A LIST OF THE BUTTERFLIES OF BORNEO. leer 
form (c) insularis, Horsf. , 
Phaedra insularis, Horsfield, Cat. Lep. E. I. C. p. 125 
(1829). 
Kina Balu (Waterstradt). 
Distribution; Java, Sumatra and Malay Peninsula. 
De Nicéville prefers to treat this as a separate species, but 
as the parallel fasciae of the underside (shown in Distant’s 
figure) bring it under the definition of thetys, L prefer to 
treat it as another form of that species. 
form (d) minima, Distant and Pryer. 
ae minima, Distant and Pryer, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 
r. 5. Vol. XIX. p. 265 (1887). 
oe (Pryer). 
Described as being near C’. insularis, Horsf. 
form (e) aesopus, Fabr 
Papilio aesopus, ab. Sp. Ins. Vol. Il. p. 125 (1781). 
Kina Balu (W aterstradt) : ; Labuan (Waterstradt and Wah- 
nes); S. E. Borneo, near Banjarmasin (Walhnes) ; Sarawak: 
Kuching and Satap (Sar. Mus.). 
The position of C’. wesopus, Fabr. seems to me rather doubt- 
jul Hirst of all Bingham says of it: “With regard to C. 
aesopus, Fabr., that alae falls as a synonym of oe thetis, as 
acknowledged ‘by Fabricius himself. The type, a @, is in 
the Banksian collection now in the British Museum, ain is 
undoubtedly a 2 of ordinary C. thetis, Drury.” De Nicéville 
supports this view having bred females exactly like aesopus 
from thetis. 
Now in order to completely fulfil Bingham’s definition of 
C. thetis the underside fasciae must be parallel; but in Distant’s 
description of adesopus he says “ anterior wings with a palish 
blue oblique lunulated fascia, ete.” and his figures , @ gual ©; 
show typical bu/is underside with convergent fasciae. He 
too says he has compared his specimens with Fabricius’ type. 
So the position is this: the author of aesopus admits that his 
own species (adesopus) is the same as thetis; de Nicéville 
breeds aesopus from thetis; Bingham says of aesopus “ un- 
doubtedly female of ordinary C. thetis, Drury.” Kirby and 
Moore also adopt this view. On the other side is Distant, who 
examines Fabricius’ type and then figures a specimen with 
typical bulis underside, though he treats adesopus as a distinct 
species ; and Butler supports ‘this view. 
Six g examples in the Sarawak Museum agree well with 
Distant’s description and figure for the upperside, but on the 
underside the two lines of fasciae are not nearly so convergent ; 
though they cannot be called strictly parallel as in typical 
thetis. From the three forms in the Sarawak Museum it 
R, A. Soe., No. 60, I91I. 
