XLV 



represented the species Yfihima Jarba de Nicev. mentioned by me on p. 49. 

 This is correct. As I have mentioned in the introduction, p. lvii the species 

 Y, Jarba de Nic6v. was formerly unlcnown to Snellen and me. Snellen 

 determined the specimens as Y. Argillosa Sn., and as I followed his work 

 as far as system is concerned, I adopted this in my text. The drawings referred 

 to, which Snellen had prepared, had therefore this name attached to them. 

 Only later, as stated on page 49, did I become acquainted with Y. Jarba de 

 Nicev. and introduced it then into the text; but omitted to compare the specimens 

 of this species with those of Y. Argillosa Sn. and thereby to discard the latter. 



The above mentioned Dutch Entomologist told me that in a study of the 

 genitals of Danais Limniace Cram, he had found them to differ so greatly 

 in the forms Melissa Cram, and Septentrionis Dist., that these two forms 

 must be regarded as separate species. The possibility of this I noted on p. 30 

 and 3 I of the same introduction, but it is a too partial view, as explained before, 

 to regard the question as settled by this research. Certainlv the fact of this 

 difference will be of importance in deciding the question, but it is not conclusive. 

 How about the transitional stages occurring in Java, as described by me 

 and the related forms outside Java, accepted as species by Martin and 

 Fruhstorfer? 



Ideopsis Gaura Horsf. and F. Dags Btd. according to the same Entomo- 

 logist do not differ as regards their genitals, and would therefore belong to 

 the same species. But the systematic conception of species does not depend 

 upon the absence or presence of a difference in a particular organ. 



M. C. Fiepers, 



