( 346 ) 



iiuic-h (•oini)lifatfcl bv the aiipeaiance of an additional third /enirt^e-forni in certain 

 parts of the area inhabited bv P. polijles, while this third form is absent from other 

 parts of the area, or is represented by a dififerent third form. 



t^o we have P. polytes ?-f. loc. romvlvs Cram, in Ceylon, South India, and 

 Bengal, which does not occur in the other parts of the range of P. jjoit/tes (Burma, 

 Siain, etc.) ; the males and the fir.-it and second form of the female from Ceylon, 

 South India, and Bengal are not distinguishable from tho.se from Burma, Siam, etc. 



The mnles and the first form of the female of P. polytes t/ieseua Cram, from 

 West Sumatra, Java, Sambawa, Timor, are the same ; the second feinitle-form of the 

 lesser Sunda Islands is different from tiie corresjionding form from the larger Sunda 

 I^lands : the th\ix\ female is not known from Timor and the adjacent islands. 



On Palawan and West Luzon the second form of the fenuile (with white on the 

 hindwings) is e.xtremely rare, and the third form (without white on the hindwings) 

 is common ; on the other islands of tlie Philippine group the .second form is pre- 

 vailing, and the third apparently absent or at least very scarce ; the males as well as 

 the first female-foTm from these localities are inseparable. 



The males and the first femaMorm from the Philipjiine Islands and Palawan 

 are the same as those from the Southern Moluccas; in this latter locality a third 

 fenuile-foTia is wanting; the examples of the second form are nearly always 

 distinguishable. 



Now, have we to treat P. polytes from Ceylon, South India, antl Bengal with the 

 $-f. loc. roviidus as a subspecies by itself, or must it be united to P. polytes from 

 Assam, Burma, etc., which has the same nude and the .same first and second female- 

 forms, but not the i\\\\-A female 'i Can P. polytes theseus from Timor and the 

 adjacent islands stand as a subspecies by itself on account of one of its femctle-forms 

 being different from the corresponding one from other parts of the range oi P. polytes 

 theseus, or has it to stand as P. polytes theseus? Is the so-called P. ledebourius 

 Eschfch. from the Pliiliji]iine Islands subspecifically distinguishable from Cramer's 

 P. alphenor from the Southern Moluccas, though the nudes and the first form of the 

 female are the same, and only the second form is mostly different ? 



Althougli I shall always keep two locally separated insects under two subspecific 

 names, even if they differ only in one se.x, I cannot do so in these cases, where the 

 differences, though restricted to certain localities and therefore localised as they 

 are in subspecies, are exhibited only by a relatively very small proportion of the 

 number of the individuals; to make, however, the division of 1'. polytes more 

 satisfactory, and to indicate that the above-mentioned locali.sed forms of the fem/de 

 are "local forms,'' I shall use for tlie.se females the term ?-f. loc. {"i -forma alicuius 

 loci). 



It is certainly highlv remarkable that the same insects produce in Ceylon and 

 South India such a con.spicuous female as is the ?-f. loc. romidus, while tliey never 

 do so in Burma, Siam, etc. ; the parents of romidus ought to exhibit some characters 

 distinguishing them from the specimens flying in Xorth India, Burma, etc., and the 

 absence of such characters must, rather unsatisfactorily, be explained by the iiudes 

 and first and second /em«/e-forms not assuming any new cliaracters in consequence 

 of strong atavism. 



(«) : P. polytes I.., forma typ. [c?,?, metam.]. 



Linne det-crihed the present species from a female; a Linnean specimen which 

 IS (according to .\urivillius, I.e.) still preserved in the Stockholm Museum differs 



