease applying to one or the 

 other of those questions an affirmative answer eoukl be in accordance with the actual 

 history of the origin of the respective form ; but we shallendeavour to exj)lain that 

 similarities between representative forms are capable of being explained otherwise, 

 and that there are many cases in which the agreement of two forms in respect to a 

 certain character must be explained otherwise. Let us then in(|uire into the facts 

 brought to liglit by our researches on the Eastern Papilios. As in the body of this 

 paper the facts we have to refer to have been more fully dealt with, it will suflSce 

 to mention them hero briefly without going in fur a description of the organs 

 concerned. 



Papilio alchious alcinous from Japan is represented on the Loo Choo Islands 

 by P. alcinous loochooanus and in China by F. alcinous confusus. There are two 

 prominent characters by which the forms are distinguished : alcinous has a black 

 head and a dentate harpe, loockooanus a red head and a dentate harpe, and confusus 

 a red head and a non-dentate harpe. In the colour of the head, therefore, 

 loockooanus agrees with confusus, while in the harpe it agrees with alcinous ; hence 

 tlie relationship deducible from the similarity in colour of the head is directly 

 opposed to the relationship indicated by the liarj)e, and it would be e([ually incorrect 

 to say that loockooanus is a descendant of confusus on account of the similarity in 

 colour, or to conclude that it has descended from alcinous because the harpes are 

 the same ; there would be just as much probabUity of correctness, if we consider 

 only the naked facts here adduced, in the assumption that alcinous is the offspring 

 of loockooanus, which Itself descended from confusus, or that the reverse exjiresses 

 the phylogeuetic connection between the three forms, or that the three localities 

 were inhabited at a former period by one form which later on became differentiated 

 into the present three Papilios. 



Papilio batkycles ckiron from Sikkiiu, Assam, and Burma, and P. hath;/cles 

 batkycloides from Malacca, Sumatra, and Borneo, are not always distinguishable iu 

 pattern, there occurring often specimens which, according to the wing-markings, 

 could be regarded as belonging either to the one or to the other subsj)ecies. 



The Javanese representative P. hathjcles hathjclcs stands in 2>attern not so 

 close to hathi/cloides as this does to ckiron. In the harpes batkycloides and batkycles 

 come very near each other, while ckiron exhibits a conspicuous difference from 

 both iu the development of the dorsal process (f. 46 to 60). Here again the 

 form inhabiting the interjacent districts is more similar in tlie male copulatory 

 organs to the one, in colour to the other representative. 



Tlie three subspecies of P. cloantkas inhabiting respectively China (ilymenus). 

 North India and Burma (cloantkas), and Sumatra (sumatranus), when arranged 

 according to the similarity in pattern, would stand thus : clymenus — cloantkus — 

 sumatranus, whereas in an arrangement according to the development of the harpe 

 cloantkus would come first : cloantkus— cly menus — sumatranus. 



The numerous subspecies of P. sarpedon provide us with a number of inter- 

 esting facts. The Papuan form ckoredoti of sarpedon inhabiting Australia and 

 New Guinea (inclusive of the islands near it) bears in colour and pattern a rather 

 close resemblance to the specimens of the spring brood of sarpedon sarpedon from 

 North India, bnt is distinguished from the Indian form in the shape of the valve 

 and harpe, in which organs ckoredon is similar to anthedon from the Southern 

 Moluccas. The latter, however, differs in colour from ckoredon, agreeing in that 



