743 
the more primitive condition of wing-coloration, all patterns taking 
their origin from it by dissociation of the homogeneous hue into 
spots and bars. 
This really seems Denso’s opinion, notwithstanding a few lines 
before he asserts: “As to the underside of the wings, we also here 
find, that progression in phylogenetic development always goes hand 
in hand with an increasing loss of elements of the pattern. Lineata 
is richest in details, galli? less so, zygophylli the same, while 
euphorbiae and nicaea show the fewest components of the pattern”. 
I see no need here to remonstrate that this assertion can as well 
be applied to the upper side of forms like C. lineata and D. elpenor, 
in comparison respectively with C. eupkorbiae and D. porcellus. 
Neither can I agree with Dunso’s contentions (p.5) about the ‘‘manifes- 
ny 
| iy 
Fig. 3. (after Denso). 
tation of atavistie characters’. He writes: “Very often we remark 
in pure species, e.g. gallii or euphorbiae, a dark, indistinct line, 
starting at the wing-tip near to the transverse bar p, and running 
parallel to the distal border, across the marginal field. In most cases 
this line is rather short, and disappears nearly halfway between 
apex and hind-corner; rarely it attains this corner and there joins 
with the bar p. It takes exactly the same course as does the distal 
bordering of bar p in lineata. Without doubt we here meet with 
an atavistic feature; it is nothing but the old borderline of the 
p-bar. In vain therefore should we look out for it in the lineata- 
group, while in zygophylli it will only occur on rare occasions and 
in a weak condition, as the regression of p has only just begun. 
Gallit often shows this line, euphorbiae more rarely, nicaea extremely 
