266 Mr. Horace A. Byatt on 
As this rare monstrosity was found among the large 
number of specimens tabulated by Mr. H. A. Byatt ‘it 
was thought well to select it for representation, inasmuch 
as the teratological interest is simply an additional 
advantage which in no way interferes with the bionomic 
interest of the plate. 
The subapical white bar on the fore-wing of chr ysippus 
is prolonged downwards and outwards with a slight in- 
ward trend by means of a few small marginal spots and a 
local intensification of the white elements in the fringe. 
This character is very persistent, and is traceable in the 
dorippus form when the band itself has, except for its 
costal end, disappeared (compare Fig. 4 with 1). A similar 
effect is produced in the 2 misippus (Fig. 2) by the 
position of the last or fifth spot of the band, by a local 
strengthening of the two rows of whitish hind- -marginal 
lunules, and “by the white elements of the fringe. The 
three narrow interrupted white lines which are thus 
formed parallel with the hind-margin, persist in the 
inaria form when the band itself is only faintly trace- 
able (compare Fig. 5 with 2). In both chrysippus and 
misippus it is obvious, especially in the latter, that this 
prominent subapical marking is in large part prolonged by 
the local strengthening or the local persistence of elements 
which are not part of-the bar itself, but belong to the 
category of marginal markings. In this respect Pseuda- 
crea pogger (Fig. 3) stands in considerable contrast with 
the other two members of the group; for its bar is 
other species—by elements which have the appearance of 
continuity with the bar itself. If these elements are 
marginal markings as in chrysippus and misippus they 
have been far more subordinated to the subapical bar 
than in these species. The local strengthening of white 
elements in the fringe is also somewhat less marked, and 
plays a less important part in pogget than in the others. 
As regards the few minute spots at the extreme apex 
of the fore-wing of chrysippus, mimetic resemblance is 
more honoured in the breach by poggei than in the too 
emphasized observance by misippus ?—to say nothing of 
the very different position of the marking in model and 
mimic. 
In spite of all these differences in detail, the two 
mimics are by no means unlike; and in general effect 
