be regarded as comparatively recent forms ; indeed, only with 

 regard to the first two of these can there be a reasonable doubt, for 

 the other two belong to a group which is on the whole much more 

 southern in its distribution, and none of the species of which inhabit 

 very high latitudes, or reach nearly to the highest mountain alti- 

 tudes inhabited by the other groups of the genus, and one of which, 

 dithpiia, perhaps the most widely spread, is amongst the furthest 

 removed from what is probably the most primitive form of this 

 group, viz., ciihvia. 



A word of warning is necessary before entering more fully into 

 this question of distribution. A glance at Staudinger's Catalogue 

 will probably reveal innumerable discrepancies between these con- 

 clusions and the distribution of species as they are placed in the 

 Catalogue, and it is impossible to urge too strongly an utter distrust 

 of the Catalogue with regard to the species to which the different 

 forms are assigned. Probably no one was better acquainted than 

 Staudinger with the distribution of the different forms, and few 

 more totally incompetent to assign them to their proper species. 

 Specimens identified by the discoverers of many of the Asiatic 

 species are in the National Collection at Kensington, and it is a 

 fairly easy task for any lepidopterist to see how impossible it is to 

 accept the arrangement of the Catalogue. Perhaps two of the most 

 glarmg instances are to be found under aurelia and asteroidca. 

 Under the former are named six " varieties," of which only one, 

 rhdtica, which was not really worth naming at all, belongs to this 

 species. Dicti/nnoides and britomartis are distinct species, or, if the 

 latter is not so, as Dr. Chapman supposes (in my opinion on quite 

 insufficient grounds), it is, on the same authority, a form of dictiinna, 

 which is certainly its nearest relative; nnivi'i/ica is a variety of raria, 

 iDonfiolica and aniiirensis of atlialia. With regard to aateroidea there 

 can be no doubt that Staudinger knew what he meant by the type 

 form as he himself is responsible for naming it, but he places under 

 the same heading snlona, Alph., and jezabella, Obth., the former of 

 which is certainly a very different species, while the latter is almost 

 as far removed from a&teroidea as it can be to be a MeliUra at all. 

 Staudinger's treatment of saxatilis, though less important, is also 

 unintelligible, for while saxatilis is almost certainly, and niaracan- 

 ■dica, feniana and lunalata are probably, forms of difhj.iia, infernalis 

 cannot possibly be co-specific with atliene : probably both are sepa- 

 rate species, the former including the var. shanditra, and being 

 nearly related to didi/ma, and the latter nearer to triria, but having, 

 as shown by the female, some affinities with the lovely romanovi. 

 Indeed, if I can inculcate a complete distrust both of the arrange- 

 ment and the nomenclature of the Catalogue, I shall have accom- 

 plished a sufficiently useful task to atone for the deficiencies of the 

 rest of this paper. 



We will now return to the question of distribution, but it must 

 be again observed that vast tracts of the Asiatic region are still 



