( 342 ) 



The description of albivena by Walker refers iinraistukably to the same insect 

 which SueHen described again and figured in 1879 {I.e.). Snellen's figure, which is 

 stated to be taken from a VKtlc, represents most certainly Vi female, judging from the 

 form of the forewing and the .apparent absence of a costal retinaculum. 



A. nlhivena is very closely allied to .1. heliconin, and has by several authors been 

 considered i<lentical with certain forms of /(<'//ec>/HV(, such as heliconio ghorn fmm the 

 Kei Islands (Pagenstecher, Rbber) and heliconia intacta from Java (Hampson), and 

 the differences in colour are certainly not such that they alone would justify a specific 

 sej>aration of nlbircmi from hrlkoniii. However, as alhiterm differs in the form of the 

 mule clasper and harpe from all races of Iieliconia, and as further those /if/iconia-forma 

 which occur together, like intacta f. intacta and f. lara, and heliconia f. Iidiconia and 

 f. lanceolata, are identical in those organs, we do not see that there is much justifi- 

 cation to treat nlbivena as a Celebensian form of heliconia beside lanceolata, which 

 is also a Cclcbensian insect. The various subspecies of heliconia differ slightly from 

 one anotlier in the male copnlatory organs ; albivena stands decidedly ontside the 

 range of variation as exhibited by the insects treated in this jiaper as forms of 

 heliconia ; the harpe is much broader and flatter at the apex, much less cnrved 

 upwards, and the ventral edge of the clasjier is less arched. Our three viales from 

 B. Celebes agree with one another in colonr very closely; while, however, in two 

 of them there are, on the underside of the forewing, two small white spots behind 

 the apex of the cell between veins 2 and 4, the third specimen has, besides, a white 

 streak along the basal partition of the median uervure and a white patch in tlie uj>ex 

 of the cell. The sitecimen from Palos Bay has no white markings on the underside 

 of the forewiug (a northern subspecies ?). 



Ilab. Celebes : S. Celebes (W. Doherty, August and September 1891), 3 i; 

 Tawaya, Palos Bay (W. Doherty, August and September 189G), 1 J. K. J. 



29. Asota heliconia. 



If one looks at the synonymy (as given below) of the various forms of Asota 

 which we unite here to one species, it will become obvious that these Aganaids 

 must have been a puzzle to Lepidopterists. And we confess that, before we had 

 dissected a good number of specimens and studied the antennae, genital armature, and 

 other parts of the body, we were very uncertain about several of the forms with a very 

 distinct ai)i)earance. However, as we have found that the differences between these 

 Asota forms are only such of colour and wing-form, and as further there exist speci- 

 mens which stand intermediate, either by combining the distinguishing characters of 

 two forms, or by ha\ ing the characters in question more developed than the one 

 form and less than the otlier, we had necessarily to come to the conclusion that the 

 dilYerences, though often considerable, between the various Asota forms here united 

 are not of specific value. It was especially the occurrence of two forms in the same 

 locality and at the same time of the year which led us first to the belief that there 

 were two instead of one species on the Sunda Islands and the Molnccas. 



This kind of dimorjihism in both sexes is certainly very remarkable, and no less 

 misleading. Tlic dilferences between the two kinds of forms relate to the colour of 

 the body, size of the black abdominal and thoracic markings, shape of the white area 

 of the forewing, and sometimes (especially in Timor) to the shape of the forewing : 

 the white area of the forewing above is generally eitlicr prolonged along vein 2, or 

 in the other form along vein 3 ; in the latter case the area is basally narrow, often 



