BY J. C. MOULTON. 
229 
226. Eulaceura osteria Westw. osteria Westw. 114 
Borneo, Sumatra, Malay Peninsula, Java; Nias, 
Hainan. 
227. Herona sumatrana Moore schcenbergi Staud. 
South-east Borneo ; Sumatra, Java, Bali. 
228. Euripus halitherses Doubld. horneensis Dist. 115 
Borneo; Malay Peninsula, Burma, India, Java, 
Sumatra, Philippines. 
229. Prothoe calydonia Hew. 
Neomalaya (Borneo, Malay Peninsula, Sumatra). 
280. P. francki Godt. angelica Butl. 
Borneo, Tenasserim, Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, 
Billiton; Java, Banka, Nias, Palawan, Philippines. 
281. Charaxes distanti Honr. 
Borneo, Tenasserim, Malay Peninsula, Natunas, 
Sumatra. 
114 Fruhstorfer separates the Bornean form as jenibala on a dark female 
from Mt. Marapok. The Sarawak Museum has one answering to the 
description of this form from Kuching, as well as a white-banded form like 
typical osteria and intermediates, all from the same locality. The Kuching 
males (and one from Kinabalu) agree well with the Javanese male figured 
by Fruhstorfer. 
The forms from Hainan and Nias seem to be worthy of subspecific 
distinction, but the others, to my mind, are better “lumped.” 
115 Shelford raises a word of protest against the piling up of names for 
a polymorphic species like this. Fruhstorfer’s recent work illustrates the 
possibilities. For instance, Euripus halitherses, in the typical form, occurs 
in Assam and Siam, with twelve different subspecies from neighbouring 
countries. Now the female in many of these countries is polymorphic ; in 
Assam and Siam Fruhstorfer records, in addition to the typical form, no 
less than seven others, each of which are named. Granting a similar 
number to each of our twelve subspecies, we have a little matter of one 
hundred and four names to remember for this one species ! 
Shelford, who is unwilling to accept the lesser marked forms, justly 
remarks that it appears less confusing to recognize in the distributional area 
of the species merely three female forms with distinctive names or numbers, 
than to name indiscriminately every topomorph differing from closely 
relating topomorpbs in most trifling details. 
It might, perhaps, simplify matters if we were more chary of conferring 
subspecific rank on some of the forms; thus form “a” may have two 
females identical with two females of form “b,” but the other three females 
of form “ a ” may differ slightly but constantly from the corresponding 
three females of form “ b.” Because of the first two similar females we 
might deny form “b” subspecific separation from form “a,” and thus 
reduce that huge catalogue of names. 
However, since the present paper concerns Borneo only, I refrain from 
introducing any drastic change, and merely follow Fruhstorfer in recognizing 
our subspecies with its own little coterie of females. 
R 2 
