102 RIIOPALOCERA MALAYAN A. 



has recently been discovered in the Island of Socotra by Prof. Balfour. It is common in 

 Continental' India, found in Ceylon and the Andaman Islands (it has not yet been recorded 

 from the Nicobars), occurs throughout Burma, Tenasserim, and the Malay Peninsula, 

 Eastern Asia, as far north as China, and through the length and breadth of the Malayan 

 Archipelago. Its distribution in the Pacific Islands appears at present very limited, but 

 it is found in Australia. 



The species possess strong flight and frequent lofty positions in trees. In South Africa 

 Mr. Trimen describes them as delighting "to settle on the stems of lofty twigs of timber 

 trees,"* and the male of a species in Ceylon, according to Mr. Wade, is " most frequently found 

 perched high up on acacia trees." f 



Another peculiarity is recorded from widely separated habitats. Thus the European 

 species is stated to have "a great preference for the same spot or twig, and you may find it 

 day after day, when at rest, on its favourite twig or branch." I This is corroborated by 

 Mr. Trimen in S. Africa, where he relates that species, " even when roughly scared from their 

 seat," will return to the same position. § 



The smooth spineless larva3 with bifid tails ally 

 Charaxes superficially with the Satiiriuw, as already pointed 

 out (ante, p. 37) ; but our present knowledge of the 

 transformations of the genus is confined to three or four 

 species only. 



Based on the views of Mr. Scudder, proposals have 



Fig. 37. — Larva of C athamaa, var. samathd^ from 



recently been made to split this large and widely distri- Jioores Leiii.i. cv-vi. 



buted genus into a number of less well-defined " genera." 



If the end of the study of Khopalocera was merely to attain an artificial method of cabinet 

 arrangement by means of a surcharged nomenclature, then, however difficult to a non-specialist, 

 the course would have to be adopted, and there could be little objection to a farrago of generic 

 names. But if, on the other hand, such action would tend to obscure our knowledge of the 

 real affinities and geographical distribution of a genus as at present understood, — and this 

 particularly applies to Charaxes, — what is the advantage of such systematic dissection ? || 



The objection particularly applies when a widely distributed genus like Charaxes undergoes 

 this generic splitting process in one geographical group of its species only. For instance, if 

 this is done with the Oriental species alone, without reference to those of the Ethiopian and 

 Australian regions, all ideas as to geographical distribution are reduced to chaos. Either 

 these new genera founded on Oriental species do or do not also contain species found in the 

 other regions, and I think it would not be a vexatious rule to require that when a hitherto 

 well-known genus is broken up into other genera, the systematist who undertakes the work, 

 should also examine the other species of the genus, — as then understood and from whatever 



* Rhop. Afr. Austr. p. UK. j Moore's Lep. Ceyl. i. p. oU. 



t Quoted on the autliority of W. F. de V. Kane in Kirby's ' Europ. Butt. & Moths,' p. 26. 



§ Uhop. Afr. Austr. p. IGli. 



II That veteran entomologist, and more especially coleoptei-ist, Dr. Le Conte, has remarked this disturbing element 

 in the study of his own order, and, to use his own words: — "In all entomological investigations relating to geographical 

 distribution we are gi-eatly embarrassed by the multitude of species, and by the vague and opiuiuuative genera fountled upon 

 characters of small importance" (Proc. Am. Ass., Detroit, 1879, p. 7). 



