( 439 ) 



respect, more jjenoralised tlifin the species in wliii-h that vein joins the costal ncrvnr?. 

 Eiraerhas, therefore, united in his groups I., III., and IV. species wliich according to 

 the nenration do not belong together. However, the argnment from uenration is in 

 Arthildung II. p. 60 altogether rejected by Dr. Fickert. As the agreement in the 

 specialisation of the nenration was one of the reasons which indnced Mr. Rothschild 

 to bring the Indo-Malayau agefrs in its proper place near the Indo-JIalayau antiphates 

 and Bornean stratiotes instead of near podalirius, the Celebensiau r/iesu-i near the 

 Indo-Anstralian aristeus, etc., let ns examine the objections Dr. Fickert has to 

 make. Dr. Fickert states that (1) the tirst subcostal branch joins the costal nervnre 

 in P. alebion, (jlycenori, (igi'tcx, rhesus, etc., etc., while it is free in podalirius, 

 Icosthenes, etc.; (2) the point of origin and the length of this liranch are variable: 

 (3) the first subcostal branch is wanting altogether in P. belle rophoii; and then 

 proceeds to say that the absence of the first subcostal branch in belleroplion " wotild, 

 if it had been recognised, probably alone have sufficed, under the reign of the doctrine 

 of the wing-uenration of Lepidoptera, for the erection, if not of a special genns, 

 at least of a subgenus for F. bi'llcrophon. If one has, however, once closely 

 examined a larger number of individuals of one species, or species of one genus, 

 with regard to the uenration, and has thereby found that a greater number of veins, 

 especially the costal and the first branches of the subcostal veins, vary more or 

 less in their characters, one will no longer lay too great stress upon such 

 small differences. It is, therefore, my opinion that there is no reason at all to 

 separate P. agetes, which by the way also C. and E. Felder consider similar in 

 appearance to the protesilaus gronp, from this group, and also to separate /'. 

 Icosthenes on account of the different course of the first subcostal branch from the 

 otherwise so closely allied anticrates," etc. — Dr. Fickert misses altogether the point 

 at issue: for it is not the length of the first subcostal branch, nor its point of 

 origin, that is maintained by Haase, Rothschild, and others to be of classificatory 

 significance; no, the important point is that the first subcostal branch is invariably- 

 fused with the costal nervnre in alebion, anticrates, aqetes, etc., and invariably free 

 in podalirius, leosthenes, protesilaus, etc., a fact which Dr. Fickert has verified. A 

 variable character is substituted for a constant one; by showing the first to be of no 

 classificatory value, the importance of the second is surely not lessened to the 

 slightest extent. The reader will now be able to judge for himself whether there 

 is a sound basis for the following sentences in Artbildung : " The venation stands 

 in the background, as compared with pattern, in regard to the establishment of the 

 relationship, and only certain veins are here of importance; others, and just those 

 which Mr. Haase relies upon in his opposition- against me, are so liable to variation 

 that they can by no means be made use of. Hero belong especially the veins of 

 the anterior margin of the forewing " (II. p. 59). " That the venation of the wing 

 must also be of weight in establishing the relationship of Lepidoptera is self-evident. 

 But it is, according to what is said before, a great mistake to assume that every 

 venation indiscriminately must be of importance. I have not taken venation into 

 consideration either in tlie case of the Swallow-tails or now in the case of the 

 ' Segelfalter,' because we have not found anything that contradicted the relations 

 [black type mine] wliich are maintained by us and are so clearly demonstrated by 

 tlie pattern." It sounds rather queer fliat the subcostal veins cannot be of any 

 taxonomic value, because they are variable, if we bear in mind that the wing-pattern, 

 the basis of Elmer's classification, is extremely variable. 'Whether the absence of 

 the first subcostal branch from belleroplion will or will not justify a generic separation 



