( 442 ) 



(II. ji. 50) Sections XIX. to XXVI. of Feldor's classification of I'apilios, meaning 

 to show that geographical distribution did not always find an expression in Felder's 

 classification. For, he says, thongh the species in the sections are put together 

 geographically, the species are nevertheless partly from very distant areas, for 

 instance in .Section XXI. This section contains only sj)ecies inhabiting the countries 

 from China to Australia. Does Dr. Fickert believe that there is something wrong, 

 zoogeographically, in uniting Chinese, Indian, Malayan, and Papuan forms in one 

 section ? I think he does ; for Eimer is of the same opinion. We read in II. p. 03: 

 "Herr Ilaase will establish, on the ground of tlie uenration, relations between the 

 alebton-ghjcerion-paphus group with agetcs-antiphates-anticrates and also with the 

 African policenes-ant/ieus. That is meant to be natural geographical grouping I 

 Besides, we must say that it is quite impossible to bring the North Indian and North 

 Chinese Butterflies, like alebion-ffl^ccn'on-paphiis, in geographical connection with 

 those from South India and the Malayan Archipelago {antipliates, anticmtes). 

 The North Indian and North t!hinese fauna joins, on the contrary, towards west 

 the European one, as is also demonstrated by mackaon. However, that the 

 same author who continually boasts of having regard to the geograjjhical 

 connection will even bring the Indo-Malays in relation with the Africans is surely 

 very strange. . . . Downright astonishing geography ... it is, if the Australian (!) 

 leosthenes is joined to the European podalirim." 



I do not believe that any of the readers of Artbildung und Ver- 

 wandtsc/ia/t are so in ignorance of the most simple facts of the science of geo- 

 graphical distribution, that they do not know that the greater proportion of Chinese 

 — alebion is a Central Chinese, not a North Chinese, and tamcrlanus a West Chinese 

 species — and North Indian species extend into the Malayan or even Papuan sub- 

 regions; that the South Indian fauna consists for the most part of modified North 

 Indian species; that the fauna of Qneouslaud, where leosthenes lives, has very close 

 affinities to the Indo-Malayan fauna ; and that tropical Africa, especially the forest- 

 clad West African countries, stands zoogeographically in close connection with 

 India. 



But if it were so " downright astonishing " to unite a Palaearctic species that 

 extends into China {podutirius) with an Australian species (leosthenes) into one 

 group of species, would it not be much more wonderful to have one and the same 

 species — as Eimer maintains — in North India and Queensland, while the inter- 

 mediate countries are inhabited by other representatives ? Though it was pointed 

 out in Nov. ZooL. II. p. 419 that the North Indian anticrates and the North 

 Australian and Papuan parnmtus are not identical, as asserted in Artbildung I., 

 the correction, besides others relating to the forms of aristeus, is altogether rejected 

 in Orthogenesis. We read there as follows (p. 45) : — 



(1) "As regards the correction in respect to my /'. aristeoides, anticrates 

 nigricans, and aristeus nigricans, namely that they all are hermocrates, it is sufficient 

 to point out that the original determination of my aristeoides as nomius var., 

 of anticrates nigricans as anticrates var., and of aristeus nigricans as aristeus 

 var. proceeded all from Dr. Staudinger and that the resiiective types belong to 

 Standingcr'.s collection, so that Mr. Hothschild, if ho will prove mistakes, must 

 apply to Mr. Staudinger." — Dr. Staudinger, who is known to lend material with the 

 greatest liberality to students, is not responsible for the contents of papers written 

 with the help of his material; Eimer has bajitised those forms, not Staudinger. The 

 types of Elmer's aristeoides and anticrates nigricans came both from Upper Burma, 



