410 EHOPALOCERA MALAYAN A. 



The discovery of I), ahiijar in the Malay Peninsula is a most interesting fact in geographical 

 distribution, as the species was generally considered as peculiar to the Philippine Islands. 



The systematic position of D. abigar amongst the Malay Danaids is after B. mdanippus 

 ■var. hcgcsippus. 



Genus EUPLCEA {antea, p. 21). 

 2. Euploea bremeri {antca, p. 23). 



Since writing the description of this butterfly, the male of which was then alone known to 

 me, I have, through the kindness of Mr. L. de Niceville, received some female examples captured 

 by Capt. Bingham in Tenasserim. These Tenasserim females are paler and more olivaceous 

 than my males from the Malay Peninsula, the markings are similar, and the discal spots 



equally variable. 



One, and the smallest, of these Tenasserim females has been described by Mr. Moore as a ' 

 distinct species, under the name of Troiuja olivacea.* 



4. Euploea midamus {antai, p. 24). 



Mr. Moore has come to the conclusion that the description of Papilio midamus by Linnaeus 

 really applies to a Chinese species, and he has therefore renamed, as Trcpsichrois limmi, \ the 

 widely spread butterfly which has hitherto been understood as E. midamus. I do not propose 

 to alter the name here, as the species is at present so generally known as E. midamus, and has 

 been thus referred to by so many authors that much inconvenience would arise by such 

 transference of names, whilst, on the other hand, some authors might not accept Mr. Moore's 

 conclusion. 



7. Euploea vestigiata [autcu, p. 26). 



Siil/nnx laztdiiui, Moore, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1883, p. 300, n. 3. 



Mr. Moore has added what I consider as another name to the synonymy of E. vestigiata, 

 which again is most probably but a variety of the Javan species E. Iciwostidos, Gmel. I 



9. Euploea crassa {antca, p. 29.) 



I'.idimmii (ipicidis, Moore, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1883, p. 308, u. 15. 



The view was here previously expressed that E. crassa was probably a variety of the 

 E. crichsoui, Feld., and a long series of Felder's species, since acquired from Biirma, strengthens 

 that opinion. The experience of the writer is that both these species— if they are distinct— are 

 very variable in markings, and therefore he can see no reason for Mr. Moore having given the 

 Malay form the distinctive name of P. apicalis. If any alteration should be made it might 

 be better to sink the name E. crassa under that of E. enchsoui, rather than to erect new species 

 in a group which has already been made almost unintelligible by the specific treatment of 

 varieties. § 



■■■■ rroc. Zool. Soc. 1883, p. 267, n. 5. f Ibid. p. 286, n. 1. J Syst. Nat. V. Ins. ii. p. 2289 (1789). 



§ It is siugTilar that when a so-called species is sought to be relegated to its proper varietal position in respect to some 

 parent species, the greatest proof is desiderated by the analytical describer, who himself is constantly naming what other 

 entomologists consider as varieties, without giving any reason whatever for the process. 



