( 443 ) 



and there is nothing whatever in the pattern of this nigricans (according to Eimer's 

 flgnre) that speaks against its being a somewhat melanistic individual of nristeoides, 

 instead of a si)ecimen of the North Indian representative anticrates.* 



(2) " Further, I must say that Mr. Rothschild should have given some proof, or 

 at least some reason, for the union of /lennocrates, aristeus, anticrates, and parmatus 

 to one species, and their denomination as local races." — It has been stated in Nov. 

 ZooL. II. p. 179 what forms are considered " local races." The forms here men- 

 tioned are geographical developments of the same species, inhabiting separate but 

 continuous areas, and their characters in pattern are such that there is no marked 

 line of distinction between them, as was pointed out by Mr. Rothschild, l.c. p. 421. 

 I may add that aristeus nnficratcs and aristeus hermocrates are, in the structure 

 of the genital armature, perfectly connected by aristeus uristeoides (see Nov. ZooL. 

 III. 1896. p. 487). 



(3) " In any case, Mr. Rothschild takes the term ' local race ' in a very wide 

 sense, since hermocrates lives on the Philippines, aristeus on the Moluccas, anticrates 

 in North India, and parmatus in North India and Australia I " — Tlic sign of 

 exclamation shows that Eimer means to say that the separate areas of the forms 

 are too far distant from one another to admit of the insects being local races of one 

 species. I reply that the geographical distribution of the forms is very inaccurately 

 stated: for anticrates occurs in North India, the lower coast regions of Tenasscrim, 

 Malacca, and Sumatra t; aristeoides occurs in Upper Burma (it is probably the 

 Indo-Chinese form); then follows /ierwoera^es from Borneo to the Philippines and 

 southward over Kalao to Timor; farther east we find aristeus on the Southern and 

 Northern Moluccas, and parmatus in New Guinea, Waigeu, Arn, and Queensland. 

 There are only two gajis in the distribution; the one is Java, where no representative 

 of aristeus is found, and the other is Celebes, where a close ally of aristeus, namely 

 rhesus, lives, which Eimer considers to be an immigrant from America. The facts 

 that Java and the Andamans have no aristeus and that the Sumatra individuals are 

 not distinguishable, so far as I see, from North Indian individuals, further that the 

 specimens of liermocrates from the lesser Sunda Islands are on the whole indistin- 

 guishable from those from. the Philippines and Borneo, suggest that aristeus is 

 an eastern sjjecies that has spread westwards over the Moluccas, Celebes, the 

 Philippines, Borneo, to India, and that a more recent migration in a southern 

 direction has taken place. Besides the inaccuracies in the geographical distributions 

 of the forms, Eimer's reply contains again an error in classification concerning 

 parmatus and anticrates which was already corrected in Nov. Zool. II. 1895. 

 p. 419. The facts are these : anticrates was described from Assam, it is known also 

 from Sikkim, the Mergui Archipelago, Penang, and Deli (Sumatra) ; parmatus was 

 described from Queensland, but is known to occur also in New (iuinca, Waigeu, and 

 Am. The differences between the two forms, which in " general .aspect " are similar 

 to each other, are such that in structure parmatus agrees with its geographical 

 neighbour aristeus, while anticrates is constantly different (see Nov. Zool. III. 

 1890. p. 487); in colour all the Indian specimens are distinguished from all the 



* The melanistic specimen called aristnts nujricans I li.ave c.^tamined lately, and find that it really is 

 an individual of aristeus ; its name should be uristeii.i ab. nigrirtins, I was misled by Eimer's <lescription 

 of the underside, which is said to be " golden-brown," wliilo the underside of aristeus was described as 

 black. The individual nitp-icans has the underside, however,"only a little paler than aristeus, and this is 

 probably due to the specimen being a rather old one. — W. K. 



t I thought in 1895 that Sumatran specimens, which. I had not seen, were hirmocratts ; I now know 

 that they arc anticrates. — W. K. 



