Manchester Memoirs, Vol. xliii. (1899), No. 11. 5 



Sub-fmiiily. Genus. 



Thaidince ; Luehdorfia, Two species, Siberia and 



Japan. 

 Teinopalpus, One species, Assam and 



Thibet Border. 

 Bhutanitis, One species, Bhutan and 



Thibet Border. 

 Armandia, One species, W. China and 



E. Thibet. 

 Doritis, One species, Turkestan, Syria. 



Ismene, One species, Turkestan. 



Now what is the import of this remarkable fact of 

 the occurrence in or on the borders of one district of 

 great altitude, of a number of genera of only monotypic 

 or bispecific rank ? In the first place it leads one to 

 think that they are genera whose evolution is in a 

 transitory stage, or else, as is more probably the case, 

 they are the representatives handed down to-day as 

 archaic types of genera which segregated in distant, perhaps 

 even glacial times. Let us see by analogy if this theory 

 can be supported by facts ; for, if so, the first part of under- 

 standing the phylogeny of Calinaga will be much simpler. 



One of the most interesting papers I have read on 

 phylogeny is that of Dr. F. A. Dixey on the "Phylogeny of 

 the Pierinse" ( Trans. Entom. Soc, 1 894), where in discussing 

 the evidence of their distribution, he says, regarding the 

 oldest form of Pierine Schatzia {Eucheira) socialis : " Its 

 nearest allies appear to be Behr's two species of Neophasia 

 which inhabit the same region with itself, and the Pontias 

 and Metaporias of the high lands of Central Asia, most 

 of which forms are known to retain the ancient larval 

 habit of spinning. These facts seem to point to the 

 conclusion that Eucheira is the relic of an archaic group 

 of Pierines which once occupied the great mountain 



