( 435 ) 



AN EXAMINATION OF THE CLASSIFICATORY AND 80x\IE 



OTHER RESULTS OF EIMER'S RESEARCHES ON 



EASTERN PAPILIOS. 



A REVIEW AND REPLY. 



By KARL JORDAN, Ph.D. 



THE following Hues were written before the death of Professor Einier. On 

 receiving the sail news of the nntimel)' departure of the ardent defender of the 

 inheritance of acquired characters, I have altered the review in all those points which 

 relate to debatable matter ; but I could not suppress it altogether, as Mr. Rothschild 

 and I had to give a rejdy to Professor Eimer's sharp-worded remarks iu his last book 

 {Orthogenesis), and as, further, we thought it our duty to show how far the facts 

 brought forward by Eimer as a basis for general deductions harmonise with the 

 results of our studies on Papilios. 



In the introduction to Mr. Rothschild's Revision of the Eastern Papilios 

 (Nov. ZoOL. 1895) I gave a brief survey of the principal works dealing with 

 the Papilios of those regions, and had occasion to allude to Eimer's book on 

 Artbildung und VerwandtschaJ't bei den Schmetterlingen, stating (l.c. p. 174) that 

 Eimer's and Fickert's papers were " of little consequence for the systematic worker " 

 — meaning the classifier — " as both authors apparently employed too small a material 

 to enable them to avoid grave errors in respect to the relationship of the various 

 Papilios." In his recent book Orthogenesis der Schmctterlinge, p. 45, Eimer 

 complains of that remark, and maintains that the criticisms by Mr. Rothschild * 

 were partly erroneous, and partly advanced without a sufficient support by facts 

 being given. If Eimer were right in repudiating the corrections, I should 

 certainly withdraw the above remark without hesitation. Unfortunately, a study 

 of Eimer's second and third book t and renewed examination of the Papilios 

 convince me, not only that Mr. Rothschild's and my criticisms were well founded, 

 but also that the errors in classification were much less due to insufficient material 

 than to oversights in his one-sided researches. A conviction, however, is of little 

 value ; facts and arguments must be brought forward. As Eimer protested that he 

 was right in those cases in which Mr. Rothschild and I said he was wrong, it is 

 necessary for me to show— iu order to avoid the reproach of unfounded criticism — 

 that my remarks, both the one iu Nov. Zool. 1895. p. 174 and the one ibid. 1896. 

 p. 507, are wholly justified by facts. 



The object of Eimer's works on Lepidoptera was twofold : the researches on 

 Papilios were undertaken (1) to demonstrate the phyletic connection between certain 

 Papilio forms by means of a comparison of their wing-pattern ( Verivandtschaft), and 



* I dill not think it necessary to give a sepnrate answer to the remarks in OTthngcntnin, pp. 4t-4G. 

 As Dr. Jordan had necessarily to refer to the disputed points as well, my r«ply is embodied in the alwve 

 review. — W. R. 



f In order to avoid unnecessary repetition of the titles of the three books, I shall cite the works as 

 Arthildun-fj I., II., and Orthoyenenix. 



Artbildung und VerwaiidUcliaft bei den Sclimetterlingen I. 18S!). 

 „ „ „ „ II. 1895. 



Orthogmcm der SolimHterllnjc, 189G. 



30 



