( 444 ) 



Australian atiftr Papnan ones by tlie two markedly yellow spots of pmnotnm of 



parmatui being obsolete, in the white costal bands of the forewing being- much less 



straight, somewliat irregularly curved, especially in Sikkimese individuals, furtluT 



in the black marginal area of the hindwing, above and below, being narrower behind 



and its inner edge indented upon veins 5 to 8, and in the underside being mucli jialer 



brown. We have, therefore, to do with two forms easily distinguisliable from one 



another also in pattern. What is made of them in Arthildung I. ? P. aristetis 



anticrdtcs is described and figured from Sikkim specimens : further, it is stated 



tliat Gray based his pai-mntus on specimens in which band ix. (in Elmer's sense) of 



the forewing does not reach the hindmargin of the wing, and an Australian and a 



Sikkim individual are figured as parmatus. The figure of this Sikkim " parmuta.^ " 



has, however, as a matter of course, on the wing the characters of anticrates and 



not those of parmnfus, and shows them very obviously (compare jb-tbihhmg 1. 1. 3. 



f. 6. 7. 8). The difference upon which Eimer relies, namely the shorter band ix. in 



jHrrmatus, does not hold good; this character occurs both in Indian and Australian 



specimens, and is neither hero nor there constant: the real distinguishing characters 



between the Indian and the Australian forms Eimer has not seen, and that is the 



reason why he mixed the two forms up. It would be a simple oversight, and of no 



great weight in the judgment of the classificatory results of ArthiUlang, if the wide 



geographical separation of the Indian and Australian specimens should not have 



made the author very suspicious and careful. No doubt, superficially parmatus and 



anticrates are much more similar to each other than to aristeus and hermocrates, 



which inhabit interjacent countries, on account of tlie great development of white in 



the first two: but if one compares them minutely with the object of demonstrating 



laws of development, one must soon see that also in pattern the Papuan parmatm 



stands closer to the Moluccau aristeus than to the Indian anticrates. It was 



perfectly correct to treat anticrates and pa7-matusas two separate geographical races, 



as has been dono-in Nov. Zooi,. II. p. 419, wliile it is wrong to unite them in tlie 



way as in Arthildung I. p. 150, where we find: — 



" anticrates Tiouhl.') .. ^ ., . „ 

 , r. T anticrates mihi. 



pu)-matus Gray J 



(4) "Though Mr. Rothschild unites thus"— namely anticrates, hermocrates, 

 aristeus, and parmati/f: as local races of one species, see above under (3) — "it is in 

 his eyes a mistake that I regard parniatus as an ' Abart ' of anticrates and not as a 

 local race, as he does ! These are surely strange criticisms, which are perfectly on 

 the same level with those of Erich Haase." — I have not translated the word 

 " Abart," because the usual translation " subspecies " has an entirely different 

 meaning, being nowadays restricted as a term for local races. Eimer's " Abart " is 

 here, liowever, the same that he in otter places correctly calls individual aberration 

 = " Abartung," Eimer's " Abart " parmatus (not Gray's) comprising such individnals 

 of anticrates which have a certain individual distinguisliing character, namely a 

 shorter band ix. tlian the other individuals from the same place. We know that there 

 is a wide distinction between such individual aberrations and local forms, and it was 

 certainly wrong to consider slightly aberrational Indian specimens as identical with 

 a well-marked Papuan subspecies. That the criticisms in Nov. Zool. are said to be 

 on the same level with those of Ilaase is very acce])tablc, in so far as Haase was 

 perfectly right in the two main points of his criticisms, respecting geograpliical 

 distribution and neuration. 



In the fourth group (Arthildung I. p. 102) Eimer unites species from 



