( 441 ) 



ukhion, bnt only tamerlanus ; his mistake explains Elmer's mistake, Ijiit. is snrely 

 not an argument that Eimcr was right ia his criticism of Oberthiir, who described 

 and figured (!) tamerlnivn; besides, in a treatise on a special subject, the author 

 should judge for himself; (2) that, besides the difference in the anal spot, Mr. 

 Rothschild noticed also a marked difference in the shape of the hindwing ; (3) that 

 the circnmstance of non-specific differences being found between the forms of widely 

 different P. ajax which are quantitatively similar to the differences in pattern 

 between alebion and tamerlanus cannot possibly be advanced by the author of 

 Artbihhing, as it is one of Eiraer's main contentious that characters which in one 

 case are merely individual are in other cases snbspecific and s]iecific — an opinion 

 which nobody will contest, if vc^ry distantly related forms only are taken into 

 consideration. It is scarcely necessary to mention that the habitat " Nord China " 

 given by Eimer for his alebion = tamerlanus, not Gray's, is incorrect : his specimen 

 was doubtless from Western China, where tamerlanus is not a rarity; " North China '' 

 was given as the habitat of the true alebion by Gray. 



Elmer's third group contains again a mixture of Indo-Australian and American 

 forms. Here we find P. leosthenes brought in close connection with P. aristeus- 

 Haase's and Rothschild's contention was that leost/tenesis closer related to podalirius 

 than to aristeus, a contention which I consider jjerfectly correct. P. leosthenes is 

 not a very near ally of podalirius, but, as one has to place it somewhere, it will find 

 its pilace best near that species. For P. leosthenes agrees with podalirius, and dis- 

 agrees with aristeus, in neuratiou, the first subcostal nervnle of the f'orewing being 

 free ; besides, the morphological characters of the end of its abdomen are not in 

 accordance with those oi aristeus, being, as in podalirius, of a less specialised type; 

 and the wing-pattern is also certainly not against a classificatory connection of 

 leosthenes with podalirius. For what is said about the pattern of leosthenes in 

 Atldjildung I. pp. 158, 159 ? (1) In the two marginal bands leosthenes resembles 

 podalirius ; (2) the pattern of the upperside of the hindwing corresponds almost 

 entirely to that of podalirius ; (3) also the pattern of the underside of the hindwing 

 is essentially the same as in podalirius ; (4) the intersjiace between the two marginal 

 bands of the forewing is as in podalirius, not as in aristeus. — There is nothing saiil 

 about similarities between leosthenes and the species with which it is placed together, 

 nor is any reason given why those similarities between leosthenes and podalirius are 

 disregarded in the classification. It is obvious that, by thus placing species like 

 podalirius and leosthenes, in spite of their agreement in pattern, into different 

 groups, it is easy to demonstrate the appearance of the same characters in members 

 of different groups, a fact which is much more likely to discredit " Homoeogenesis " 

 than to confirm it. Incidentally I may mention that Eimer says of leosthenes that 

 band vii. has entirely disai)peared, while it is, in fact, indicated by a spot in about 

 75 per cent, of the specimens examined l)y me (it was my contention, in Nov. 

 ZooL. II. 1895. p. 174, that Eimer had worked with too small a material). 



But there is one other objection advanced against the connection of podalirius 

 with leosthenes in the reply to E. Haase's statement, that in Artbildung I. the 

 geographical distribution had often been left out of consideration. Haasc, in oppo- 

 sition to Eimer, considered, like Felder, geograpliical distribution one of tlie most 

 important arguments for tiie establishment of natural groups of species. As this 

 arn-umeut from geographical distribution relates not only to leosthenes, bat also to 

 other species I shall have to treat upon later on, we will examine this question here 

 once for all. In order to reject Haase's criticism. Dr. Fickert first reproduces 



