490 L. de Mceville & Dr. L. Martin — Butterflies of Sumatra. [No. 3, 



and I have obtained a single example each of this sex. The male is 

 somewhat variable, in some specimens more than half the discoidal cell 

 on the underside of the hindwing is black, with a very small basal 

 vermilion patch, while in others there is no black coloration in the cell 

 at all, and the vermilion patch is very large. Intermediate examples 

 occur between these two extremes. Both sexes are quite distinct from 

 the Javan P. autothisbe, Hiibner. The males are very common, quite as 

 common as are Hiposcritia pandione, HiibDer, and H. cardena, Hewitson, 

 all through the year at Soengei Batoe and on the Central Plateau, 

 where in every month hundreds of males are brought in by the collectors. 

 Both sexes mimic Delias glauce, Butler. Dr. Martin thus describes his 

 female example, which was taken in March, 1893 : — " Mimics the same 

 sex of D. glauce, Butler. The outline of the forewing is quite rounded 

 like that of a Delias, and the costa of course ii not serrated. The base 

 of the costa of the forewing on the upperside has two minute sulphur- 

 yellow streaks which in the male are black. The upperside of the 

 forewing has a more bluish and the hindwing a more reddish and 

 transparent colour than in the male. The white spots at the apex and 

 on the outer margin of the forewing both above and below are very 

 much reduced, the inner series entirely wanting except the anteriormost 

 spot, the outer series consisting of five spots, in the male there are six, 

 which are indistinct, obsolete, and whitish. The underside of both 

 wings is duller than in the male." 



533. Catopsilia crocale, Cramer. 



Hagen as crocale (1775), catilla (1779), and pomona (1775). 

 Wallace as alcmeone, Cramer (1777). Grose Smith. Butler. Distant. 

 This is the largest and commonest species of Catopsilia occurring 

 in Sumatra. Most authors retain G. catilla, Cramer, as a species 

 distiuct from C. crocale. I have bred both species from found 

 larvce (not from the egg laid by a known female in confinement, 

 which is practically the only conclusive test of the distinctness of 

 species), and have failed to discover any differences in the larva and 

 pupa of the two supposed distinct species. My opinion is that G. crocale 

 is extremely variable, and that the variations noted are not due to 

 seasonal causes. Dr. Martin does not agree w r ith me that we have here 

 to deal with one protean species, but maintains that there are really 

 two quite distinct species. At his request I give below his reasons for 

 this conclusion. I may add that I have carefully examined a very large 

 mass of material in the collection of the Indian Museum, Calcutta, and 

 my own, and find that the distinctive characters on which Dr. Martin 

 relies to separate them are all quite inconstant and entirely break 



