( 446 ) 



the ontline of its wings. I mnst adhere to the positiou which I liave attributed to 

 rhesus, thongh their immigration to India mnst be assumed as probable." — The 

 above remark abont Arthildang I. was made by me, not by Mr. liothschild : 

 the " nnjnst reproach " lies, therefore, with me. Is the criticism nnjnst ? In 

 Nov. ZoOL. II. is said : — 



(1) That rhesus has the same specialised nenration as aristeus, and differs in 

 this from ajax; 



(2) That the 6 has the same cottony scent-organ in the abdominal fold as 

 aristeus, thus being different from ajax; 



(3) That the seventh band of the forewing is often indicated, sometimes well 

 developed, such seven-banded individuals coming very near certain examples of 

 aristeus hermocrates ; 



(4) That the pattern of the hindwing of rhesus agrees with that of aristeus; and 



(5) That rhesus occupies a gap in the area inhabited by aristeua and its 

 forms, namely Celebes. 



Are these reasons really not convincing? To settle the question of rhesus 

 once for all, I will add that rhesus agrees (as shown by me in Nov. Zool. III. 1896. 

 pp. 488, 503) very closely with aristeus in the morphology of the end of the 

 abdomen in both sexes, and disagrees entirely with ajax ; that the antennae are 

 the same as in aristeus, the. joints not being subcarinatc ventvally in the middle 

 as in ajax and jthilolaus ; and that the abdomen is white beneatli and has 

 indications of white rings in rhesus and aristeus, while aja^ and philolaus have 

 a black middle line for the underside of the abdomen and no white rings — 

 distinguishing characters mentioned in Artbilchaig I. The above statement that 

 rhesus was separated from aristeus and its forms also on account of " differences of 

 the underside, ornamental band, etc.," is not intelligible, as the underside is in 

 Arthildung I. expressly compared with that of aristeus (or a form of it), and not at 

 all with that of ajax or philolaus. For we read in I. p. 219 of the underside of 

 rhesus : " It is highly remarkable that a red spot stands separate in the external 

 angle of the middle cell, similarly as in aristeoides, aristeus, etc., and further that in 

 the following cell there is, just as in aristeoides, a black spot with a minute red one 

 in front. . . . The transverse ornamental band stands in the same connection with the 

 [longitudinal] ornamental band, and this connection is in the same way interrupted 

 as in aristeoides and other members of the leosthenes-anticrates-ajax group. The 

 ornamental bands consist namely, as in anticrates for instance, of two black -white-red- 

 black-white-black band-sections. The anterior black part consists of one spot each, 

 of which the inner one begins, again exactly as in members of the just-mentioned 

 group (for instance, in anticrates), to form a new ornament." Does this not mean . 

 that the pattern of the underside of the hindwing, especially the ornamental band, 

 is nearly exactly as in aristeus resp. its forms ? That the argument from 

 the outline of the wings is invalid is shown (1) by aristeus hermoci-ates, the wings 

 of which have nearly the same outline as those of rhesus, though the insect is 

 smaller, and (2) by the well-known fact that a great number of Painlios (and 

 Nymphalids) exhibit this same peculiar character in Celebes. On Elmer's 

 Plate IV. philolaus and rhestis look so mnch alike, and appear so different from 

 other species, because they are both drawn with the wings in the same peculiar 

 position. 



The errors in the treatment of the Papilios we have been dealing with in the 

 foregoing pages induced me to say of Artbildung I. that the classificatory results of 



