192 I.J N. Annandale & C. Dover: Fauna of Barkuda I. 357 



(resenibliny; P. aristolochiac) was much the most abundant and 

 that the cyrus form (resembling the male of its own species) was 

 extremely rare. Though large numbers of males were caught and 

 examined, only one female of this type was taken in two seasons. 

 We failed to obtain any very exact data as to the relative numbers 

 of the polytcs and ro;«f//MS forms for three reasons : lirstl}', because 

 it is often very difficult to distinguish the latter from P. hector on 

 the wing in dense thickets when the colour of the body cannot 

 always be seen;' secondly, becau.se this form has a stronger and 

 high'=r flight than the cyrus form and is therefore less easily 

 captured ; and lastl}', because we found very great discrepancy in 

 the numbers taken on different occasions even at the same season. 

 On the whole it seems probable that on Barkuda the polytcs form 

 is at least three times as abundant as the rountliis form. 



In Calcutta and its environs the polytes form is at least twice 

 (if not more) as common as the romulus form,'^ while the cyrus form 

 is decidedly rare. P. hector, it may be mentioned, appears to be 

 sometimes more abundant here than P. aristolochiae, but at 

 one time when a species of Aristolochia, was cultivated in the 

 Museum garden, P. aristolochiae became very common in the 

 compound. Tytler speaks of the cyrus form in Manipur as " decid- 

 edty rare" and Bell speaks of this form in similar terms in 

 Bombay. In the Eastern and Western Himalayas this form is 

 also scarce and even in parts of South India (as Bangalore and 

 Madras) it is the rarest of the three female forms. Punnett's 

 remark, "It is generally agreed among observers who have studied 

 this species that of the three forms of female the -M. [cyrus'\ 

 form is distinctly the most common, while of the other two 

 the H [romulus'] is rather more numerous than the A {polvtesy ' 

 is therefore not applicable to Barkuda or to the other places 

 mentioned. Indeed, it is probably inapplicable to all parts 

 of continental India. 



We give here a tabular resume of what else is known on the 

 proportions of the female forms of P. polytes as it is likely to prove 

 an useful addition to the remarks we have made above. 



' We cannot accept Punnett's statement that to the ordinary man accus- 

 tomed to use his eyes the romithis form is easily distinguishable from P. hectoy, 

 (.\t any rate it is not my experience after twenty years of the jungle. A''. A.) 



' Col. Evans reminds us that the polytes form ma}- be commoner still 

 as the romitlus form gradually disappears to the north-east with the disappear- 

 ance of P. hector. 



In a fortnight's visit to Chandipore, on the seacoast of Orissa, neither 

 Papilio hectoy nor P. ayistolochiae were seen. The proportions of the various 

 forms of female of P. polytes were cuTiOus. The ;om"/;/5 5 was the most abund- 

 ant, while the polytes 2 was extremely rare. The cyy/rj; ? was never captured. 

 The males, though not as abundant as the romulus 'i .were not uncommon and, 

 strangely enough, the majority were the form with reddish markings. This would 

 seem to corroborate Prof. Punnett's theory that these males are in some way 

 connected with the hector-hke female of the species. C. D. 



