100 P.V.MILV M.Ul'llALlD.E. 



r LJ T E XXX]' I 1 1. 



7 . Chavdxes IfaUacci. sp. n. Jiij. 'J. 



Affinis C. LatoiKC dilFort alls autifis ad apicem magis productis, posticis 

 caiula intoriore iniilto hrovioro ; ahc supra inaculis solum duabus pono ct'llam 

 lunatis uigris ; maculis submari;inalibus hmulisquo discalil)us ad margint'iu 

 niagis approximatis ; posticae liuiulis subcostalibus distiuetis uigris ; inaculis 

 submarginalibus minoribus, albo notatis; alio subtus fascia media valde iiTC- 

 gidari; area externa anticarum angustiore, postiearum latiore ct vix griseo 

 suffusa ; maculis ocellai'ibus niiii(iril)iis, a maculis wWns. bene separatis : ex]). 

 alar. unc. 4, lin. 5. 



MfiKulo, rdclx's (/>/•. JJci/rr). Coll. F. A. AVaikcr. 



^Vllicd to C. L'ltdiiii (wliicli after all is jnolmlily iilfiitical with FoIiUt's (.'. Jirinuiis), this sjiocit-s 

 was kindly lont to iin- tor dcsiriiitimi by tlic Rv\. V. A. Walker. 



Charaxes Ai'iiainis, sp. n. 



Cbaraxes Papuensis ? , Butler, Lep. Exot. ]). 15. n. G, pi. vi. figs. 1 (1869). 

 Aru (Wallace). 



This Ijuing a female of the Marmax group and the sexes of the tawny C'/iaraxiv being alike, it is 

 uvidently .specifically distinct from C. Pajnieima ^ : many of the above forms of Cliaraxes liavo doubt- 

 less long existed in Collections as supposed varieties of C. Polyxoia, there lieing a prevailing prejudice 

 in the minds of many Lepidopterists against the existence of nearly allied species in a group of sucli 

 bulky butterflies as Clianucs ; however, distinctions founded simjily upon amount of difference are sure 

 at times to mislead, they arc doubtless productive of confusion in that they lead their advocates to unite 

 several constant forms under one name, and in defence thereof to utter snch vague Hibernianisms as the 

 fiillowing — "it is very possible that varieties coming from Para, Brazil, New timnada, Ecuador, iVc 

 may bo distinct species," tliey are also the cause of endless inconsistencies in that they have no limit-s : 

 loiistancy therefore is the only sure guide, and since a species cannot be more than diMind, however 

 dificrent it may be, to ask why it is distinct is to wander out of the fields of nomenclature into those of 

 nat\uc and philosophy, a local form therefore is .systematically a species ; it is moreover a .species 

 iiidiiriillij. for the best test of a si)ecies is its disinclination to hybridize with its allies, which a lucal form 



