995 



genera, as proposed bj recent systematists, in in} opinion does not 

 give a trne representation of these relations, but is only a conse- 

 quence of the immoderate tendency to s|)Iitting up, whicli nowadays 

 is so prevailing in systematic zoology. 



To me the comparison lielween the wing-maj-kings of tiiese two 

 species, so different at (irst sight, seems highly interesting, es|»ecially 

 if the numerous byforms, which are described partly as independent 

 species, jiartly as subspecies, races, varieties, aberrations etc., are 

 also taken into account. Attention should also be given to the results 

 of hybridisation. But in the first place the under side of the wings 

 should be considered just as accuratelj' as the upper one, and more- 

 over fore- and hind-wing, on both their surfaces, should be compared 

 to each other in detail. 



If we do so with ocellata, it is easy to see that this species forms 

 one of the innumerable |)roofs for the assertion, that the difference 

 between fore- and hind-\ving, upper and under side, is a conse- 

 quence of secondary modification of a general primitive pattern, this 

 pattern as a rule remaining better preserved on the underside than 

 on the opposed surface, though as to the latter, the fore-wing usually 

 has i-etained clearer and more complete vestiges of the primitive 

 pattern than the hind-wing. 



Starting with the upper side of this latter, the conviction is easily 

 reached, that the eye-spot, in all its conspicuousness, is yet nothing 

 else but a peculiar modification of parts of three parallel dark bars, 

 each forming the termination of a transverse ril)bo)i (parallel to the 

 wing-border), these ribbons again resulting from the coalescence of 

 a series of internervural spots ^). Most convincing for this supposition 

 is the comparison of ocellata with the nearly related species Sm. 

 coecus and kindermanni, but it is already rendered highly probable 

 by the comparative inspection of upper and under side of the hind- 

 wing of ocellata itself. Such an inspection shows, that on the under 

 side the three ribbons in question are continuous without interrup. 

 tion from behind unto the front border, the outmost one causing 

 near to the hinder angle, where the wing-edge forms an incurvation, 

 a marginal obscuration, which can be retraced on the up|)er side in 

 the peculiar curved little stem, connecting the eye-spot with the 

 hind border. 



On the under side therefore no indication of an eye-spot is present, 

 the dark bars running from before backward without interruption 



1) This proof has been ably and convincingly delivered by Dr. J. Botke, in his 

 paper : Les motifs primitifs du dessein sur les ailes des Lépidoptères et leur signi- 

 fication phylogénétique. Tijdschr. der Nederl Dierk. Vereeniging XIV, 1916. 



