( 20 ) [xxxix 
“We have then, in passing from west to east, a chain of 
forms as follows :—G. cleobule (Canaries), G. maderensis 
(Madeira), G. cleopatra (Mediterranean), G. tawrica (Levant), 
G. nipalensis and G. zaneka (N. India), G. acwminata (China 
and Burma), G'. aspasia (EK. Siberia), and G. maxima (Japan). 
These appear to stand to one another in the relation of more 
or less distinct geographical races ; in some cases, as in that 
of @. cleobule, doubtless deserving the name of representative 
species. In passing from G, cleobule to @. cleopatra the orange 
flush diminishes in area but becomes heightened in colour ; 
from G. cleopatra to G. taurica the area of the flush remains 
the same, but its intensity is lessened. In each of the forms 
ranging east of the habitat of G. taurica there are, as we 
have seen, two phases, perhaps seasonal in significance ; one 
of which phases, resembling G. cleopatra more closely in 
contour, recalls it also by the reappearance, at least in the 
far eastern forms, of an indication of the orange flush. 
“ What, it may be asked, is the relation of G. rhamni to 
the other forms of the genus? If after studying the Asiatic 
forms in their ‘seasonal’ phases, we were suddenly con- 
fronted with G. cleopatra and G. rhamni for the first time, I 
believe we should be inclined to regard the two latter as also 
phases of each other, parallel with G. nipalensis and G. zaneka, 
or with the two forms of G. acuminata. But we know that 
whatever may be the relation between G. rhamni and 
G. cleopatra, it is not one of regular seasonal alternation. 
Are they to be regarded as completely distinct? If so, this 
would seem to carry with it a presumption that the supposed 
seasonal forms of G. aspasia, G. maxima, ete., have been 
wrongly associated ; in which case the strongly acuminate, 
‘wet-season’ forms, with G. zaneka, must be looked upon as 
geographical representatives of one species, viz., G. rhamni ; 
and the less acuminate, ‘dry-season’ forms, with G. nipal- 
ensis, as the same of another species, viz., G. cleopatra. 
What evidence is there of a synepigonic kind? The state- 
ment met with in popular books, that G. rhamni and G. 
cleopatra have been reared from the same parent, appears to 
rest on a passage in Westwood’s ‘ British Butterflies and 
their Transformations, 1841, p. 13, in which he mentions 
