rAl'll.loXINAK: I.AKUTIAS PllII.EXOi;. 1241 



letic stage inarki'd l)y tlio .xaddle ami lonnerly developed in later stages 

 from the incipient contrasts of the first, has been pushed hack without iu- 

 vadiiii;- the first until it is entirely skipped. 



A third line is represented by the remaining genera in which the saddle is 

 definitely formed and becomes a marked feature of tiie earliest stages, to be 

 lost only at a comparatively late period of life, — in one instance, Ileraclides, 

 not at all. Its loss, however, is effected in two very different methods, as 

 already pointed out, in Papilio and in the other genera, indicating lines along 

 which future strikingly different processes may go on with widely different 

 results ; — in curious contrast to the somewhat similar results following quite 

 different lines which we see in Iphiclidcs and Papilio. In Euphocades and 

 Jasoniades we see also the development of special and complicated mark- 

 ings from the simple spots which have replaced the tubercles ; traces of the 

 same may be seen in Heraclides. 



This review has but imperfectly shown what curious and striking distinc- 

 tions in form and coloring are possible, distinctions which indicate within 

 the history of single lives the immense phyletic changes that have occurred 

 within the group. These changes are far greater both in structure and in 

 design than can be pro\ed to ha\e occurred in other phyletic types among 

 butterflies, to which have been universally accorded by the most conserva- 

 tive of systematists the rank of genera. Shall we refuse to recognize and so 

 consign to oblivion the more interesting, more important and more obvious 

 differences which here obtain, by classing all these forms under one, wide- 

 reaching generic name? It were a veritable travesty of Nature. 



LAERTIAS PHILENOR.— The blue swallow-tail. 



[The blue swallow-tail (Gosse); conjugal Papilion (Emmons); Philenor swallow-tail (Riley); 

 orange-banded butterfly (Maynard).] 



Papilio philenor Linn., Maiit. plant., 635 Feld., Verb, zool.-bot. ver. Wien, xiv: 297 



(1771);— Jabl., Xatursyst. ins. scbmett., ii: (186i);— Pack. .Guide ins., 248, fig. 181 (1868) ; 



271-2"(!, pi. 19, figs. 2, 8 (1784);— Panz., Drur. — Ki]., Rep. ins. Mo., ii: 116-118, figs. 84-86 



abblia.. 54r5.5, pi. 11, figs. 1,4(1785);— Abb.- (1870); Am. nat., 327-329, figs. 1-3 (1.8.S1) ; 



Smith, Lep. ins. Ga., 1:5.6, pi. 3(1797) ;—Esp., — H. Edw., Pac. coast Lep., 8-9 [ii:2-3] (1873); 



Aiisl. schmett., i : 49-50, pi. 11, fig. 3 (1801) ;— 84 [xvi : 1] (1875) ;— Preucb, Rep. ins. III., 7 : 



Say, -Vmer entora., i, pi. 1, (1817,1824); 137-1.38 (1878); Butt. east. U. S., 86-89, figs. 11- 



Entom. X. Amer., ed. LeConte, i: 1-2, pi. 1 13 (1886) ;— S.iund..Rep.ent. soc.Ont., 1880, 39- 



(18.59);— Bois<I.-Lec.,L6p.Am(ir. sept., 29-31, pi. 40, figs. 16-18(1881);— Edw., Can. ent.,xiii: 



11. ligs.l-t (183.3) ;—Boisd., Spec. g(!n. h6p..i: 9-14 (1880) ;— Middl., Rep. ins. III., x: 73-74, 



324-325 (1.830) ;—Luciis, Pap., 50-51 (18:38);— fig. 6 (1881);— Coq., ibid., 164, fig. 61(1881); 



Westw., Drury, Exot. entoni., i : 20-21, pi. 11, —Grub., Jen. zeitschr. naturw., xvii:474- 



figs. 1, 4 (1837) ;— Harr., Entom., 60-61 (1841) ; 475, pi. 7, figs. 20-24 (1884) ;— Pap., iv : 8S-,89 ; 



Entom. corresp., 147-148. 273-274, figs. 37, 38 pi. 2, figs. 20-24 (1884);— May n., Butt. N. E., 



(1869);— Lucas, L6p. exot., 16, pi. 8, fig. inf. 49, pi. 5, figs. 67, 67a (1886);— Abb., Draw. 



(1845);— Doubl., Arc. ent.,i; 68 (1845);— Gray, ins. Ga., Br. Mus., vi: 6, figs. 12,13; xvi: 22, 



List. Lep. Br. Mus., i, Pap.. 75-76 (1.8ij6) ;— pi. 172. 



D'Urb., Can. nat. geol., ill: 400-402, figs, a, b Princeps dominans philenor Hiibn., 



(1858);— Morr.,Syn.Lep.Jf. Anier.,6(1862);— Samml. exot. schmett., i, Lep. i. Pap. ii, 



156 



