Section D Contains the Strongest-Bodied and Most Swift-Flying of the

genus. They love sunlight, and frequent the borders of streams and the edges of puddles, where they gather together in swarms consisting of several species, greedily sucking up the moisture, and, when disturbed, circling round in the air, or flying high and with great strength and rapidity.

In the following Table I have arranged all the Malayan Papilionidæ in what appears to me their most natural succession, and have exhibited their distribution in twenty-one columns of localities, extending from the Malay peninsula, on the north-west, to Woodlark Island, near New Guinea, on the south-east. The double line divides the Indo-Malayan from the Austro-Malayan region; and those islands which form natural zoological groups are connected by brackets.

Table showing the Distribution of the Malayan Papilionidæ.

┌───┬──┬───────────────────╥─────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ ║ INDO-MALAYAN REGION. │ ├───┼──┼───────────────────╫────────┬────────┬────────┬─────╥────────────┤ │ │ │ =Ornithoptera.= ║Malacca.│Sumatra.│Borneo. │Java.║Philippines.│ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ ║ │ ├───┼──┼───────────────────╫────────┬────────┬────────┬─────╥────────────┤ │ │a.│Priamus-group. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 1│ │Priamus, L. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 2│ │Poseidon, Db. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 3│ │Crœsus, Feld. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 4│ │Tithonus, De ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ Haan. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 5│ │Urvilliana, Guér.║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │b.│Pompeus-group. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 6│ │Remus, Cr. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 7│ │Helena, L. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 8│ │Leda, Wall. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 9│ │Pompeus, Cr. ║ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1║ │ │ 10│ │Nephereus, G. R. ║ │ │ │ ║ 1│ │ │ │ G. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 11│ │Magellanus, Feld.║ │ │ │ ║ 1│ │ 12│ │Criton, Feld. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 13│ │Plato, Wall. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 14│ │Haliphron, Bd. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 15│ │Amphrisius, Cr. ║ 1│ │ 1│ 1║ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │c.│Brookeana-group. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 16│ │Brookeana, Wall. ║ │ 1│ 1│ ║ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ =Papilio.= ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ A.│a.│Nox-group. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 17│ │Nox, Sw. ║ 1│ │ │ 1║ │ │ 18│ │Noctis, Hew. ║ │ │ 1│ ║ │ │ 19│ │Erebus, Wall. ║ 1│ │ 1│ ║ │ │ 20│ │Varuna, White ║ 1│ │ │ ║ │ │ 21│ │Semperi, Feld. ║ │ │ │ ║ 1│ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │b.│Coon-group. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 22│ │Neptunus, Guér. ║ 1│ │ 1│ ║ │ │ 23│ │Coon, Fab. ║ │ 1│ 1│ 1║ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │c.│Polydorus-group. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 24│ │Polydorus, L. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 25│ │Leodamas, Wall. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 26│ │Diphilus, Esper ║ 1│ │ │ 1║ 1│ │ 27│ │Antiphus, Fab. ║ │ 1│ 1│ 1║ 1│ │ 28│ │Polyphontes, Bd. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 29│ │Annæ, Feld. ║ │ │ │ ║ 1│ │ 30│ │Liris, Godt. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ B.│d.│Ulysses-group. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 31│ │Ulysses, L. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 32│ │Penelope, Wall. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 33│ │Telegonus, Feld. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 34│ │Telemachus, Mont.║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │e.│Peranthus-group. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 35│ │Peranthus, Fab. ║ │ │ │ 1║ │ │ 36│ │Pericles, Wall. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 37│ │Philippus, Wall. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 38│ │Macedon, Wall. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 39│ │Brama, Guér. ║ 1│ 1│ │ ║ │ │ 40│ │Dædalus, Feld. ║ │ │ │ ║ 1│ │ 41│ │Blumei, Bd. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 42│ │Arjuna, Horsf. ║ │ 1│ 1│ 1║ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │f.│Memnon-group. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 43│ │Memnon, L. ║ │ 1│ 1│ 1║ │ │ 44│ │Androgeus, Cr. ║ 1│ │ │ ║ │ │ 45│ │Lampsacus, Bd. ║ │ │ │ 1║ │ │ 46│ │Priapus, Bd. ║ │ 1│ 1│ 1║ │ │ 47│ │Emalthion, Hübn. ║ │ │ │ ║ 1│ │ 48│ │Deiphontes, Wall.║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 49│ │Deiphobus, L. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 50│ │Ascalaphus, Bd. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 51│ │Ænomaus, Godt. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │g.│Helenus-group. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 52│ │Severus, Cr. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 53│ │Pertinax, Wall. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 54│ │Albinus, Wall. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 55│ │Phæstus, Bd. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 56│ │Helenus, L. ║ │ 1│ │ 1║ │ │ 57│ │Hecuba, Wall. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 58│ │Iswara, White ║ 1│ │ 1│ ║ │ │ 59│ │Hystaspes, Feld. ║ │ │ │ ║ 1│ │ 60│ │Araspes, Feld. ║ │ │ │ ║ 1│ │ 61│ │Nephelus, Bd. ║ 1│ 1│ 1│ ║ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │h.│Pammon-group. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 62│ │Pammon, L. ║ 1│ │ │ ║ │ │ 63│ │Theseus, Cr. ║ │ 1│ 1│ 1║ │ │ 64│ │Alphenor, Cr. ║ │ │ │ ║ 1│ │ 65│ │Nicanor, Wall. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 66│ │Hipponous, Feld. ║ │ │ │ ║ 1│ │ 67│ │Ambrax, Bd. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 68│ │Ambracia, Wall. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 69│ │Epirus, Wall. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 70│ │Dunali, Montr. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │i.│Erectheus-group. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 71│ │Ormenus, Guér. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 72│ │Pandion, Wall. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 73│ │Tydeus, Feld. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 74│ │Adrastus, Wall. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 75│ │Gambrisius, Cr. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 76│ │Amphytrion, Cr. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 77│ │Euchenor, Guér. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 78│ │Godartii, Montr. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │k.│Demolion-group. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 79│ │Demolion, Cr. ║ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1║ │ │ 80│ │Gigon, Wall. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │l.│Erithonius-group.║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 81│ │Erithonius, Cr. ║ 1│ │ │ ║ 1│ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │m.│Paradoxa-group. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 82│ │Paradoxa, Zink. ║ │ 1│ 1│ 1║ │ │ 83│ │Ænigma, Wall. ║ 1│ 1│ 1│ ║ │ │ 84│ │Caunus, Westw. ║ │ 1│ 1│ ║ │ │ 85│ │Astina, Westw. ║ │ │ │ 1║ │ │ 86│ │Hewitsonii, ║ │ │ 1│ ║ │ │ │ │ Westw. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │n.│Dissimilis-group.║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 87│ │Echidna, De Haan.║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 88│ │Paëphates, Westw.║ │ │ │ ║ 1│ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │o.│Macareus-group. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 89│ │Veiovis, Hew. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 90│ │Encelades, Bd. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 91│ │Deucalion, Bd. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 92│ │Idæoides, Hew. ║ │ │ │ ║ 1│ │ 93│ │Delessertii, ║ 1│ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ Guér. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 94│ │Dehaanii, Wall. ║ 1│ │ 1│ 1║ │ │ 95│ │Leucothoë, Westw.║ 1│ │ │ ║ │ │ 96│ │Macareus, Godt. ║ 1│ │ 1│ 1║ │ │ 97│ │Stratocles, Feld.║ │ │ │ ║ 1│ │ 98│ │Thule, Wall. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │p.│Antiphates-group.║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 99│ │Antiphates, Cr. ║ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1║ │ │100│ │Euphrates, Feld. ║ │ │ │ ║ 1│ │101│ │Androcles, Bd. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │102│ │Dorcus, De Haan. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │103│ │Rhesus, Bd. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │104│ │Aristæus, Cr. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │105│ │Parmatus, G. R. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ G. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │q.│Eurypylus-group. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │106│ │Codrus, Cr. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │107│ │Melanthus, Feld. ║ │ │ │ ║ 1│ │108│ │Empedocles, Fab. ║ │ │ 1│ 1║ │ │109│ │Payeni, Bd. ║ │ │ 1│ 1║ │ │110│ │Sarpedon, L. ║ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1║ │ │111│ │Miletus, Wall. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │112│ │Wallacei, Hew. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │113│ │Bathycles, Zink. ║ 1│ │ 1│ 1║ │ │114│ │Eurypylus, L. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │115│ │Jason, Esp. ║ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1║ │ │116│ │Telephus, Wall. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │117│ │Ægistus, L. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │118│ │Agamemnon, L. ║ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1║ 1│ │119│ │Rama, Feld. ║ 1│ 1│ │ ║ │ │ │ │(? Arycles, Rd.) ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │=Leptocircus.= ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │120│ │Meges, Zink. ║ 1│ │ │ 1║ │ │121│ │Curtius, Wall. ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │122│ │Decius, Feld. ║ │ │ │ ║ 1│ │123│ │Curius, Fab. ║ │ │ │ 1║ │ │ │ Totals:— ║ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │Ornithoptera ║ 2│ 2│ 3│ 2║ 2│ │ │ │Papilio ║ 22│ 19│ 26│ 23║ 17│ │ │ │Leptocircus ║ 1│ │ │ 2║ 1│ ├───┼──┼───────────────────╫────────┼────────┼────────┼─────╫────────────┤ │ │ │Species in each ║ 25│ 21│ 29│ 27║ 20│ │ │ │ island ║ │ │ │ ║ │ ├───┼──┼───────────────────╫────────┴────────┴────────┴─────╫────────────┤ │ │ │ Total ║ 45 ║ 20│ │ │ │ ║ Sixty-one, Indo-Malayan Region. │ └───┴──┴───────────────────╨─────────────────────────────────────────────┘

┌───┬──┬───────────────────╥─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ ║ AUSTRO-MALAYAN REGION. │ ├───┼──┼───────────────────╫────────╥────────┬──────╥───────┬─────────┬──────┤ │ │ │ =Ornithoptera.= ║Celebes.║Lombock.│Timor.║Gilolo.│Batchian.│Bouru.│ │ │ │ ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ ├───┼──┼───────────────────╫────────╥────────┬──────╥───────┬─────────┬──────┤ │ │a.│Priamus-group. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 1│ │Priamus, L. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 2│ │Poseidon, Db. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 3│ │Crœsus, Feld. ║ ║ │ ║ 1│ 1│ │ │ 4│ │Tithonus, De ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ Haan. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 5│ │Urvilliana, Guér.║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │b.│Pompeus-group. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 6│ │Remus, Cr. ║ 1║ │ ║ 1│ │ │ │ 7│ │Helena, L. ║ 1║ │ ║ │ │ 1│ │ 8│ │Leda, Wall. ║ 1║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 9│ │Pompeus, Cr. ║ ║ 1│ ║ │ │ │ │ 10│ │Nephereus, G. R. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ G. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 11│ │Magellanus, Feld.║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 12│ │Criton, Feld. ║ ║ │ ║ 1│ 1│ │ │ 13│ │Plato, Wall. ║ ║ │ 1║ │ │ │ │ 14│ │Haliphron, Bd. ║ 1║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 15│ │Amphrisius, Cr. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │c.│Brookeana-group. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 16│ │Brookeana, Wall. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ =Papilio.= ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ A.│a.│Nox-group. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 17│ │Nox, Sw. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 18│ │Noctis, Hew. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 19│ │Erebus, Wall. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 20│ │Varuna, White ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 21│ │Semperi, Feld. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │b.│Coon-group. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 22│ │Neptunus, Guér. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 23│ │Coon, Fab. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │c.│Polydorus-group. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 24│ │Polydorus, L. ║ ║ │ ║ │ 1│ 1│ │ 25│ │Leodamas, Wall. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 26│ │Diphilus, Esper ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 27│ │Antiphus, Fab. ║ ║ 1│ ║ │ │ │ │ 28│ │Polyphontes, Bd. ║ 1║ │ ║ 1│ 1│ │ │ 29│ │Annæ, Feld. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 30│ │Liris, Godt. ║ ║ │ 1║ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ B.│d.│Ulysses-group. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 31│ │Ulysses, L. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 32│ │Penelope, Wall. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 33│ │Telegonus, Feld. ║ ║ │ ║ 1│ 1│ │ │ 34│ │Telemachus, Mont.║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │e.│Peranthus-group. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 35│ │Peranthus, Fab. ║ ║ 1│ ║ │ │ │ │ 36│ │Pericles, Wall. ║ ║ │ 1║ │ │ │ │ 37│ │Philippus, Wall. ║ ║ │ ║ │ 1│ │ │ 38│ │Macedon, Wall. ║ 1║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 39│ │Brama, Guér. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 40│ │Dædalus, Feld. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 41│ │Blumei, Bd. ║ 1║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 42│ │Arjuna, Horsf. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │f.│Memnon-group. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 43│ │Memnon, L. ║ ║ 1│ ║ │ │ │ │ 44│ │Androgeus, Cr. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 45│ │Lampsacus, Bd. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 46│ │Priapus, Bd. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 47│ │Emalthion, Hübn. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 48│ │Deiphontes, Wall.║ ║ │ ║ 1│ 1│ │ │ 49│ │Deiphobus, L. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ 1│ │ 50│ │Ascalaphus, Bd. ║ 1║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 51│ │Ænomaus, Godt. ║ ║ │ 1║ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │g.│Helenus-group. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 52│ │Severus, Cr. ║ ║ │ ║ 1│ 1│ 1│ │ 53│ │Pertinax, Wall. ║ 1║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 54│ │Albinus, Wall. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 55│ │Phæstus, Bd. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 56│ │Helenus, L. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 57│ │Hecuba, Wall. ║ 1║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 58│ │Iswara, White ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 59│ │Hystaspes, Feld. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 60│ │Araspes, Feld. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 61│ │Nephelus, Bd. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │h.│Pammon-group. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 62│ │Pammon, L. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 63│ │Theseus, Cr. ║ ║ 1│ 1║ │ │ │ │ 64│ │Alphenor, Cr. ║ 1║ │ ║ │ │ 1│ │ 65│ │Nicanor, Wall. ║ ║ │ ║ 1│ 1│ │ │ 66│ │Hipponous, Feld. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 67│ │Ambrax, Bd. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 68│ │Ambracia, Wall. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 69│ │Epirus, Wall. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 70│ │Dunali, Montr. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │i.│Erectheus-group. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 71│ │Ormenus, Guér. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 72│ │Pandion, Wall. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 73│ │Tydeus, Feld. ║ ║ │ ║ 1│ 1│ │ │ 74│ │Adrastus, Wall. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 75│ │Gambrisius, Cr. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ 1│ │ 76│ │Amphytrion, Cr. ║ 1║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 77│ │Euchenor, Guér. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 78│ │Godartii, Montr. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │k.│Demolion-group. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 79│ │Demolion, Cr. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 80│ │Gigon, Wall. ║ 1║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │l.│Erithonius-group.║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 81│ │Erithonius, Cr. ║ ║ │ 1║ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │m.│Paradoxa-group. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 82│ │Paradoxa, Zink. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 83│ │Ænigma, Wall. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 84│ │Caunus, Westw. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 85│ │Astina, Westw. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 86│ │Hewitsonii, ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ Westw. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │n.│Dissimilis-group.║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 87│ │Echidna, De Haan.║ ║ │ 1║ │ │ │ │ 88│ │Paëphates, Westw.║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │o.│Macareus-group. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 89│ │Veiovis, Hew. ║ 1║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 90│ │Encelades, Bd. ║ 1║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 91│ │Deucalion, Bd. ║ 1║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 92│ │Idæoides, Hew. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 93│ │Delessertii, ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ Guér. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 94│ │Dehaanii, Wall. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 95│ │Leucothoë, Westw.║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 96│ │Macareus, Godt. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 97│ │Stratocles, Feld.║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 98│ │Thule, Wall. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │p.│Antiphates-group.║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 99│ │Antiphates, Cr. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │100│ │Euphrates, Feld. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │101│ │Androcles, Bd. ║ 1║ │ ║ │ │ │ │102│ │Dorcus, De Haan. ║ 1║ │ ║ │ │ │ │103│ │Rhesus, Bd. ║ 1║ │ ║ │ │ │ │104│ │Aristæus, Cr. ║ ║ │ ║ │ 1│ │ │105│ │Parmatus, G. R. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ G. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │q.│Eurypylus-group. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │106│ │Codrus, Cr. ║ 1║ │ ║ 1│ 1│ 1│ │107│ │Melanthus, Feld. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │108│ │Empedocles, Fab. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │109│ │Payeni, Bd. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │110│ │Sarpedon, L. ║ ║ │ ║ 1│ 1│ 1│ │111│ │Miletus, Wall. ║ 1║ │ ║ │ │ │ │112│ │Wallacei, Hew. ║ ║ │ ║ │ 1│ │ │113│ │Bathycles, Zink. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │114│ │Eurypylus, L. ║ ║ │ ║ 1│ 1│ 1│ │115│ │Jason, Esp. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │116│ │Telephus, Wall. ║ 1║ │ ║ │ │ │ │117│ │Ægistus, L. ║ ║ │ ║ 1│ 1│ │ │118│ │Agamemnon, L. ║ 1║ 1│ 1║ 1│ 1│ 1│ │119│ │Rama, Feld. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │(? Arycles, Rd.) ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │=Leptocircus.= ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │120│ │Meges, Zink. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │121│ │Curtius, Wall. ║ 1║ │ ║ │ │ │ │122│ │Decius, Feld. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │123│ │Curius, Fab. ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ Totals:— ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │Ornithoptera ║ 4║ 1│ 1║ 3│ 2│ 1│ │ │ │Papilio ║ 19║ 5│ 7║ 11│ 15│ 9│ │ │ │Leptocircus ║ 1║ │ ║ │ │ │ ├───┼──┼───────────────────╫────────╫────────┼──────╫───────┼─────────┼──────┤ │ │ │Species in each ║ 24║ 6│ 8║ 14│ 17│ 10│ │ │ │ island ║ ║ │ ║ │ │ │ ├───┼──┼───────────────────╫────────╫────────┴──────╫───────┴─────────┴──────┤ │ │ │ Total ║ 24║ 12 ║ │ │ │ │ ║ ║ Seventy-two, Austro-Malayan Region. │ └───┴──┴───────────────────╨────────╨────────────────────────────────────────┘

┌───┬──┬───────────────────╥────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ ║ AUSTRO-MALAYAN REGION. │ ├───┼──┼───────────────────╫──────┬──────┬──────┬───────┤ │ │ │ =Ornithoptera.= ║Ceram.│Banda.│Goram.│ Ké │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │Island.│ ├───┼──┼───────────────────╫──────┬──────┬──────┬───────┤ │ │a.│Priamus-group. ║ 1│ │ │ │ │ 1│ │Priamus, L. ║ 1│ │ │ │ │ 2│ │Poseidon, Db. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 3│ │Crœsus, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 4│ │Tithonus, De ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Haan. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 5│ │Urvilliana, Guér.║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │b.│Pompeus-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 6│ │Remus, Cr. ║ 1│ │ │ │ │ 7│ │Helena, L. ║ 1│ │ │ │ │ 8│ │Leda, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 9│ │Pompeus, Cr. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 10│ │Nephereus, G. R. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ G. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 11│ │Magellanus, Feld.║ │ │ │ │ │ 12│ │Criton, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 13│ │Plato, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 14│ │Haliphron, Bd. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 15│ │Amphrisius, Cr. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │c.│Brookeana-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 16│ │Brookeana, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ =Papilio.= ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ A.│a.│Nox-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 17│ │Nox, Sw. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 18│ │Noctis, Hew. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 19│ │Erebus, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 20│ │Varuna, White ║ │ │ │ │ │ 21│ │Semperi, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │b.│Coon-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 22│ │Neptunus, Guér. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 23│ │Coon, Fab. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │c.│Polydorus-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 24│ │Polydorus, L. ║ 1│ │ │ 1│ │ 25│ │Leodamas, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 26│ │Diphilus, Esper ║ │ │ │ │ │ 27│ │Antiphus, Fab. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 28│ │Polyphontes, Bd. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 29│ │Annæ, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 30│ │Liris, Godt. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ B.│d.│Ulysses-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 31│ │Ulysses, L. ║ 1│ │ │ │ │ 32│ │Penelope, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 33│ │Telegonus, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 34│ │Telemachus, Mont.║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │e.│Peranthus-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 35│ │Peranthus, Fab. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 36│ │Pericles, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 37│ │Philippus, Wall. ║ 1│ │ │ │ │ 38│ │Macedon, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 39│ │Brama, Guér. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 40│ │Dædalus, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 41│ │Blumei, Bd. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 42│ │Arjuna, Horsf. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │f.│Memnon-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 43│ │Memnon, L. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 44│ │Androgeus, Cr. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 45│ │Lampsacus, Bd. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 46│ │Priapus, Bd. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 47│ │Emalthion, Hübn. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 48│ │Deiphontes, Wall.║ │ │ │ │ │ 49│ │Deiphobus, L. ║ 1│ │ │ │ │ 50│ │Ascalaphus, Bd. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 51│ │Ænomaus, Godt. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │g.│Helenus-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 52│ │Severus, Cr. ║ 1│ │ │ │ │ 53│ │Pertinax, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 54│ │Albinus, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 55│ │Phæstus, Bd. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 56│ │Helenus, L. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 57│ │Hecuba, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 58│ │Iswara, White ║ │ │ │ │ │ 59│ │Hystaspes, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 60│ │Araspes, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 61│ │Nephelus, Bd. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │h.│Pammon-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 62│ │Pammon, L. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 63│ │Theseus, Cr. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 64│ │Alphenor, Cr. ║ 1│ │ │ │ │ 65│ │Nicanor, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 66│ │Hipponous, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 67│ │Ambrax, Bd. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 68│ │Ambracia, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 69│ │Epirus, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 70│ │Dunali, Montr. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │i.│Erectheus-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 71│ │Ormenus, Guér. ║ │ │ 1│ 1│ │ 72│ │Pandion, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 73│ │Tydeus, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 74│ │Adrastus, Wall. ║ │ 1│ │ │ │ 75│ │Gambrisius, Cr. ║ 1│ │ │ │ │ 76│ │Amphytrion, Cr. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 77│ │Euchenor, Guér. ║ │ │ │ 1│ │ 78│ │Godartii, Montr. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │k.│Demolion-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 79│ │Demolion, Cr. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 80│ │Gigon, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │l.│Erithonius-group.║ │ │ │ │ │ 81│ │Erithonius, Cr. ║ │ │ │ 1│ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │m.│Paradoxa-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 82│ │Paradoxa, Zink. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 83│ │Ænigma, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 84│ │Caunus, Westw. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 85│ │Astina, Westw. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 86│ │Hewitsonii, ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Westw. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │n.│Dissimilis-group.║ │ │ │ │ │ 87│ │Echidna, De Haan.║ │ │ │ │ │ 88│ │Paëphates, Westw.║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │o.│Macareus-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 89│ │Veiovis, Hew. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 90│ │Encelades, Bd. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 91│ │Deucalion, Bd. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 92│ │Idæoides, Hew. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 93│ │Delessertii, ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Guér. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 94│ │Dehaanii, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 95│ │Leucothoë, Westw.║ │ │ │ │ │ 96│ │Macareus, Godt. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 97│ │Stratocles, Feld.║ │ │ │ │ │ 98│ │Thule, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │p.│Antiphates-group.║ │ │ │ │ │ 99│ │Antiphates, Cr. ║ │ │ │ │ │100│ │Euphrates, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │101│ │Androcles, Bd. ║ │ │ │ │ │102│ │Dorcus, De Haan. ║ │ │ │ │ │103│ │Rhesus, Bd. ║ │ │ │ │ │104│ │Aristæus, Cr. ║ 1│ │ │ │ │105│ │Parmatus, G. R. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ G. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │q.│Eurypylus-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │106│ │Codrus, Cr. ║ 1│ │ │ │ │107│ │Melanthus, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │108│ │Empedocles, Fab. ║ │ │ │ │ │109│ │Payeni, Bd. ║ │ │ │ │ │110│ │Sarpedon, L. ║ 1│ │ │ │ │111│ │Miletus, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │112│ │Wallacei, Hew. ║ │ │ │ │ │113│ │Bathycles, Zink. ║ │ │ │ │ │114│ │Eurypylus, L. ║ 1│ │ │ │ │115│ │Jason, Esp. ║ │ │ │ │ │116│ │Telephus, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │117│ │Ægistus, L. ║ 1│ │ │ 1│ │118│ │Agamemnon, L. ║ 1│ │ │ 1│ │119│ │Rama, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │(? Arycles, Rd.) ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │=Leptocircus.= ║ │ │ │ │ │120│ │Meges, Zink. ║ │ │ │ │ │121│ │Curtius, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │122│ │Decius, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │123│ │Curius, Fab. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ Totals:— ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │Ornithoptera ║ 3│ │ 1│ 1│ │ │ │Papilio ║ 13│ 1│ 2│ 4│ │ │ │Leptocircus ║ │ │ │ │ ├───┼──┼───────────────────╫──────┼──────┼──────┼───────┤ │ │ │Species in each ║ 16│ 1│ 3│ 5│ │ │ │ island ║ │ │ │ │ ├───┼──┼───────────────────╫──────┴──────┴──────┴───────┤ │ │ │ Total ║ 27 │ │ │ │ ║ Seventy-two, │ │ │ │ ║ Austro-Malayan Region. │ └───┴──┴───────────────────╨────────────────────────────┘

┌───┬──┬───────────────────╥──────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ ║ AUSTRO-MALAYAN REGION. │ ├───┼──┼───────────────────╫────────┬──────┬────────┬───────┬────────┬────────┤ │ │ │ =Ornithoptera.= ║ Aru │Mysol.│Waigiou.│ New │ New │Woodlark│ │ │ │ ║Islands.│ │ │Guinea.│Ireland.│ Isl. │ ├───┼──┼───────────────────╫────────┬──────┬────────┬───────┬────────┬────────┤ │ │a.│Priamus-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 1│ │Priamus, L. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 2│ │Poseidon, Db. ║ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ │ 1│ │ 3│ │Crœsus, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 4│ │Tithonus, De ║ │ │ │ 1│ │ │ │ │ │ Haan. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 5│ │Urvilliana, Guér.║ │ │ │ │ 1│ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │b.│Pompeus-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 6│ │Remus, Cr. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 7│ │Helena, L. ║ │ │ │ 1v│ │ │ │ 8│ │Leda, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 9│ │Pompeus, Cr. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 10│ │Nephereus, G. R. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ G. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 11│ │Magellanus, Feld.║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 12│ │Criton, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 13│ │Plato, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 14│ │Haliphron, Bd. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 15│ │Amphrisius, Cr. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │c.│Brookeana-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 16│ │Brookeana, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ =Papilio.= ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ A.│a.│Nox-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 17│ │Nox, Sw. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 18│ │Noctis, Hew. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 19│ │Erebus, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 20│ │Varuna, White ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 21│ │Semperi, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │b.│Coon-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 22│ │Neptunus, Guér. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 23│ │Coon, Fab. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │c.│Polydorus-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 24│ │Polydorus, L. ║ 1│ │ │ │ │ │ │ 25│ │Leodamas, Wall. ║ │ 1│ │ 1│ │ │ │ 26│ │Diphilus, Esper ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 27│ │Antiphus, Fab. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 28│ │Polyphontes, Bd. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 29│ │Annæ, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 30│ │Liris, Godt. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ B.│d.│Ulysses-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 31│ │Ulysses, L. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 32│ │Penelope, Wall. ║ 1│ │ 1│ 1│ │ │ │ 33│ │Telegonus, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 34│ │Telemachus, Mont.║ │ │ │ │ │ 1│ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │e.│Peranthus-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 35│ │Peranthus, Fab. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 36│ │Pericles, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 37│ │Philippus, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 38│ │Macedon, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 39│ │Brama, Guér. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 40│ │Dædalus, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 41│ │Blumei, Bd. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 42│ │Arjuna, Horsf. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │f.│Memnon-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 43│ │Memnon, L. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 44│ │Androgeus, Cr. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 45│ │Lampsacus, Bd. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 46│ │Priapus, Bd. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 47│ │Emalthion, Hübn. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 48│ │Deiphontes, Wall.║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 49│ │Deiphobus, L. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 50│ │Ascalaphus, Bd. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 51│ │Ænomaus, Godt. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │g.│Helenus-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 52│ │Severus, Cr. ║ 1│ │ │ │ │ │ │ 53│ │Pertinax, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 54│ │Albinus, Wall. ║ │ │ │ 1│ │ │ │ 55│ │Phæstus, Bd. ║ │ │ │ 1│ │ │ │ 56│ │Helenus, L. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 57│ │Hecuba, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 58│ │Iswara, White ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 59│ │Hystaspes, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 60│ │Araspes, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 61│ │Nephelus, Bd. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │h.│Pammon-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 62│ │Pammon, L. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 63│ │Theseus, Cr. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 64│ │Alphenor, Cr. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 65│ │Nicanor, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 66│ │Hipponous, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 67│ │Ambrax, Bd. ║ │ 1│ │ 1│ │ │ │ 68│ │Ambracia, Wall. ║ │ │ 1│ │ │ │ │ 69│ │Epirus, Wall. ║ 1│ │ │ │ │ │ │ 70│ │Dunali, Montr. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 1│ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │i.│Erectheus-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 71│ │Ormenus, Guér. ║ 1│ │ 1│ │ │ │ │ 72│ │Pandion, Wall. ║ │ 1│ │ 1│ │ │ │ 73│ │Tydeus, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 74│ │Adrastus, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 75│ │Gambrisius, Cr. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 76│ │Amphytrion, Cr. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 77│ │Euchenor, Guér. ║ 1│ │ 1│ 1│ │ │ │ 78│ │Godartii, Montr. ║ │ │ │ │ │ 1│ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │k.│Demolion-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 79│ │Demolion, Cr. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 80│ │Gigon, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │l.│Erithonius-group.║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 81│ │Erithonius, Cr. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │m.│Paradoxa-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 82│ │Paradoxa, Zink. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 83│ │Ænigma, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 84│ │Caunus, Westw. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 85│ │Astina, Westw. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 86│ │Hewitsonii, ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Westw. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │n.│Dissimilis-group.║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 87│ │Echidna, De Haan.║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 88│ │Paëphates, Westw.║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │o.│Macareus-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 89│ │Veiovis, Hew. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 90│ │Encelades, Bd. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 91│ │Deucalion, Bd. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 92│ │Idæoides, Hew. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 93│ │Delessertii, ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Guér. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 94│ │Dehaanii, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 95│ │Leucothoë, Westw.║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 96│ │Macareus, Godt. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 97│ │Stratocles, Feld.║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 98│ │Thule, Wall. ║ │ │ 1│ 1│ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │p.│Antiphates-group.║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 99│ │Antiphates, Cr. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │100│ │Euphrates, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │101│ │Androcles, Bd. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │102│ │Dorcus, De Haan. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │103│ │Rhesus, Bd. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │104│ │Aristæus, Cr. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │105│ │Parmatus, G. R. ║ 1│ │ 1│ │ │ │ │ │ │ G. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │q.│Eurypylus-group. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │106│ │Codrus, Cr. ║ 1│ │ 1│ │ │ │ │107│ │Melanthus, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │108│ │Empedocles, Fab. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │109│ │Payeni, Bd. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │110│ │Sarpedon, L. ║ 1│ │ │ 1│ │ │ │111│ │Miletus, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │112│ │Wallacei, Hew. ║ 1│ │ │ │ │ │ │113│ │Bathycles, Zink. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │114│ │Eurypylus, L. ║ │ │ │ 1│ │ │ │115│ │Jason, Esp. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │116│ │Telephus, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │117│ │Ægistus, L. ║ 1│ │ │ │ │ │ │118│ │Agamemnon, L. ║ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ │ │ │119│ │Rama, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │(? Arycles, Rd.) ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │=Leptocircus.= ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │120│ │Meges, Zink. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │121│ │Curtius, Wall. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │122│ │Decius, Feld. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │123│ │Curius, Fab. ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Totals:— ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │Ornithoptera ║ 1│ 1│ 1│ 3│ 1│ 1│ │ │ │Papilio ║ 12│ 4│ 8│ 11│ │ 4│ │ │ │Leptocircus ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├───┼──┼───────────────────╫────────┼──────┼────────┼───────┼────────┼────────┤ │ │ │Species in each ║ 13│ 5│ 9│ 14│ 1│ 5│ │ │ │ island ║ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├───┼──┼───────────────────╫────────┴──────┴────────┴───────┴────────┴────────┤ │ │ │ Total ║ 27 │ │ │ │ ║ Seventy-two, Austro-Malayan Region. │ └───┴──┴───────────────────╨──────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

The exceeding richness of the Malayan region in these fine insects is seen by comparing the number of species found in the different tropical regions of the earth. From all Africa only 33 species of Papilio are known; but as several are still undescribed in collections, we may raise their number to about 40. In all tropical Asia there are at present described only 65 species, and I have seen in collections but two or three which have not yet been named. In South America, south of Panama, there are 120 species, or about the same number as I make in the Malayan region; but the area of the two countries is very different; for while South America (even excluding Patagonia) contains 5,000,000 square miles, a line encircling the whole of the Malayan islands would only include an area of 2,700,000 square miles, of which the land-area would be about 1,000,000 square miles. This superior richness is partly real and partly apparent. The breaking up of a district into small isolated portions, as in an archipelago, seems highly favourable to the segregation and perpetuation of local peculiarities in certain groups; so that a species which on a continent might have a wide range, and whose local forms, if any, would be so connected together that it would be impossible to separate them, may become by isolation reduced to a number of such clearly defined and constant forms that we are obliged to count them as species. From this point of view, therefore, the superior number of Malayan species may be considered as apparent only. Its true superiority is shown, on the other hand, by the possession of three genera and twenty groups of Papilionidæ against a single genus and eight groups in South America, and also by the much greater average size of the Malayan species. In most other families, however, the reverse is the case, the South American Nymphalidæ, Satyridæ, and Erycinidæ far surpassing those of the East in number, variety, and beauty.

The following list, exhibiting the range and distribution of each group, will enable us to study more easily their internal and external relations.

Range of the Groups of Malayan Papilionidæ.

Ornithoptera.

1. Priamus-group. Moluccas to Woodlark Island.

2. Pompeus-group. Himalayas to New Guinea (Celebes, maximum).

3. Brookeana-group. Sumatra and Borneo.

Papilio.

4. Nox-group. North India, Java, and Philippines.

5. Coon-group. North India to Java.

6. Polydorus-group. India to New Guinea and Pacific.

7. Ulysses-group. Celebes to New Caledonia.

8. Peranthus-group. India to Timor and Moluccas (India, max.).

9. Memnon-group. India to Timor and Moluccas (Java, max.).

10. Helenus-group. Africa and India to New Guinea.

11. Pammon-group. India to Pacific and Australia.

12. Erechtheus-group. Celebes to Australia.

13. Demolion-group. India to Celebes.

14. Erithonius-group. Africa, India, Australia.

15. Paradoxa-group. India to Java (Borneo, max.).

16. Dissimilis-group. India to Timor (India, max.).

17. Macareus-group. India to New Guinea.

18. Antiphates-group. Widely distributed.

19. Eurypylus-group. India to Australia.

Leptocircus.

20. Leptocircus-group. India to Celebes.

This Table shows the great affinity of the Malayan with the Indian Papilionidæ, only three out of the nineteen groups ranging beyond, into Africa, Europe, or America. The limitation of groups to the Indo-Malayan or Austro-Malayan divisions of the archipelago, which is so well marked in the higher animals (see ‘Journal of Linnean Society,’ vol. iv. 172, and ‘Journal of the Royal Geographical Society,’ 1863, p. 230), is much less conspicuous in insects, but is shown in some degree by the Papilionidæ. The following groups are either almost or entirely restricted to one portion of the Archipelago:—

Indo-Malayan Region.

Nox-group. Coon-group. Macareus-group (nearly). Paradoxa-group. Dissimilis-group (nearly). Brookeanus-group. LEPTOCIRCUS (genus).

Austro-Malayan Region.

Priamus-group. Ulysses-group. Erechtheus-group.

The remaining groups, which range over the whole archipelago, are, in many cases, insects of very powerful flight, or they frequent open places and the sea-beach, and are thus more likely to get blown from island to island. The fact that three such characteristic groups as those of Priamus, Ulysses, and Erechtheus are strictly limited to the Australian region of the archipelago, while five other groups are with equal strictness confined to the Indian region, is a strong corroboration of that division which has been founded almost entirely on the distribution of Mammalia and Birds.

If the various Malayan islands have undergone recent changes of level, and if any of them have been more closely united within the period of existing species than they are now, we may expect to find indications of such changes in community of species between islands now widely separated; while those islands which have long remained isolated would have had time to acquire peculiar forms by a slow and natural process of modification.

An examination of the relations of the species of the adjacent islands will thus enable us to correct opinions formed from a mere consideration of their relative positions. For example, looking at a map of the archipelago, it is almost impossible to avoid the idea that Java and Sumatra have been recently united; their present proximity is so great, and they have such an obvious resemblance in their volcanic structure. Yet there can be little doubt that this opinion is erroneous, and that Sumatra has had a more recent and more intimate connexion with Borneo than it has had with Java. This is strikingly shown by the mammals of these islands—very few of the species of Java and Sumatra being identical, while a considerable number are common to Sumatra and Borneo. The birds show a somewhat similar relationship; and we shall find that the group of insects we are now treating of tells exactly the same tale. Thus:—

Sumatra 21 sp.│20 sp. common to both islands; Borneo 29 sp.│ „ ──────────────┼────────────────────────────── Sumatra 21 sp.│11 sp. common to both islands; Java 27 sp.│ „ ──────────────┼────────────────────────────── Borneo 29 sp.│20 sp. common to both islands; Java 27 sp.│ „

showing that both Sumatra and Java have a much closer relationship to Borneo than they have each other—a most singular and interesting result when we consider the wide separation of Borneo from them both, and its very different structure. The evidence furnished by a single group of insects would have had but little weight on a point of such magnitude if standing alone; but coming as it does to confirm deductions drawn from whole classes of the higher animals, it must be admitted to have considerable value.

We may determine in a similar manner the relations of the different Papuan Islands to New Guinea. Of thirteen species of Papilionidæ obtained in the Aru Islands, five were also found in New Guinea, and eight not. Of nine species obtained at Waigiou, five were New Guinea, and four not. The five species found at Mysol were all New Guinea species. Mysol, therefore, has closer relations to New Guinea than the other islands; and this is corroborated by the distribution of the birds, of which I will only now give one instance. The Paradise Bird found in Mysol is the common New Guinea species, while the Aru Islands and Waigiou have each a species peculiar to themselves.

The large island of Borneo, which contains more species of Papilionidæ than any other in the archipelago, has nevertheless only two peculiar to itself; and it is quite possible, and even probable, that one of these may be found in Sumatra or Java. The last-named island has also two species peculiar to it; Sumatra has not one, and the peninsula of Malacca only one. The identity of species is even greater than in birds or in most other groups of insects, and points very strongly to a recent connexion of the whole with each other and the continent. But when we pass to the next island (Celebes), separated from them by a strait not wider than that which divides them from each other, we have a striking contrast; for with a total number of species less than either Borneo or Java, no less than eighteen are absolutely restricted to it. Further east, the large islands of Ceram and New Guinea have only three species peculiar to each, and Timor has five. We shall have to look, not to single islands, but to whole groups, in order to obtain an amount of individuality comparable with that of Celebes. For example, the extensive group comprising the large islands of Java, Borneo, and Sumatra, with the peninsula of Malacca, possessing altogether 45 species, has about 21, or less than half, peculiar to it; the numerous group of the Philippines possess 21 species, of which 16 are peculiar; the seven chief islands of the Moluccas have 27, of which 12 are peculiar; and the whole of the Papuan Islands, with an equal number of species, have 17 peculiar. Comparable with the most isolated of these groups is Celebes, with its 24 species, of which the large proportion of 18 are peculiar. We see, therefore, that the opinion I have already expressed, in the papers before quoted, of the high degree of isolation and the remarkable distinctive features of this interesting island, is fully borne out by the examination of this conspicuous family of insects. A single straggling island, with a few small satellites, it is zoologically of equal importance with extensive groups of islands many times as large as itself; and standing in the very centre of the archipelago, surrounded on every side with islets connecting it with the larger groups, and which seem to afford the greatest facilities for the migration and intercommunication of their respective productions, it yet stands out conspicuous with a character of its own in every department of nature, and presents peculiarities which are, I believe, without a parallel in any similar locality on the globe.

Briefly to summarize these peculiarities, Celebes possesses three genera of mammals (out of the very small number which inhabit it) which are of singular and isolated forms, viz., Cynopithecus, a tailless Ape allied to the Baboons; Anoa, a straight-horned Antelope of obscure affinities, but quite unlike anything else in the whole archipelago or in India; and Babirusa, an altogether abnormal wild Pig. With a rather limited bird population, Celebes has an immense preponderance of species confined to it, and has also five remarkable genera (Meropogon, Streptocitta, Enodes, Scissirostrum, and Megacephalon) entirely restricted to its narrow limits, as well as two others (Prioniturus and Basilornis) which only range to a single island beyond it.

Mr. Smith’s elaborate tables of the distribution of Malayan Hymenoptera (see ‘Proc. Linn. Soc.’ Zool. vol. vii.) show that, out of the large number of 301 species collected in Celebes, 190 (or nearly two-thirds) were absolutely restricted to it, although Borneo, on one side, and the various islands of the Moluccas on the other, were equally well explored by me; and no less than twelve of the genera are not found in any other island of the archipelago. I have just shown in the present paper that, in the Papilionidæ, it has far more species of its own than any other island, and a greater proportion of peculiar species than many of the large groups of islands in the archipelago—and that it gives to a large number of the species and varieties which inhabit it, 1st, an increase of size, and, 2nd, a peculiar modification in the form of the wings, which stamp upon the most dissimilar insects a mark distinctive of their common birth-place.

What, I would ask, are we to do with phenomena such as these? Are we to rest content with that very simple, but at the same time very unsatisfying explanation, that all these insects and other animals were created exactly as they are, and originally placed exactly where they are, by the inscrutable will of their Creator, and that we have nothing to do but to register the facts and wonder? Was this single island selected for a fantastic display of creative power, merely to excite a child-like and unreasoning admiration? Is all this appearance of gradual modification by the action of natural causes—a modification the successive steps of which we can almost trace—all delusive? Is this harmony between the most diverse groups, all presenting analogous phenomena, and indicating a dependence upon physical changes of which we have independent evidence, all false testimony? If I could think so, the study of nature would have lost for me its greatest charm. I should feel as would the geologist, if you could convince him that his interpretation of the earth’s past history was all a delusion—that strata were never formed in the primeval ocean, and that the fossils he so carefully collects and studies are no true record of a former living world, but were all created just as they now are, and in the rocks where he now finds them.

I must here express my own belief that none of these phenomena, however apparently isolated pr insignificant, can ever stand alone—that not the wing of a butterfly can change in form, or vary in colour, except in harmony with, and as a part of, the grand march of nature. I believe, therefore, that all the curious phenomena I have just recapitulated are immediately dependent on the last series of changes, organic and inorganic, in these regions; and as the phenomena presented by the island of Celebes differ from those of all the surrounding islands, it can, I conceive, only be because the past history of Celebes has been to some extent unique and different from theirs. We must have much more evidence to determine exactly in what that difference has consisted. At present, I only see my way clear to one deduction, viz., that Celebes represents one of the oldest parts of the archipelago, that it has been formerly more completely isolated both from India and from Australia than it is now, and that, amid all the mutations it has undergone, a relic or substratum of the fauna and flora of some more ancient land has been here preserved to us.

It is only since my return home, and since I have been able to compare the productions of Celebes side by side with those of the surrounding islands, that I have been fully impressed with their peculiarity, and the great interest that attaches to them. The plants and the reptiles are still almost unknown; and it is to be hoped that some enterprising naturalist may soon devote himself to their study. The geology of the country would also be well worth exploring, and its recent fossils would be of especial interest as elucidating the changes which have led to its present anomalous condition. This island stands, as it were, upon the boundary-line between two worlds. On one side is that ancient Australian fauna which preserves to the present day the facies of an early geological epoch; on the other is the rich and varied fauna of Asia, which seems to contain, in every class and order, the most perfect and highly organized animals. Celebes has relations to both, yet strictly belongs to neither; it possesses characteristics which are altogether its own; and I am convinced that no single island upon the globe would so well repay a careful and detailed research into its past and present history.

In the following catalogue of the Malayan species of Papilionidæ I have included those from Woodlark Island, collected by M. Montrouzier, as that island comes fairly within the limits of the archipelago; while I exclude New Caledonia as belonging more to the Australian and Pacific fauna. I have given full particulars of the variation of the several species, and have described all new species, forms, varieties, and undescribed sexes. The distribution of each species is noted chiefly from my own observations. As the full synonymy and references to almost every work on Lepidoptera are given in the British Museum List of Papilionidæ, I have not thought it necessary to do more than to refer to a good figure and description in well-known works; and I have quoted Boisduval’s ‘Species Général des Lépidoptères’ throughout. In all cases, however, where I have myself corrected the synonymy, or determined sexes which had been before improperly located, I have given much fuller references.

Footnote 11:

Species collected by myself have (Wall.) after the localities where I have found them.

I have found it necessary to describe and name twenty new species, and to separate six or seven more which have been hitherto considered as varieties or sexes of other species. I have also described and separated twenty-five local forms or races, and twenty polymorphous forms or sexes, as well as several simple varieties. On the other hand, I have reduced fourteen species, which figure in some of our latest lists, to the rank of sexes or local or polymorphic forms of other species. For convenience of reference, I add a list of these, with a reference to the page where will be found the reasons for not adopting them.

Ornithoptera Pronomus, G. R. Gray, = O. Poseidon, Db. (var.), p. 36. Ornithoptera Archideus, G. R. Gray, = O. Poseidon, Db. (var.), p. 36. Ornithoptera Euphorion, G. R. Gray, = O. Poseidon, Db. (♀ var.), p. 36. Ornithoptera Amphimedon, Cr., = O. Helena, L. ♀, p. 38. Papilio Hegemon, G. R. Gray, = P. Polyphontes, Bd., p. 43. Papilio Melanides, De Haan, = P. Theseus, Fab. (♀ form), p. 53. Papilio Romulus, Cr., = P. Pammon, L. (♀ form), p. 52. Papilio Rumanzovia, Eschsch., = P. Emalthion, Hübn. (♀ form), p. 48. Papilio Polytes, L., = P. Pammon, L., ♀, p. 51. Papilio Orophanes, Bd., = P. Ambrax, Bd., ♀, p. 54. Papilio Elyros, G. R. Gray, = P. Alphenor, Cr. (♀ form), p. 53. Papilio Amanga, Bd., = P. Ormenus, Guér. (♀ form), p. 55. Papilio Onesimus, Hewits., = P. Ormenus, Guér. (♀ form), p. 55. Papilio Drusius, Cr., = P. Gambrisius, Cr., ♀, p. 58.

As the arrangement of the species of Papilio which I have adopted in this paper is somewhat new, and I hope will be found to be more natural than those which have been previously used, I here add lists of the Indian and Australian species arranged in the same manner. Those already included in my Malayan list will be indicated thus, (Mal.), and printed in italics.

List of the PAPILIONIDÆ of the Indian Region.

1. Teinopalpus imperialis, Hope.

2. Ornithoptera Darsius, G. R. G. (Ceylon).

3. —— Rhadamanthus, Bd.

4. —— Pompeus, Cr. (Mal.).

5. —— Amphrisius, Cr. (Mal.).

Papilio (Sect. A).

Nox group.

6. Papilio Varuna, White (Mal.).

7. —— Aidoneus, Db.

8. —— Philoxenus, G. R. G.

9. —— Polyceutes, Db.

10. —— Dasarada, Moore.

11. —— Ravana, Moore.

12. —— Minereus, G. R. G.

13. —— Icarius, Westw.

14. —— Bootes, Westw.

15. —— Janaka, Moore.

Coon group.

16. Papilio Doubledayi, Wall.

Polydorus group.

17. Papilio Jophon, G. R. G. (Ceylon).

18. —— Diphilus, Esp. (Mal.).

19. —— Alcinous, Klug.

20. —— Mencius, Feld.

21. —— Hector, L.

Papilio (Sect. B).

Protenor group.

22. Papilio Protenor, Cr.

23. Papilio Elphenor, Db.

24. —— Rhetenor, Westw.

25. —— Sakontala, Hewits.

Peranthus group.

26. Papilio Crino, Fab. (Ceylon).

27. —— Bianor, Cr.

28. —— Polyctor, Bd.

29. —— Ganesa, Db.

30. —— Arcturus, Westw.

31. —— Paris, L.

32. —— Palinurus, Fab.?

33. —— Krishna, Moore.

Memnon group.

34. Papilio Androgeus, Cr. (Mal.).

35. —— Polymnestor, Cr. (Ceylon).

36. —— Demetrius, Cr.

Helenus group.

37. Papilio Helenus, L. (Mal.).

38. —— Chaon, Westw.

39. —— Castor, Westw.

40. —— Nephelus, Bd. (Mal.).

Pammon group.

41. Papilio Pammon, L. (Mal.).

Demolion group.

42. Papilio Demolion, Cr. (Mal.).

Papilio (Sect. C).

Erithonius group.

43. Papilio Erithonius, Cr. (Mal.).

Paradoxa group.

44. Papilio Telearchus, Hewits.

45. —— Slateri, Hewits.

Dissimilis group.

46. Papilio dissimilis, L.

47. —— Panope, L.

48. —— Lacedæmon, Fab.

49. —— Pollux, Westw.

Papilio (Sect. D).

Macareus group.

50. Papilio Macareus, God. (Mal.).

51. —— Leucothoë, Westw. (Mal.).

52. —— Megarus, Westw.

53. —— Agestor, G. R. G.

54. —— Epytides, Hewits.

55. —— Xenocles, Db.

Antiphates group.

56. Papilio Antiphates, Cr. (Mal.).

57. —— Agetes, Westw.

58. —— Anticrates, Db.

59. —— Orestes, Fab.

60. —— Alebion, G. R. G.

61. —— Glycerion, G. R. G.

Eurypylus group.

62. Papilio Gyas, Westw.

63. —— Evan, Db.

64. —— Cloanthus, Westw.

65. —— Sarpedon, L. (Mal.).

66. —— Chiron, Wall.

67. —— Jason, Esp. (Mal.).

68. —— Agamemnon, L. (Mal.).

69. —— Rama, Feld. (Mal.).

4. Chinese species.

61. Indian species.

4. Ceylon species.

List of the PAPILIONIDÆ of the Australian Region.

Ornithoptera (Priamus group).

1. Ornithoptera Poseidon, Db. (Mal.).

2. —— Richmondia, G. R. G.

Papilio (Sect. A).

Polydorus group.

3. Papilio Leodamas, Wall. (Mal.).

4. —— Liris, Godt. (Mal.).

5. —— Godartianus, Bd. (Pacific Islands).

Papilio (Sect. B).

Helenus group.

6. Papilio Capaneus, Westw.

7. —— Ilioneus, Don.

Ulysses group.

8. Papilio Ulyssinus, Westw.

9. —— Montrouzieri, Bd. (New Caledonia).

Pammon group.

10. Papilio Canopus, Westw.

Erectheus group.

11. Papilio Erectheus, Don.

12. —— Amyntor, Bd. (New Caledonia).

Papilio (Sect. C).

Erithonius group.

13. Papilio Erithonius, Cr. (Mal.).

Anactor group.

14. Papilio Anactor, McL.

Papilio (Sect. D).

Antiphates group.

15. Papilio Leosthenes, Db.

16. —— Permatus, G. R. G. (Mal.).

Eurypylus group.

17. Papilio Sarpedon, L. (Mal.).

18. —— Gelon, Bd. (New Caledonia).

19. —— Lycaon, Westw.

20. —— Macleayanus, Leach.

21. —— Scottianus, Feld. (Ash Islands).

22. Eurycus Cressida, Fab.

6. Pacific Islands.

16. Australia.

Catalogue of Malayan PAPILIONIDÆ.

ORNITHOPTERA (Boisd.).

Fig. 1.

Anal valves of O. Amphrisius. ]

The characters in the larva and pupa which have been supposed to distinguish this genus from PAPILIO are erroneous, or at least do not exist in all the species. My own observations on O. Poseidon show that the larva has no “external sheath” to the thoracic tentacles, and that the suspending thread passes round the pupa, and is not “fastened on each side to a silky tubercle.” There remain therefore only the characters of the perfect insect, the most important of which are the anal valves in the male. These are very large, ovate or rounded, coriaceous, and not hairy, and are furnished with projecting points or spines (sometimes very conspicuous) which serve to attach the male more firmly to the female in copulâ. In several species I have observed, these points or hooks were buried in the protruded anal gland of the female, and thus effectually prevented the great weight of the insects causing them to separate upon suddenly taking flight. The great strength and size of these insects, the thick texture of their wings, their long curved and stout antennæ, their peculiar form, colour, and distribution, are the only other characters that separate them from Papilio. Though these may not perhaps be technically sufficient, I think it advisable and convenient to retain a genus so well known and long established.

Ornithoptera is pre-eminently a Malayan genus, seventeen species inhabiting the archipelago, one (Rhadamanthus, Bd.) India and China, one (Darsius, G. R. Gray) peculiar to Ceylon, one (Richmondia, G. R. Gray) North Australia. O. Victoriæ, G. R. Gray, from some island east of New Guinea, should probably be included in the Malayan list; and Æacus, Felder, from an unknown locality. The following are the well-established Malayan species.

a. Priamus group.

1. ORNITHOPTERA PRIAMUS, Linnæus.

♂. Papilio Priamus, L.; Cram. Pap. Ex. t. 23. f. A, B; Godart, Enc. Méth. ix. p. 25. O. Priamus, Bd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 173.

♀. P. Panthous, L.; Cram. Pap. Ex. t. 123. f. A, t. 124. f. A.

This may be at once distinguished from all the allied species with which it has been often confounded—in the male, by the more rounded and deeply scalloped hind wings, with larger black spots and a broader border, the upper wings with no green on the median nervure or its branches, and the sooty patch extending only to the second median nervule; in the female, by the very constant and peculiar light olive-brown colour, the absence of any spots in the discoidal cell of the upper wings, and the broad shallow scallops of the hinder margin.

Hab. Amboyna and Ceram, probably also Bouru (Wall.).

2. ORNITHOPTERA POSEIDON, Doubleday.

O. Poseidon, Db. Ann. of Nat. Hist. xvi. p. 173; Westwood, Cat. of Orient. Ent. pl. 11, 14.

The numerous specimens of Ornithoptera which I obtained in various parts of New Guinea and the adjacent islands show so much instability of form, colouring, and even of neuration, no two individuals being exactly alike, that I am obliged to include them all in one variable species, to which I believe must also be referred O. Pronomus, G. R. Gray, from Cape York, O. Euphorion, G. R. Gray, from North Australia, O. Archideus, G. R. Gray (ex Boisd.), erroneously said to be from Celebes, and O. Boisduvalii, Montrouzier, from Woodlark Island.

Var. a, Aru Islands (Wall.). O. Arruana, Feld. Lep. Frag. p. 24.

Individuals from this locality differ in the arrangement of the nervures; in some the third subcostal nervure of the upper wings branches from the same point with the upper disco-cellular, in others considerably beyond it; the points from which the subcostal nervures branch also vary. The amount of green colour on the median nervure and its branches varies. In some specimens there is a spot at the anal angle of lower wings beneath, agreeing with O. Pronomus, G. R. Gray; but this is generally wanting.

Var. b, Dorey, Salwatty, south-west coast of New Guinea (Wall.).

These agree very closely with O. Poseidon, as figured by Westwood; they differ individually in the same manner as the last, and also in the length of the lower disco-cellular nervure on the under wings. They have generally no golden spots beneath the wings. They vary also in the outline of the under wings, the outer and anal angles being more acute in some specimens than in others. Some have the under wings of a uniform green entirely without spots, while others have a range of black spots more or less fully developed.

Var. c, Waigiou (Wall.). Archideus, G. R. Gray, ♀.

This agrees with the last; but the male is of a more delicate green than any of the others, and has less of that colour on the median veins. On the under side there are no golden spots. The whole surface has a golden tinge, and the central portion of the lower wings is tinged with amber-brown.

The females of all the above vary extremely, much more even than the males, and from the same locality two specimens are rarely alike. The discoidal cell is in some specimens more than half occupied by a whitish patch, while in others there are only a few small spots. One of my specimens from Salwatty almost exactly agrees with that figured by Westwood (Cat. of Or. Ent. pl. 14) as from Cape York. One of the Waigiou specimens is the same as Archideus, G. R. G., figured by Boisduval (Voy. de l’Astrolabe, t. 4. f. 1, 2); and another, from New Guinea, differs very little from Euphorion, G. R. G. (Brit. Mus. Cat. Lep. pt. 1. pl. 2. f. 3), from North Australia.

From these facts I am led to conclude that we have here a variable form spread over an extensive area, and kept variable by the continual intercrossing of individuals, which would otherwise segregate into distinct and sharply defined races. The same area is inhabited by many species of birds common to all parts of it; and just as the birds of Ceram and Amboyna are almost all distinct species from those of New Guinea, so do we find those islands inhabited by the Ornithoptera Priamus, a well-marked and constant species, readily distinguishable in either sex from the inconstant forms of New Guinea proper. The same parallel holds in North Australia. Many New Guinea species of birds extend, with very slight variation, to the country about Cape York; but when we reach the Moreton Bay district all these have disappeared, and we find only true Australian species. So the variable forms of O. Poseidon reach North Australia and Cape York, while in the Moreton Bay district we find the comparatively well-marked species O. Richmondia. Similar causes, whether geographical or climatal, have thus produced an analogous distribution in these widely separated groups of animals.

3. ORNITHOPTERA CRŒSUS, Felder.

O. Crœsus, Feld. Wien. Ent. Monats., Dec. 1859. O. Crœsus, G. R. Gray, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1859, p. 424.

Hab. Batchian (Moluccas) (Wall.).

Local form, a.—Male: has the orange colour of the upper surface of a much deeper fiery-red hue; on the under surface, the black spots of the lower wings are nearer the margin, and the yellow spots below them are entirely absent; there is also a green line between the subcostal nervure and the margin; on the under surface of the fore wings the green patch in the discoidal cell extends to its base, and is reflexed in a narrow line along its upper edge.

Female: differs still more from that sex in O. Crœsus; the white markings on all the wings are so large as almost to fill up the spaces between the veins, the lower part of the discoidal cell in both upper and under wings being also occupied with a whitish patch; the range of spots occupying the posterior margin are of a dusky yellow colour.

Hab. Ternate (♂), Gilolo (♀) (Wall.).

This well-marked local form is no doubt peculiar to Gilolo and the small adjacent islands, as the original species is to Batchian.

I was three months in the island of Batchian before I obtained a specimen of this fine insect, which I had seen once or twice only flying high in the air. I at length came upon it flying about a beautiful cinchonaceous shrub with white bracts and yellow flowers (Mussænda, sp.); and having cleared a path round about, I visited the place every morning on my way to the forest, and once or twice a week had the satisfaction of capturing a fine male specimen of O. Crœsus. The females were more plentiful and more easily caught. I afterwards sent out one of my men with a net every day to look after this insect only. He would stay out all day long, wandering up a broad rocky torrent, where the males flew up and down occasionally or settled on the rocks which just appeared above the water. He generally brought me one, and sometimes even two or three specimens; and thus, with those that I myself captured at the flowers, I secured a fine series of this richly coloured species.

4. ORNITHOPTERA TITHONUS, De Haan.

O. Tithonus, De Haan, Verh. Nat. Gesch. Ned. t. 1. f. 1.

Hab. S.W. Coast of New Guinea (Leyden Museum).

This remarkable species must be very rare, as I never saw it in any part of the New Guinea district that I visited; nor was it seen during the exploration, a few years ago, by a Dutch steamer which visited the part of the coast where the only specimen known was said to have been obtained.

5. ORNITHOPTERA URVILLIANA, Guérin.

Papilio Urvilliana, Guér. Voy. de la Coquille, Lép. t. 13. f. 1, 2, ♂.

O. Urvilliana, Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 175.

Hab. New Ireland (Paris Museum).

b. Pompeus group.

6. ORNITHOPTERA REMUS, Cramer.

Papilio Remus, Cr. Pap. Ex. t. 135. f. A, t. 136. f. A (♀), t. 386. f. A, B (♂); Fab. Syst. Ent. iii. 1. p. 11.

O. Remus, Bd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 176. Papilio Panthous ♂, Clerck, Icon. t. 18 (♀).

Hab. Amboyna, Ceram, Gilolo, Morty Island, Sulla Island, Celebes (Wall.).

The specimens above quoted agree well with Cramer’s figures. The female from the Sulla Islands differs only in having more yellow towards the anal angle of the lower wings. The specimens figured by Cramer in pls. 10, 11, under the name of “Hypolitus” seem to be a remarkable variety, in which the female has much of the character of the male. Messrs. Doubleday and G. R. Gray have adopted Panthous as the specific name of this insect; but this name was first used by Linnæus for the female of Priamus only, in the 10th ed. of the ‘Systema Naturæ’ (1758). Clerck (in 1759) adopted the name, but supposed he had found the male in the female of Remus. Linnæus, in Mus. Lud. Ulric. (1764), and in the 12th ed. of the ‘Systema Naturæ’ (1766), adopts this error, so far as referring to Clerck’s two figures; but in both these works his description refers only to the female of P. Priamus, indicating that the supposed other sex (P. Remus) was not known to him personally. The name of Panthous must therefore altogether drop, it having been applied to this species only through a double error—first, that of Linnæus, in supposing his Panthous to be distinct from Priamus, and then that of Clerck, in thinking that a female Remus was the male of the Linnean Panthous.

7. ORNITHOPTERA HELENA, Linnæus.

♂. P. Helena, Cram. Pap. Ex. t. 140. f. A, B. O. Helena, Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 177.

♀. P. Amphimedon, Cram. Pap. Ex. t. 194. f. A. O. Amphimedon, Boisd. Sp. Gén. p. 176.

Hab. Amboyna and Ceram (Wall.).

The females from these localities are always sooty, with the spots and markings on the hinder wings of a dull buff-colour even in the freshest specimens.

a. Local form Bouruensis.—Male: exactly resembles the Amboyna specimens, except that the yellow patch is more variable in form and extent.

Female: nearly black, and with the markings on the lower wings almost as pure and deep yellow as in the males: size a little smaller than in the type.

Hab. Bouru (Wall.).

b. Local form Papuensis.—Female: sooty black, the two first branches of the subcostal nervure margined with whitish near their origin; markings of the lower wings of the same tint of orange-yellow as is O. Helena ♂, but not so glossy.

Male not known.

Hab. New Guinea, Salwatty (Wall.).

c. Local form Celebensis.—Male: wings a little more pointed than in O. Helena; yellow patch of lower wings extending nearer to the posterior margin, and bounded towards the abdominal margin by the first branch of the median nervure. Beneath, having the nervures between the discoidal cell and the outer border ashy-margined.

Female not known.

Hab. Macassar (Celebes) (Wall.).

Remarks.—Of these three local modifications of O. Helena, the first is very distinct in the female, but not separable in the male sex. Of the second and third, only one sex is known; and they may very probably prove to be well-marked species when more materials are obtained.

8. ORNITHOPTERA LEDA, n. s.

Male: upper wings elongate, triangular, glossy black, quite uniform and immaculate; the outer margin delicately white-marked at the termination of the nervures. Lower wings yellow, as in the allied species, with a black border about the same width as in O. Pompeus on the outer and abdominal margins, narrower on the inner margin; the posterior scalloping of the yellow patch not so deep as in O. Pompeus, and having a spot at the anal angle connected more or less with the margin.

The under surface differs from that of O. Pompeus by the ashy margins of the veins of the upper wings being entirely absent, and in having much less white on the outer edge. There are no submarginal spots except the anal one, much red at the base of the wings, and no black spots on the abdomen.

Female: this sex varies very much, some having the upper wings immaculate, while others have the veins about the end of the discoidal cell broadly margined with whitish. The marginal series of spots on the lower wings vary as they do in O. Pompeus and O. Amphrisius. The best distinction from O. Pompeus (♀) seems to be the more elongated wings, the less crenellated margin, and the more produced outer angle of the lower wings. The yellow patch is also of a deeper colour both on the upper and under surfaces.

Hab. Celebes (Macassar and Menado) (Wall.)

9. ORNITHOPTERA POMPEUS, Cramer.

P. Pompeus, Cr. Pap. Ex. t. 25. f. A (♂). P. Minos, Cr. Pap. Ex. t. 195. f. A (♀). P. Heliacon, Fab. Ent. Syst. 3. i. p. 19, 60.

O. Heliacon, Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 178.

Hab. Sumatra, Borneo, Java, Lombock (Wall.), India (var.).

Remark.—The form that occurs in India, in its more elongate wings and darker colouring, approaches very closely to O. Rhadamanthus.

10. ORNITHOPTERA NEPHEREUS, G. R. Gray.

P. Astenous, Eschscholtz, Voy. Kotzebue, t. 4. f. A, B, C. (nec Fab.).

O. Nephereus, G. R. G., List of Lep. B. M. Papilionidæ, p. 6.

Hab. Philippine Islands.

Remark.—This is quite distinct from O. Rhadamanthus, Bd., with which it has generally been identified.

11. ORNITHOPTERA MAGELLANUS, Felder.

O. Magellanus, Feld. Lep. Nov. Phil. p. 11.

Hab. North of Luzon (Philippines).

Remark.—This fine species has a beautiful opalescent glow on the lower wings when viewed obliquely.

12. ORNITHOPTERA CRITON, Felder.

O. Criton, Feld. Lep. Fragm. p. 49.

Hab. Batchian, Ternate, Gilolo, Morty Island (Wall.).

13. ORNITHOPTERA PLATO, n. s.

Male: resembles O. Criton in the form and extent of the yellow patch, but the upper wings differ in having the outer half of a lighter tint; on the under surface this outer half of the wing is of a light ash-colour. Abdomen almost wholly black beneath. No red patches at the base of the wings, or any red collar.

Female unknown.

Hab. Timor (Wall.).

This is a very distinct species, though at first sight resembling several others. I obtained a single male specimen only.

14. ORNITHOPTERA HALIPHRON, Boisduval.

O. Haliphron, Bd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 181 (♂); Felder, Lep. Fragm. p. 37, Taf. ii. f. 2, 3 (♂, ♀).

Hab. Macassar (Celebes) (Wall.).

15. ORNITHOPTERA AMPHRISIUS, Cramer.

P. Amphrisius, Cr. Pap. Ex. t. 219. f. A; Godardt, Enc. Méth. ix. p. 27, pt.

O. Amphrisius, Bd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 178.

Hab. Malacca, Java, Borneo (Wall.).

This may be readily distinguished from the allied species by the upper wings in the male being yellow-marked, and by the absence of red spots at the base of the wings beneath in both sexes.

c. Brookeana group.

16. ORNITHOPTERA BROOKEANA, Wallace.

O. Brookeana, Wall. Proc. Ent. Soc. 1855, p. 104; Hewitson, Ex. Butt. Papilionidæ, i. f. 1. Papilio Trogon, V. Voll. Tijdschrift voor Ent. 1860, p. 69, pl. 6.

Hab. Borneo (Sarawak) (Wall.), Sumatra (Leyden Museum).

Remarks.—I have been in much doubt about the position of this remarkable species, and was for some time inclined to place it among the Papilios. It agrees, however, far better with Ornithoptera in the form and stoutness of the wings, the long stout and curved antennæ, the red collar and patches at the base of the wings beneath, the abdominal fold, and the flight and general appearance. It is powerful on the wing, and occasionally settles on the ground in damp sunny places. It inhabits the interior of North-west Borneo and the mountains of West Sumatra. The female is unknown. It is peculiar in the great length of the discoidal cell of the wings and its altogether unique style of coloration, and must be considered as the type of a distinct group of the genus Ornithoptera.

PAPILIO.

This is without doubt the finest and most remarkable genus of Diurnal Lepidoptera. About 360 species are now known, all, except ten, being tropical or subtropical. I have given at p. 23 the characters of the sections and groups into which I divide the Malayan species.

SECTION A.

a. Nox group.

17. PAPILIO NOX, Swainson.

P. Nox., Sw. Zool. Ill. pl. 102; Horsf. Lep. Ins. E. I. C. pl. 1. f. 1; Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 277.

P. Neesius, Zink. Nov. Act. Acad. Nat. Cur. xv. t. 14. f. 1.

Hab. Java (♂, ♀) (Wall.), Penang (♂) (Brit. Mus.).

18. PAPILIO NOCTIS, Hewitson. Tab. V. fig. 1 (♂).

Footnote 12:

In all the Plates, the wings on one side of each figure are detached from the body, and represent the under surface of the same insect. In one case only (Tab. VII. f. 1.) the upper surfaces of two varieties of the same species are given.

P. Noctis, Hewits. Proc. Zool. Soc. 1859, p. 423, pl. 66. f. 5 (♀).

Male: differs from the same sex of P. Nox by the broader apex of the fore wings, and by the hind wings being more elongate, more glossy, and especially by the entire nondentated hinder margin.

Hab. Borneo (Sarawak) (Wall.), (♂, ♀ Mus. nost.)

19. PAPILIO EREBUS, Wallace.

P. Nox, var., De Haan, Verh. Nat. Gesch. t. 5. f. 3 (♀).

Hab. Malacca (Wall.), Banjermassing, Borneo (De Haan).

Remarks.—I am somewhat doubtful of the species, the female only being known; but it differs so strikingly from the same sex of P. Nox and P. Noctis (the former of which seems very constant), that I think it better to separate it in order to draw attention to other specimens that may exist in collections. It differs from P. Nox (♀) by its narrower and more elongate hind wings, which are black, glossed with steel-blue; the fore wings are black, with the veins beyond the cell clearly white-margined. The lower margin is also much less strongly dentated.

20. PAPILIO VARUNA, White.

♀. P. Varuna, Wh., Entomologist, 1842, p. 280; Westw. Ann. Nat. Hist. ix. p. 37. P. Chara, Westw. Arc. Ent. pl. 66. f. 2.

♂. P. Astorion, Westw. Ann. Nat. Hist. ix. p. 37; Arc. Ent. pl. 66. f. 1.

Hab. Pulo Penang, Sylhet.

21. PAPILIO SEMPERI, Felder.

P. Semperi, Feld. Lep. Nov. Philipp, pp. 1, 11.

Hab. Luzon, Philippines (♂, ♀).

N.B. The Philoxenus group peculiar to India follows on after these.

b. Coon group.

22. PAPILIO NEPTUNUS, Guérin.

P. Neptunus, Guér. Deless. Voy. dans l’Inde, p. 69, t. 19 (P. Saturnus).

Hab. Malacca, Borneo (♂, ♀) (Wall.).

23. PAPILIO COON, Fabricius.

P. Coon, Fab. Ent. Syst. iii. 1. pp. 10, 27; Don. Ins. China, pl. 24. f. 1; Lucas, Lep. Ex. t. 6. f. 2; Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 201.

Hab. Java, Sumatra (Wall.), Borneo (De Haan).

Remarks.—The specimens from Sumatra are constantly larger than those from Java. The Indian form, in which the markings are red instead of yellow, with other differences, I consider a distinct species, for which I propose the name of P. Doubledayi, after the late Mr. Edward Doubleday of the British Museum.

Footnote 13:

PAPILIO DOUBLEDAYI, Wallace. (P. Coon, var., B. M. Cat.)

Above: upper wings as in P. Coon, but the base darker. Lower wings broader than in P. Coon; the white spot in the cell toothed below, and divided by one or two faint blackish lines, cut off at the middle of the cell by the black triangular basal patch. The marginal spot next within the tail wanting; the two anal spots, end of abdomen, and its rings (which are yellow in P. Coon) red; collar behind the eyes and palpi (which are black in P. Coon) also red.

Beneath: base of lower wings broadly black; white spots all much broader and rounder than in P. Coon; sides of the thorax, end of the abdomen, and the marginal spots in the caudal and anal region red.

The female differs in a corresponding manner from P. Coon ♀. Size about the same.

Hab. Moulmein, Assam.

c. Polydorus group.

24. PAPILIO POLYDORUS, Linnæus.

P. Polydorus, L.; Clerck, Icon. t. 33. f. 3. P. Leobates, Reinw. Verh. Nat. Gesch. Zool. t. 6. f. 3 (♀).

Hab. Ceram, Matabello Island, Bouru, Batchian (♂, ♀) (Wall.).

Local form or variety a.—The white markings on the fore wings forming a patch below the cell; red spots on the hind wings nearer to the posterior margin and that next the anal angle larger.

Hab. Ké Island, Aru Island (♂, ♀) (Wall.).

25. PAPILIO LEODAMAS, n. s. Tab. V. fig. 2 (♂).

P. Polydorus, in Brit. Mus. List of Papilionidæ, p. 10.

Male. Above, glossy black, upper wings immaculate (the veins pale-margined in the female). Lower wings with a rounded white spot divided into six parts by fine nervures, of which the outermost and that in the cell are sometimes reduced to points; marginal row of red spots obscured with black, and but faintly indicated.

Beneath, the white patch has a small red spot attached to the part next the anal angle; and the marginal row of six red spots are clearly marked, that at the anal angle being twice the size of the rest. Wings short, much rounded, scarcely or not at all produced in the caudal region.

Expanse of wings 3¾ in. to 4 in.

Hab. New Guinea, Mysol (♂, ♀) (Wall.), Rockingham Bay (Australia), (Brit. Mus., ♀).

26. PAPILIO DIPHILUS, Esper.

P. Diphilus, Esp. Ausl. Schmett. t. 40. f. 1. P. Polydorus, Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 267; and most authors.

Hab. Java, Malacca (Wall.), Philippine Islands, India.

Remarks.—The specimens from Manilla are larger, and the females paler-coloured, than those from other localities, all of which have slight characteristic peculiarities; but they also vary in the individuals from each locality, so that no perfect segregation of local forms has yet taken place.

27. PAPILIO ANTIPHUS, Fabricius.

P. Antiphus, Fab. Syst. Ent. iii. 1. pp. 10–28; Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 266.

Hab. Sumatra, Borneo, Lombock, Java (Wall.), Philippine Islands.

Remarks.—The Philippine form (P. Kotzebuea, Eschsch.) is rather larger and of a more uniform glossy black than those from other localities. P. Theseus, Cram., has been erroneously supposed to be the female of this species, whereas it is the female of one of the Pammon group, belonging to a different section of the genus. De Haan figures P. Theseus as P. Antiphus ♀, in Verh. Nat. Gesch. t. 8. f. 2. As has been already pointed out, P. Theseus mimics this species.

28. PAPILIO POLYPHONTES, Boisduval.

P. Polyphontes, Bd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 268. P. Hegemon, G. R. G., List of Papilionidæ in B. Mus.

Hab. Celebes, Batchian, Morty Isl. (♂, ♀) (Wall.).

Remarks.—The markings vary from pure white to a smoky tint; but otherwise all the specimens from the above localities agree. De Haan gives (Verh. Nat. Gesch. t. 8. f. 4) a female of one of the Pammon group as P. Polyphontes ♀.

29. PAPILIO ANNÆ, Felder.

P. Annæ, Feld. Lep. Nov. Philipp, p. 1.

Hab. Mindoro (Philippines).

30. PAPILIO LIRIS, Godart.

P. Liris, God. Enc. Méth. iv. p. 72; Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 268; De Haan, Verh. Nat. Gesch. p. 38, t. 4. f. 3 (♀).

Hab. Timor (Wall.), N.W. Australia (Brit. Mus.).

Remarks.—The Australian specimens are smaller. The female of P. Œnomaus mimics this species, as has been already mentioned (p. 22). Both species were taken by myself on the same spot, and, though such large and conspicuous insects, they could never be distinguished without a close examination after capture. The female of this species differs very little from the male, being rather larger, with broader wings and less vivid coloration.

SECTION B.

d. Ulysses group.

31. PAPILIO ULYSSES, Linnæus.

P. Ulysses, L., Cramer, Pap. Ex. t. 121. f. A, B (♀), t. 122 A (♀). P. Diomedes, Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 202.

Hab. Amboyna, Ceram (♂, ♀) (Wall.).

Remark.—The largest specimens of this glorious insect are found in the island of Amboyna, where it is rather common, hovering about the forest pathways. It sometimes visits the gardens in the town of Amboyna.

32. PAPILIO PENELOPE, n. s.

Male: rather smaller than P. Ulysses. Upper wings with six black cottony patches, and all separate from each other; whereas in P. Ulysses there are seven, and the four lower ones are always united at their margins. The blue colour fills the discoidal cell, and generally extends beyond it at the extremity; the upper disco-cellular nervure not black-bordered as in P. Ulysses. Lower wings with the blue colour extending further along the abdominal margin, and not quite so far towards the outer angle.

Female: has the blue colour of the same form and extent as in P. Ulysses ♀, but of the same bright tint as in the male; the marginal lunules more deeply curved.

Expanse of wings 5 inches.

Hab. New Guinea, Waigiou, Aru Is. (♂, ♀) (Wall.).

Remark.—As all the other forms closely allied to P. Ulysses have received names (Telemachus, Montr., Chaudoiri, Feld., Telegonus, Feld., and Ulyssinus, Westw.), I have also given one to this form peculiar to New Guinea and the Papuan Islands, the distinctive characters of which, though very slight, seem sufficiently constant.

33. PAPILIO TELEGONUS, Felder.

P. Telegonus, Feld. Lep. Fragm. p. 50.

Hab. Batchian, Gilolo (♂, ♀) (Wall.).

Remark.—A very distinct species, separated from P. Ulysses by the extent of the cottony patch on the upper wings, and by the different form and colour of the blue markings.

34. PAPILIO TELEMACHUS, Montrouzier.

P. Telemachus, Mont. Ann. de la Soc. d’Agriculture de Lyon, 1856, p. 395.

Hab. Woodlark Isl. (S. E. of New Guinea).

Remark.—This is a small species (exp. 4 in.), with less blue on the lower wings.

e. Peranthus group.

35. PAPILIO PERANTHUS, Fabricius.

P. Peranthus, Fab. Syst. Ent. iii. 1. p. 15; Don. Ins. China, pl. 26; Lucas, Lep. Ex. t. 12. f. 2; Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 203.

Hab. Java, Lombock (Wall.).

36. PAPILIO PERICLES, n. sp. Tab. VI. fig. 1 (♂).

Wings more elongate, and upper wings more pointed, than in P. Peranthus.

Above: black, the basal half of a silvery blue, greenish towards the base of the costa, and purplish on the outer margin, where on the lower wings it shades off into separate scales. On the submedian and two lower branches of the median nervure are elongate black cottony patches as in P. Ulysses, the lower ones joined at the base, the upper one separate; above these the outer margin is of a brown-black, with a few atoms of yellow and blue scales towards the apex; the blue colour extends beyond the discoidal cell of the upper wings in a line parallel with the outer margin, on the lower wings it rounds away to the anal angle, and below it are five submarginal lunules of blue atoms, the outer one almost obsolete, and that next the tail largest and most deeply coloured. Thorax and body green.

Beneath: as in P. Peranthus, but the posterior range of lunules margined with brilliant blue and orange brown.

Expanse of wings 3½ inches.

Hab. Timor (♂) (Wall.).

37. PAPILIO PHILIPPUS, Wallace. Tab. VI. fig. 3.

P. Peranthus, var. A, Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 204.

Above: basal half of the wings of a rich green-blue, the rest black, with a triangular patch at the apex of the uppers, formed of green atoms situated between the nervures; on the lower wings six large submarginal lunules, the lowest of which sends out some green atoms along the tail. The black cottony spot is of a different form from that of P. Peranthus, the separate patches being only joined in the middle, and two of them extending along the nervures in a point nearly to the discoidal cell.

Beneath: brilliantly marked with lunules of buff, black, and blue.

Expanse of wings 4½–5 inches.

Hab. Moluccas (Wall.).

Remarks.—My specimen from Ceram is of a greener tinge, and the colour extends a little beyond the end of the discoidal cell; that from Batchian is smaller, of a bluer tinge, and the colour of less extent. The species seems to be very rare.

38. PAPILIO MACEDON, Wallace. Tab. VI. fig. 2 (♂).

P. Peranthus, var. B., Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 204.

Boisduval’s description sufficiently shows the remarkable differences of form, size, and colouring which this species presents, compared with that of which he considers it a variety. The female agrees with the male, except that the colours are a little less brilliant, and the cottony patches of the fore wings are absent.

Expanse of wings, ♂, 5 inches; ♀, 5–6 inches.

Hab. Macassar, Menado (Celebes) (Wall.).

39. PAPILIO BRAMA, Guérin.

P. Brama, Guér. Rev. Zool. 1840, p. 43, t. 1. f. 3, 4. P. Palinurus, De Haan, Verh. Nat. Gesch. pp. 5, 29.

Hab. Malacca, Sumatra (Wall.).

40. PAPILIO DÆDALUS, Felder.

P. Dædalus, Feld. Lep. Nov. Philipp. p. 2.

Hab. Luzon (Philippine Islands).

41. PAPILIO BLUMEI, Boisduval. Tab. VI. fig. 4 (♂).

P. Blumei, Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 206.

Hab. Menado (Celebes) (Wall.). “Amboyna,” Bd., error of locality.

Remark.—This very fine species comes nearest to the last, but is of much larger size, and is conspicuous by its brilliantly coloured tails.

42. PAPILIO ARJUNA, Horsfield.

P. Arjuna, Horsf. Cat. Lep. E. I. Comp. pl. 1. f. 14; Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 209. P. Arjuna, var. a., Brit. Mus. Cat. of Papilionidæ, p. 17.

Hab. Java, Borneo, Sumatra (Wall.).

The Bornean form differs from that of Java by its larger size, and on the under surface by the three middle lunules being formed of a violet line only, with scarcely a trace of red beneath it, and by the orange-red lunules both at the anal and outer angles being divided (not margined) by a violet line. The scales sprinkled at the base of the lower wings are white and blue, and are neither so dense nor do they extend so far as the yellowish scales of the Java specimens. In all these particulars the Sumatra specimens are somewhat intermediate, but approach most to those of Borneo. This is one of the examples which show the isolation of Java, notwithstanding its proximity to Sumatra.

f. Memnon group.

(N.B. The Protenor group of India is intermediate between this and the last group.)

43. PAPILIO MEMNON, Linnæus. Tab. I. figs. 1 (♂), 2, 3, 4 (♀s).

♂, P. Memnon, L., Cram. Pap. Ex. t. 91. f. C (♂); Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 192.

♀, 1st dimorphic form, P. Anceus, Cr. Pap. Ex. t. 222. f. A, B.

? P. Laomedon, Cr. Pap. Ex. t. 50. f. A, B; De Haan, Verh. Nat. Gesch. p. 24, t. 3. f. 2.

♀, 2nd dimorphic form, P. Achates, Cr. Pap. Ex. t. 243. A.

Hab. Java, Sumatra (Wall.).

Local form a.—Male: border of posterior wings beneath narrow and of an ashy-blue colour.

Female: near P. Anceus, Cr., and P. Laomedon, Cr., but of an olive-ashy colour.

Hab. Borneo (Wall.).

Local form b.—Male: band on under side of posterior wings ashy; the spots large, with reddish-orange lunules between the two series, and below the four outer ones.

Hab. Lombock (Wall.).

Remarks.—The difference between the male and the 2nd form of female is so great, both in form and colouring, that they could not have been imagined to be the same, had they not been bred from the same larvæ. They have also been taken “in copulâ” by myself. Each form varies considerably, both individually and locally; yet there are none intermediate between the two. I consider them, therefore, as presenting a fine instance of dimorphism; and I also believe that the second form mimics P. Coon, for reasons which I have explained at p. 21.

44. PAPILIO ANDROGEUS, Cramer.

♂, P. Androgeus, Cr. Pap. Ex. t. 91. f. A, B.

♀, 1st dimorphic form, P. Agenor, L., Cr. Pap. Ex. t. 32. f. A, B.

♀, 2nd dimorphic form, P. Achates, Cr. Pap. Ex. t. 182. f. A, B; P. Alcanor, Cr. Pap. Ex. t. 166, f. A.

Hab. Malacca (Wall.), India.

Remarks.—Ever since it was discovered that the insects figured by the old authors as P. Anceus, P. Agenor, P. Achates, &c. were varying females of P. Memnon and P. Androgeus, the whole of these were very naturally concluded to belong to one varying species. An examination of many extensive collections, however, has convinced me that the continental forms, on the one hand, and the insular ones, on the other, can be readily distinguished, and really form two very well-marked species. The red lunules at the anal region beneath characterize all specimens from India (Androgeus, Cr.), while these are entirely absent in all the insular specimens (Memnon, Cr.); and the same characteristic difference can be traced in a greater or less degree throughout all the infinitely varying female specimens. My specimen from Malacca has a faint trace only on the upper surface of the characteristic red mark at the base of the anterior wings; in other respects it resembles the continental individuals. This form mimics the Indian form of P. Coon (P. Doubledayi, Wall.).

45. PAPILIO LAMPSACUS, Boisduval.

P. Lampsacus, Bd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 190; De Haan, Verh. Nat. Gesch. p. 23, t. 2. f. 2.

Hab. Java (♂) (Wall.).

46. PAPILIO PRIAPUS, Boisduval.

P. Priapus, Bd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 190; De Haan, Verh. Nat. Gesch. p. 23, t. 2. f. 1.

Hab. Java (Boisd.), Sumatra (Raffles), Borneo (De Haan).

47. PAPILIO EMALTHION, Hübner.

♂, Iliades Emalthion, Hübn. Samml. Exot. ii. t. 117; P. Emalthion, Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 196; P. Floridor, Godt. Enc. Méthod. ix. p. 809; P. Kruscusterina in Eschsch. Voy. Kotzebue, t. 3. f. 5.

♀, 1st form, P. Emalthion, Cat. of Lep. Brit. Mus. pl. 5. f. 4.

♀, 2nd form, P. Rumanzovia, Eschsch. Voy. Kotz. t. 2. f. 4; P. Descombesi, Boisd. Sp. Gén. p. 197; P. Floridor, ♀. Godt. Enc. Méth. ii. p. 809.

Hab. Philippine Islands.

Remarks.—I have no doubt whatever that we have here another case of dimorphism, and I therefore unhesitatingly place these supposed species under one name. The male of P. Emalthion very closely resembles the next species (P. Deiphontes), and the 2nd form of female (P. Rumanzovia, Eschsch.) as closely resembles the female of the same species; so that there can be no doubt that Godardt was right in describing them as the sexes of his P. Floridor. The female figured in the British Museum Catalogue is intermediate between these, but has more of the characters of the male; and it is to be remarked that both these forms of female have arrived in Europe accompanied by the same male. I am therefore obliged to reduce by one the hitherto received species of Philippine Papilios.

48. PAPILIO DEIPHONTES, n. s.

P. Deiphobus, var. A., Bd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 201.

♂. Above: exactly as in P. Deiphobus, but having a small tooth only in place of the tail, and the posterior band of a clear ashy blue.

Beneath: with the markings as in P. Emalthion, except that the red patch at the base of the upper wings is smaller.

♀. Also tailless, but resembling in markings the same sex of P. Deiphobus, the pale patch on the upper wings not extending into the discoidal cell.

Expanse of wings, ♂, 5½ inches; ♀, 5¾ inches.

Hab. Batchian, Gilolo, Ternate, Morty Isl. (Wall.).

49. PAPILIO DEIPHOBUS, Linnæus.

P. Deiphobus, L., Cramer, Pap. Ex. t. 181. f. A, B; Donovan, Ins. Ind. pl. 17. f. 2; Lucas, Lep. Ex. t. 11; Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 200.

♀, P. Alcandor, Cr. Pap. Ex. t. 40. f. A, B.

Hab. Ceram, Amboyna, Bouru (Wall.).

Remark.—A simple variety of both this and the last species frequently occurs, in which all the markings on the under side are ochre-yellow instead of red.

50. PAPILIO ASCALAPHUS, Boisduval.

P. Ascalaphus, Bd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 200 (♂); De Haan, Verh. Nat. Gesch. p. 26, t. 1. f. 2 (♀).

Hab. Menado, Macassar (Celebes), Sulla Isl. (Wall.).

51. PAPILIO ŒNOMAUS, Godardt.

P. Œnomaus, Godt. Encyc. Méth. ix. p. 72; Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 190; De Haan, Verh. Nat. Gesch. p. 24, t. 4. f. 1 (♂), 2 (♀).

Hab. Timor (♂, ♀) (Wall.).

Remark.—As has been already noticed (p. 22), the female of this species closely resembles P. Liris ♀, in company with which it was captured.

g. Helenus group.

52. PAPILIO SEVERUS, Cramer.

P. Severus, Cr. Pap. Ex. t. 227. f. A, B (♂), t. 278. f. A, B (♀); Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 212.

Hab. Bouru, Ceram, Amboyna, Gilolo, Batchian, Aru Isl. (Wall.).

Remarks.—This species exhibits a large amount of simple variation, in the presence or absence of a pale patch on the uppers, in the brown submarginal marks on the lower wings, in the form and extent of the yellow band, and in the size of the specimens. The most extreme forms, as well as the intermediate ones, are often found in one locality and in company with each other, indicating that over the above range continual intermixture probably takes place, and thus prevents any one form from becoming specialized in a restricted area. The two following modifications of it, however, have acquired perfect stability, each in a large island situated on the extreme limits of the species. I therefore consider them to be distinct, though the actual differences are but small.

53. PAPILIO PERTINAX, n. s. Tab. V. fig. 4 (♂).

Upper side: anterior wings rather more elongate and pointed than in P. Severus, dusky brown, with faint longitudinal rows of yellow scales in the cell, and with rather denser scales between the nervures beyond it; these are condensed into a narrow yellowish band parallel to the outer margin, and rather nearer to the cell than to it. Hind wings black, with three yellowish white subquadrate spots (the upper one smallest) situate between the outer angle and the discoidal nervule; beyond these and continued to the anal angle are a few very faint and minute groups of scales.

Under side as above, but the transverse band on the upper wings is whiter, and on the lower wings are seven submarginal brownish-yellow lunules, the middle ones least marked, and those at the outer and anal angles having above them a very small group of minute blue scales.

The female is paler-coloured, with the markings rather more diffused, and has on the under side an imperfect ocellus at the anal angle, a row of faint brown lunules extending to the three white spots, and two irregular lunules of blue atoms below those next the abdominal margin.

Expanse of wings, ♂, 4¼ inches; ♀, 5 inches.

Hab. Macassar (Celebes) (Wall.).

Remark.—This species was rather abundant near Macassar, in woody places, and was very constant in its markings and general aspect.

54. PAPILIO ALBINUS, n. s. Tab. V. fig. 5 (♂).

Wings broader than in P. Severus, costa less arched, tail smaller, and the caudal margin less produced.

Upper side: brown-black; anterior wings with very faint horizontal lines of yellowish scales in the cell; apical portion of the wing more thickly powdered between the nervures, the powdering fading away towards the outer angle. Posterior wings with a large yellowish-white patch, commencing close to the anterior margin, widening in the middle so as to cross the end of the cell, and ending in a triangle with prolonged apex at the abdominal margin; the outer edge of this spot is regularly angulated and scalloped; two very faint brown lunules occur next the anal angle; and the outer margin is rather broadly white-edged between the dentations.

Under side: the anterior wings have distinct greyish lines of scales between the nervures in the apical region; posterior wings not dotted with scales as in P. Severus, but with two or three single rows of scales in the cell only; the yellowish band consisting of a lunule next the upper margin, followed by three rhomboidal spots notched below, of which the middle one is the largest, then a roundish spot and a small horizontal mark; a row of seven submarginal lunules, of which the three middle ones are smallest and nearly obsolete, and that at the anal angle much the largest and, with the whitish marginal spot below it, forming an incomplete ocellus.

Expanse of wings 3½–3¾ inches.

Hab. New Guinea (♂) (Wall.).

55. PAPILIO PHESTUS, Guérin.

P. Phestus, Guér. Voyage de la Coquille, t. 14. f. 2; Bd. Voy. de l’Astrolabe, i. p. 41; Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 212.

Hab. New Guinea (Paris Museum).

56. PAPILIO HELENUS, Linnæus.

P. Helenus, L.; Cramer, Pap. Ex. t. 153. f. A, B; Lucas, Lep. Ex. t. 15. f. 2; Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 211.

Hab. China (“type,” Cramer’s figure).

Local form a. Has more falcate wings and longer tail; the red marks at the anal angle beneath are divided by a violet-white mark.

Hab. North India.

Local form b. Same form of wings as the last, but smaller; the third and fourth lunules from the anal angle beneath very small or quite absent.

Hab. Java, Sumatra (Wall.).

57. PAPILIO HECUBA, n. s. Tab. V. fig. 3 (♂).

Upper wings falcate, and their outer margin much hollowed out, as in many of the Celebes butterflies.

♂. Upper side: the outer half of the anterior wings of a fine cottony texture, as in P. Helenus, but more marked; the red lunule at the anal angle wanting; the rest as in P. Helenus.

Under side: the lunules and ocelli are ochre-yellow instead of deep red, the two outer ones very small, the third almost obsolete, and the next two absent; the anal ocellus is bordered with blue above, and adjoining it is a blue lunule in the place of the red one in P. Helenus.

♀. Upper side: of a browner colour; two orange-brown ocelli at the anal angle.

Under side: the lunules and ocelli all larger; the two intermediate ones entirely absent, as in the male.

Expanse of wings 5½–5¾ inches.

Hab. Macassar, Menado (Celebes) (Wall.).

58. PAPILIO ISWARA, White.

P. Iswara, White, Entom. 1842, p. 280; Doub. and Hew. Gen. of Diurn. Lep. pl. 2. f. 1 (♀).

Hab. Penang, Malacca, Singapore, Borneo (♂, ♀) (Wall.).

59. PAPILIO HYSTASPES, Felder.

P. Hystaspes, Feld. Lep. Nov. Philipp. p. 12.

Hab. Luzon (Philippines).

This is the Philippine form of P. Helenus.

60. PAPILIO ARASPES, Felder.

P. Araspes, Feld. Ent. Fragm. p. 17.

Hab. Philippine Islands.

This comes near to P. Iswara.

61. PAPILIO NEPHELUS, Boisduval.

P. Nephelus, Bd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 210; De Haan, Verh. Nat. Gesch. p. 29, t. 4. f. 4, ♂.

Hab. Malacca, Sumatra, Borneo (♂, ♀) (Wall.), Assam (Brit. Mus.).

h. Pammon group.

62. PAPILIO PAMMON, Linnæus. Tab. II. figs. 1 (♂), 3, 5, 6 (♀ ♀).

♂, P. Pammon, L.; Cram. Pap. Ex. t. 141. f. B; Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 272.

♀, P. Polytes, L.; Cram. Pap. Ex. t. 265. f. A, B, C.

Hab. Malacca, Singapore (Wall.), China, India, Ceylon.

The continental specimens of P. Pammon have all considerably developed tails in both sexes; the insular specimens on the other hand, (which I treat as a separate species), have only a prominent tooth or very short tail in the males. The females also differ considerably, presenting an analogous but distinct series of forms. In the true P. Pammon the males are very constant; but the females exist under three distinct forms, each of them presenting more or less numerous varieties, viz.:—

1st form of female. Tab. II. fig. 3.

This exactly resembles the male, except in the possession of a distinct ocellus at the anal angle on the upper surface. Rarely a variety occurs having in addition a submarginal row of red lunules, indicating a slight approximation towards some varieties of the second form.

2nd form of female (P. Polytes). Tab. II. fig. 5.

This is by far the most common form of female. A variety of this rarely occurs, which wants the red patch at the anal angle, and has the white patch formed of a row of spots all situated a little below the discoidal cell. This is the nearest approach to the first form.

3rd form of female (P. Romulus, Cram. Pap. Ex. t. 43. f. A; P. Mutius, Fab., Boisd. Sp. Gén. p. 270; P. Hector ♀, De Haan). Tab. II. fig. 6.

This not uncommon Indian butterfly I consider to be a third form of the female of P. Pammon. I was first led to suspect this by finding that no males of it are known (the male and female from Ceylon, noted in the British Museum List, I have ascertained to be both females), nor have I been able to find any after an examination of the chief collections in England. It is also to be observed that it has been received from no locality which is not also inhabited by P. Pammon; there is no other known Indian butterfly that can possibly be the other sex of it; and lastly, it agrees very closely with the second form of female (P. Polytes) in all its details of form, texture, and neuration; and though at first sight having a very different aspect, specimens are to be found which by a very slight modification could be changed so as to resemble that form. I am therefore quite satisfied in my own mind that I am right in sinking this species into a form of P. Pammon. I have already stated my opinion that it mimics P. Hector, with which, however, it has no affinity. The resemblance was such as to induce De Haan to place it as the female of that species.

63. PAPILIO THESEUS, Cramer. Tab. II. figs. 2, 4, 7 (♀ ♀).

P. Theseus, Cr. Pap. Ex. t. 180. f. B (♀); Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 276.

P. Antiphus ♀, De Haan, Verh. Nat. Gesch. p. 49, t. 8. f. 2; Brit. Mus. List. Pap. p. 12.

P. Polyphontes ♀, De Haan, Verh. Nat. Gesch. t. 8. f. 4.

P. Melanides, De Haan, Verh. Nat. Gesch. t. 8. f. 3 (♀).

Male like P. Pammon ♂, but smaller, and the tail always reduced to a projecting tooth.

Hab. Java, Sumatra, Borneo, Lombock, Timor (Wall.).

Local form a. Much larger; more falcate wings; a broad short tail.

Hab. Macassar (Wall.)

1st form of female. Tab. II. fig. 2.

Like the male, but with a very slightly marked blue and red ocellus at the anal angle. This is very rare in the islands. I found one specimen only in Timor, which I took “in copulâ” with a male almost exactly resembling it.

2nd form of female (P. Polyphontes ♀, De Haan). Tab. II. fig. 4.

Like the 2nd form of P. Pammon ♀; but has the pale portion of the anterior wing of a much lighter colour, and not extending so far towards the base of the wing; the white spot on the hind wings is more rounded, and has always a rather large portion within the cell. This form is to some extent local, not existing, I believe, in Sumatra, where it is replaced by the next.

Hab. Borneo, Java, Timor (Wall.).

3rd form of female (P. Theseus, Cr.; P. Antiphus ♀, De Haan). Tab. II. fig. 7.

This is well characterized by the entire absence of the white spot from the hind wings. The red spots and lunules remain; but in some specimens only those in the anal region are visible, and these have a very close resemblance to P. Antiphus. This is also a local form, not occurring, I believe, in company with the last.

Hab. Sumatra, Lombock (Wall.).

4th form of female (P. Melanides, De Haan, Verh. Nat. Gesch. t. 8. f. 3).

I consider this to be an isolated modification of P. Theseus, Cr., peculiar to Borneo. It possesses all the characteristics of a female of this species.

Hab. Banjarmassing (Borneo) (Leyden Museum).

N.B. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th forms of ♀ are all tailed, as in the females of P. Pammon.

64. PAPILIO ALPHENOR, Cramer.

P. Alphenor, Cr. Pap. Ex. t. 90. f. B (♀); Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 274 (♂, ♀); P. Ledebouria, Eschsch. Voy. Kotz. t. 3. f. 7.

This is very closely allied to P. Theseus. The male is larger, has the caudal tooth scarcely perceptible, and on the under side has white instead of red marginal lunules. The female is tailed, much larger than P. Theseus ♀ form 2nd, from which it further differs by the white patch on the hind wings having the red markings blended with it, and more prominent.

Hab. Celebes, Bouru, Amboyna, Ceram (Wall.), Philippine Islands.

1st form of female (P. Ledebouria, Eschsch.).

Like the male, but with a brown tinge and an obscure anal lunule. This has been noticed only in the Philippine Islands.

2nd form of female (P. Alphenor, Cr.).

Distribution the same as the male.

3rd form of female (P. Elyros, G. R. Gray, B. M. List Pap. p. 26).

The white patch on the lower wings reduced to a small spot, or quite absent. There are many varieties of this, showing very instructively how such isolated forms of female as occur in the two preceding species may have been produced by simple variation followed by a “natural selection” of the forms best adapted to special conditions.

Hab. Philippine Islands (B. M.)

65. PAPILIO NICANOR, Felder, ‘Voyage of the Novara,’ pl. ... f. c, d.

Male. Upper side:—like P. Alphenor ♂; but the band of white spots is broader and more regular, and there is a row of four white submarginal lunules.

Under side as in P. Alphenor; but the marginal spots of the upper wings, and the submarginal lunules of the lower wings, are larger and more distinct.

Female quite tailless, like the male. Upper side:—like P. Alphenor ♀; but the rufous anal spots are much smaller, not forming an ocellus at the anal angle, and they do not join the white central patch.

Under side, differs from P. Alphenor in nearly the same manner as on the upper side.

Hab. Batchian, Gilolo, Morty Island (Wall.).

Remarks.—The absence of tails in the female, and the white submarginal lunules in the male, distinguish this at a glance from all its allies. It has a comparatively restricted range, and is very constant in both sexes. The plate sent me by Dr. Felder is not numbered.

66. PAPILIO HIPPONOUS, Felder.

Footnote 14:

Having obtained a specimen of this insect while these sheets are passing through the press, I find that it should have been placed next to P. Severus.

P. Hipponous, Feld. Lep. Nov. Philipp. p. 12; P. Dironus, B. M. List (no description).

Hab. Luzon, Mindanao (Philippines).

67. PAPILIO AMBRAX, Boisduval.

P. Ambrax, Bd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 218; Voy. au Pôle Sud, Lép. t. 1. f. 3, 4 (♂); De Haan, Verh. Nat. Gesch. t. 7. f. 2 (♀). P. Orophanes, Boisd. Sp. Gén. p. 275 (♀).

Hab. Mysol, Salwatty, Dorey (Wall.).

Remark.—I believe that two, if not three, well-marked forms or species have been mixed up under the name of P. Ambrax, as I have endeavoured to show by the references. My specimens of the two sexes of each show a uniformity of character in each locality.

68. PAPILIO AMBRACIA, Wallace.

P. Ambrax, Bd.; De Haan, Verh. Nat. Gesch. t. 7. f. 1 (♂).

Male. Differs from P. Ambrax, Bd., by the ashy-white patch at the apex of the anterior wings.

Female. Has a large, roundish, white patch on the anterior wings, extending from the discoidal cell to the hinder angle. The red lunules on the hind wings are smaller. Same size as P. Ambrax.

Hab. Waigiou (♂, ♀) (Wall.).

69. PAPILIO EPIRUS, n. s.

Male. Above:—anterior wings as in P. Ambrax; posterior wings more elongate, the white band much narrower, notched behind at the nervures, with the portions between regularly rounded; the part which crosses the cell is cut by black nervures, and there is an oblique red mark at the anal angle.

Beneath:—with a submarginal of seven lunules on the hinder wings, the one above the anal angle very large; whereas the last two species have one small lunule only beneath, at the anal angle.

Female. Is probably that figured in ‘Voy. au Pôle Sud,’ Lép. t. 1, f. 5, which resembles most the female of P. Ambracia, but differs in the form of the white and red patches. It is said to be from “the coasts of New Guinea”; but as the expedition touched at the Aru Islands, it is very probable that there is an error of locality, as I have ascertained to be very often the case in the indications furnished by these and other ‘Voyages.’

Hab. Aru Islands (Wall.).

70. PAPILIO DUNALI, Montrouzier.

P. Dunali, Mont. Ann. Soc. d’Agricult. de Lyon, 1856, p. 394.

Hab. Woodlark Island (S.E. of New Guinea).

Remark.—This seems closely allied to the last species.

i. Erectheus group.

71. PAPILIO ORMENUS, Guérin. Tab. III. figs. 2 (♂), 1, 3, 4 (♀ ♀).

P. Ormenus, Guér. Voy. de la Coquille, pl. 14. f. 3; Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 211.

P. Erectheus, var., Voy. au Pôle Sud, Lép. t. 1. f. 1, 2.

P. Amanga, Boisd. Sp. Gén. p. 216, ♀ (P. Onesimus, Hew. Ex. Butt. Pap. iii. f. 8).

Hab. Waigiou, Aru Isl., Ké Isl., Matabello and Goram Isl. (Wall.).

This belongs to a remarkable group of Papilios inhabiting the Austro-Malayan region, and which are especially interesting as exhibiting a good instance of polymorphism, the females being of two or three distinct forms.

The male in this species is characterized by the small amount of marking on the under surface.

1st form of female. Tab. III. fig. 1.

Almost exactly intermediate between the male and the normal female, which resembles P. Erectheus ♀.

Upper side brown-black; a band of four whitish-yellow spots across the anterior wings beyond the cell, the upper one of the same size and position as in the male, the 2nd and 3rd elongated towards the cell, the 4th rather shorter than the 3rd, and immediately beneath it. Posterior wings with a central patch of a pale sulphur-yellow just crossing the end of the cell, and separated below into five truncate lobes; below this, and next the anal margin, are two irregular blue lunules, with a red lunule at the anal angle and a smaller one lower down beneath the second blue lunule.

Under side as above; on the hind wings the upper half of the yellow patch is dusky, and there is a complete submarginal series of seven red lunules.

Hab. Waigiou (a single specimen) (Wall.).

2nd form of female. Tab. III. fig. 3.

Resembles very closely P. Erectheus ♀; but the white patch on the hind wings does not cover so much of the cell, and the two middle lobes are much elongated posteriorly, and separated by wedge-shaped spaces; the blue lunules are but slightly marked, and do not exceed two in number.

Under side:—differs from P. Erectheus in the white patch never reaching the anterior margin of the hind wings. In a specimen from Waigiou, the four middle lunules are nearly white. This may be considered the typical form of female, as it occurs everywhere in company with the male.

3rd form of female (Amanga, Bd.). Tab. III. fig. 4.

I have three specimens of this form from three of the localities in which the male occurs. They differ slightly from each other, but agree generally with the figure and description above quoted. An allied form of female (of the next species) was observed closely followed by two males of the ordinary form; they were watched for some time, the males hovering over the females in the manner usual before pairing; and the three were then captured at one stroke of the net. This occurred three years after the capture of the specimen figured by Mr. Hewitson, and at once convinced me that these puzzling specimens were an additional form of female to a well-known male. The fact that the only females known of an allied species (P. Tydeus) are intermediate between these forms confirms this determination.

Hab. Aru Island, Mysol, Goram Isl. (Wall.)

72. PAPILIO PANDION, n. s.

Male. Closely resembles P. Ormenus, but presents the following differences:—

Upper side:—the band of spots across the fore wings is faintly marked, or more frequently quite absent; the grey lines bordering the nervures at the apex are more distinct; on the hind wings, the first three indentations of the whitish patch are followed by faint powdered lunules of the same colour.

Under side:—the apex of the fore wings is strongly marked with grey lines between the nervures, but has generally no spots; on the hind wings there is a curved submarginal band of lunules across the wing, viz., at the anal angle a large irregular red lunulate spot with a blue and a grey mark above it—2nd, a larger grey lunule with an angular blue mark below it, and a red lunule nearer the margin—3rd, a similar grey lunule and blue mark—4th, a larger grey lunule, and a smaller blue mark with a faint red lunule below—5th, a grey lunule and a faint blue dash below—6th, a blue lunule with a faint grey mark above—7th, a blue lunule with a very faint mark above it. These vary somewhat in different specimens, but the whole series can always be traced.

1st form of female.

Scarcely distinguishable from the typical female of the last species: the blue lunules on the under surface form a complete series, almost as in P. Erectheus ♀.

Hab. New Guinea, Salwatty, Mysol Island (with the male) (Wall.).

2nd form of female.

Upper surface:—fore wings as in P. Onesimus, Hew.; hind wings yellowish-white, a broad black border along the anterior, and a narrow one along the posterior margin, two yellowish lunules near the outer angle, anal angle pale yellow, then an oblong black spot with a bluish mark in its upper part, followed by a second (half-obliterated) black spot.

Under surface with the same markings; but there are a series of six blue angulated marks upon a black ground, the two intermediate ones being smaller and less distinct. Abdomen yellow; under side black.

Hab. Dorey (New Guinea) (Wall.)

Remarks.—This specimen was taken in company with two males, as before mentioned. An insect, described by M. Montrouzier as the female of his P. Godartii (from Woodlark Island), agrees very closely with this, and is no doubt the female of the same species, or a closely allied one which he puts in his list as P. Ormenus. The fact, therefore, that this peculiar pale form of female Papilio has been found in five islands, from no one of which is a male insect known which can be mated with it, except those of the Ormenus-form (which always occur in the same places), may, in conjunction with the observation already given of the companionship of the two forms, be taken to prove that this is really a case of polymorphism. I believe also it will be found that these extreme departures from the typical form of a species are connected with mimetic resemblances and the safety of the individuals. We have already seen that the extreme forms of P. Memnon ♀ and P. Pammon ♀ respectively resemble other species which from their habits and abundance seem to have some peculiar immunity from danger. In this case also there is a resemblance to quite a different family of butterflies, the Morphidæ. In form, coloration, and general appearance these pale-coloured Papilios resemble species of the genus Drusilla; and the same genus is also imitated by other butterflies—one of these, Melanitis Agondas ♀, having been actually confounded with Drusilla bioculata as the same species, so great is the resemblance. This fact of species of several genera imitating the Drusillas would indicate that they have some special immunities which make it advantageous to other insects to be mistaken for them; and their habits confirm this opinion. They have all a very similar style of dress, and fly very slowly, low down in damp woods, often settling on the ground or on rotten wood; and they are exceedingly abundant in individuals. Now these are the general characteristics of all groups which are the subjects of imitation; and we may therefore presume, when we see forms departing widely from the general appearance of their close relations, and resembling closely other groups with which they have no affinity, that what we must call accidental variations have been accumulated and rendered definite by natural selection for the protection and benefit of those forms.

73. PAPILIO TYDEUS, Felder. Tab. IV. figs. 3 (♂), 2 (♀).

P. Tydeus, Feld. Lep. Fragm. p. 52 (♂).

Female.—Upper side dusky brown; fore wings with the central portion below the cell nearly white; hind wings with the basal two-thirds white, with an irregular and obtusely dentated margin, and edged with ochre-yellow; the rest black, with a submarginal row of seven broad yellowish lunules, and above those nearest the anal angle three irregular blue patches.

Under side nearly as above; the white space on the upper wings is more extensive and better defined; the marginal lunules are dilated so as to form a crenellated band, and the blue marks are increased to six or seven in number. Head and thorax dusky; abdomen yellowish.

Hab. Batchian, Morty Island (Wall.).

Remark.—The female, which seems to be of only one form in this species, is especially interesting as being allied to the pale-yellow form of P. Ormenus and P. Pandion.

74. PAPILIO ADRASTUS, n. s. Tab. IV. fig. 1 (♀).

Male.—Upper side, like P. Ormenus ♂; but has the band of the hind wings narrower, not crossing the cell, and more pointed towards the anal angle.

Under side with a single red anal spot, and three blue lunules beyond it.

Female.—Upper side brown-black; anterior wings with the apical half browner, a whitish patch around the end of the cell, and an ovate spot within it; posterior wings with a small central whitish patch more or less tinged with ochreous; a submarginal row of very large deep-red lunules, that at the anal angle forming an irregular ocellus bordered above with pale blue, and a few blue atoms on the side of it. Indentations of all the wings broadly margined with ochreous.

Under side:—the white patch of the anterior wings larger and well defined, and continued by smaller and fainter patches to the outer angle; posterior wings with the small central patch and marginal lunules as above, with the addition of a faint row of angulated blue marks between them.

Wings elongated posteriorly, and somewhat angulated at the termination of the first median nervure.

Expanse of wings, ♂, 5¼ inches; ♀, 6 inches.

Hab. Banda Island (Wall.).

Remarks.—This species is near P. Ormenus in the male, but approaches P. Gambrisius in the female, which differs from all others in this group by its dark colouring and the short narrow band on the hind wings. A male and two females were obtained in the small island of Banda.

75. PAPILIO GAMBRISIUS, Cramer.

P. Gambrisius, Cr. Pap. Ex. t. 157. f. A, B (♂); Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 213.

P. Drusius, Cr. Pap. Ex. t. 229. f. A, t. 230. f. A (♀); Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 218.

Hab. Amboyna, Ceram, Bouru (Wall.).

Remarks.—The males of this fine species are not uncommon in Ceram, and in hot weather come down to the beach and settle on the wet sand. The females, however, are very rare; I obtained one in the mountainous forests of Ceram, and this is, I believe, the only fine and perfect specimen now in Europe.

Expanse of male 5½–6½ inches, of female 7 inches.

76. PAPILIO AMPHITRION, Cramer.

P. Amphitrion, Cr. Pap. Ex. t. 7 f. A, B; Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 217.

Hab. Celebes?

Remarks.—The habitat of this rare species is doubtful. Cramer says, “America;” Godart, “Amboyna;” but I believe its true locality will be found to be Celebes. It forms a transition to the next species.

77. PAPILIO EUCHENOR, Guérin.

P. Euchenor, Guér. Voy. de la Coquille, t. 13. f. 3 (♂); P. Axion, Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 46 (♂).

Female.—Similar to the male; but the markings are all of a dull ochre-yellow, and the second and third spots, reckoning from the inner margin of the upper wings, are almost entirely wanting. This sex is much rarer than the male.

Hab. New Guinea, Aru Island, Ké Island (Wall.).

78. PAPILIO GODARTII, Montrouzier.

P. Godartii, Montr. Ann. Soc. d’Agric. de Lyon, 1856, p. 394.

Hab. Woodlark Island.

Remark.—Closely allied to the last; perhaps a variation only.

k. Demolion group.

79. PAPILIO DEMOLION, Cramer.

P. Demolion, Cr. Pap. Ex. t. 89. f. A, B; P. Cresphontes, Fabr.; Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 220.

Hab. Java, Borneo, Sumatra, Singapore (Wall.), Moulmein (Brit. Mus.).

80. PAPILIO GIGON, n. s. Tab. VII. fig. 6 (♀).

“P. Gigon,” List of Papilionidæ in Brit. Mus. p. 27 (no description).

Much larger than P. Demolion; costal margin of the fore wings very much arched from the base; tail proportionally shorter.

Upper side:—markings as in P. Demolion, with the following differences. In the cell of the fore wings are four longitudinal curved greyish-yellow lines; the yellow band begins higher on the abdominal margin, and curves outward toward the tip, where the spots are obliquely elongate, and the three last distinctly notched; on the hind wings the lunulate spots are much deeper and are rather further from the margin, and the two spots at the outer angle (often obsolete in P. Demolion) are large and well marked.

Under side:—the markings resemble those of P. Demolion, but are stronger; the band of silvery spots is much more sinuate, and possesses an additional lunule above the outer angle; a patch of ochre-yellow covers the lower margin of the cell, extending a little along the nervures which radiate from it.

Abdomen blackish, with numerous stripes and spots of pale yellow.

Expanse of wings 4¾ to 5⅓ inches.

Hab. Celebes, Sulla Island (Wall.).

Remark.—This was regarded by Boisduval as a large variety of P. Demolion (see Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 221); but it offers remarkable differences both in form and markings.

l. Erithonius group.

81. PAPILIO ERITHONIUS, Cramer.

P. Erithonius, Cr. Pap. Ex. t. 232. f. A, B.

P. Epius, Fabr.; Don. Ins. China, pl. 29. f. 2; Boisd. Sp. Gén. Lép. p. 238.

Hab. India, China (type).

Local form a (Malayanus).—The two spots on the lower margin of the cell of the hind wings wanting; anal spots redder, and the ocellus at the outer angle darker: two spots in cell of fore wings, as in the type; but in Flores specimens these approach so as almost to unite.

Hab. Singapore, Flores (Wall.), Manilla.

Local form b (Sthenelus, Macleay).—A single large spot in the cell of the fore wings; one small detached spot on the margin of the cell of the hind wings.

Hab. Goram Island (Wall.), Australia.