ON MIMTCKY IN '1111<
330
G&NUS IIYPOLTMNAS.
On Mimicry in Butterflies of t h e Genus Hypolinznas.
By Colonel C'KA~LLESQWINIIOE, F.L.S., F.Z.Y.
[Read i l h November, 1695.1
(PLATE\XV -XVII.)
AFTERstudying and tliitil~iiigo w r t h e general theory of Protective Mimicry as descrilied in t h e worli.; of Bates *, TVal1,ice f-,
Trimen $, Fritz Muller $, blelclola 11, Poulton 7 , and others, i t
occurred to me that the bubject would be advanced by the special
study of a small group of wide-spread mimetic species throughout
the differeut countries included in its range.
The Bolina group of the nymphalid genus Hypolinznas or
Diadema contaius, according t o systematists, a number of species.
When, however, we look at t h e group from a biological point of
view, we find t h a t all t h e w can be merged i n t w o distinct species
-Hypolimnas misippus (Liiin.) and Hypolinmns bolina (Linu.).
These I selected for my purpose.
It is first of all necesstry to gaiu a conception of t h e appearance presented by these species before tlie mimetic form was
assumed. This we find to be still retained by t h e male of
H. misz@pus, wliicli is invariably non-mimetic, aud that of
If. bolina, which is non-iiiitiietic in India and in certain other
localities which will be iiieiitioned further on. Occasioiially
t h e females also revert t o t h e ancestral pattern and resemble
the black males. The iion-mimetic inales are very similar in
appearauce, while their mimetic feinales differ widely. A c o n parison shows that t h e niale of H. misippus is smaller than
H. bolina, and t h a t t h e large whitish spot on t h e upperside
of each wing is larger, rounder, and bears very little trace of
t h e blue colour which is NI conspicuous in €I.boliiza ; while the
underside has a reddisli liuc not present in t h e latter. O n
the wing, t h e male of H . misz'ppcs is a f:u more active insect ; it
is a moet pugnacious butterfly, pel-clring on t h e tops of bushes
and darting forward t o attack ally other butterfly tliat may fly
past ; but I h a r e found that mhcn crippled and p u t at liberty
*
t
0
11
Trans. Linn. Soc. xniii. 13. 405.
Ibid. xxv. 13. 19.
Proc. Ent. SOC. Lolid. 1879, p. 20.
Ann. & Mag. Nnt. IIist., Dee. 1682.
Proc. Zool. Soc., Marcli 1887.
1,INN. JUURii.--ZOOLOCil,
\ O L X\V.
$ Ibid. xxvi. p. 497.
29
340
COL. C. S W I N K O E O N MIMICRY I N BUTTERFLIEB
i t speedily falls a prey t o the first bird that sees it. I n consequence of these fighting propensitie3 the wings often become
battered and torn, although apparently without greatly diminishing the activity of the insect. I have removed half the total
wing-surface on one side with a pair of scissors, but the powers
of flight did not seem to be much impaired. On two occasious,
on Cuuiballa Hill in Bombay, I entirely removed both wings
from one side and placed the insect in an exposed situation. On
the first occasion one was eaten by a crow, and on the second by
a N i n a ; and in neither case did the birds manifest any hesitation in attacking the butter0y. It is fair to conclude from these
observations that the species is not distasteful.
The female of A; misippus however, except as a very rare
variety which resembles the male in appearance, always mimics the
commonest of all the DanainE, i. e. Danais chryskpus (Linn.),
PI. XV. fig. 2, which is common all over India, Burma, Ceylon,
the Malay Arcliipelago, Madagascar, Aden, and the West, South,
and South-easteru coasts of Africa, but apparently not the
interior : in all these localities Hypolimias rnis@pus also existe,
the female being of the Danais colour and pattern (see fig. 1);
and where Danais chrysippus does not exist, Hypolimn.as naisippzcs
is not to be found *.
I n Africa D. c?wys+pus is of a dull bronzy red, and not nearly
so brightly coloured as it is in Asia ; and similarly the females of
N.naisippus in Africa are dull bronzy red, \Thereas in Asia they
are brightly coloureti.
In Africa and a t Aden there are several forms of Danais
chrys@pus--some without the while-banded black apical patch to
the fore wings (D.dorippus, Klug), fig. 4 ; some possessing
this marking, but characterized by white hind wings (D.alcippus,
Cram.), fig. 6 ; and also others with the D. dorippus pattern
and white hind wings. All these forms are mimicked in their
several localities by the females of H. misippus : compare fig. 4
with 3, and 6 with 5.
I n India the form of female Hypolimnas which mimics Danais
dor+pus (without the black and white apical patch) is also
* Distant, in Rhop. Malay. p. 168,states :-‘‘ This species (H. misippus) in its
female sex affords one of the best and strongest examples of ‘mimicry,’ i t being
D true and startling mimic of Dniiais chrysajyus, a protected species which is
found with it in its different habitats, exrluding America, where, however, it is
evidently un introduced species.”
OF T H E GENUS HYPOLIMNAS.
341
fouud: it is not nearly so frequently met with as the mimic of
tlie true D.chrysippus, b u t i t is not uncommon, being occasionally
found nearly all over Iudt:~. So far as I am aware, the particular
form of' tlie chrys+pus group (D.dor+pus, Klug) which it
mimics had never been recorded from I n d i a ; and it struck me
as extraordinar)* t h a t wc should fiud in India t h e mimic of a
protected insect which is n u t a n inhabitaiit ot the same countries.
, l
1he two forms of protccted iirsects a r e exactly alike on the wing ;
and as no one collects the coininon D.chrysippus, I could not
b u t believe that t h e esp1;~iiatiunof t h e apparent aiioinaly lay in
t h e fact t h a t D.dorippus had becu overlooked. I n order to test
this conclusion, I engaged two rintive collectors for three months
to catch nothing b u t D. chi-yslppus. 1 t h u s obtaiueil, as may be
imagined, many tliousnutls, :~iid t h e experiment was most BUCoessful, because among9t tbcm I obtained no fewer thau twelve
individuals of D.durippus. This was iu Bombay i n 1883 ; i n
t h e following year, n~hciiiu Karachi, in Sind, I obtained three
examples, and Ma,jor P c i b u r y s e n t inta two from the Punjab.
From t h e circumstance tlint t h e dorippus form of Kypolimnas
m i s k p u s is not uncomtiioii, while the same form of t h e Dnnnis iu
comparatively rare, I am iiiclinetl to bc-lieve that t h e latter is
dying out iii India, and is bciiig replaced by D.chrysippzis, and
t h a t t h e mimetic form has actually outlahted the form i t hau
mimicked. It inust bc retneuibered, however, t h a t tlie reseniblance of t h e dorippus form of the I<ypoZinznas to the typical
Dnnais chrysippus is sufficientlp striking to nft'ord considerable
protection; aud hence iinttiral selection would only cause a very
gradual returu to t h e othcr form, on mhicli we must believe t h a t
still greater immunity is r~ouferred.
I n the specks I€. bo7ina (Li~ln.) as me fiiid i t i n Asia, t h e
female only is mimetic, tlic iiiale in all localities being of
t h e normal form ; in India t h e female uiii\ersally mimics
the coniinon protected butterfly Biiplcea core of Cramer. Tile
typical 3.core does not range very far s o u t l ~ ,one or tbvo
have been taken in Blergtii, but there is no rccorcl of its more
southern cstension, its plnct: beiiq taken by other coinnioii bla&
E u p h a s of somewhat similar pattern. W e find accordingly that
H. bolina varies so as t o rrsemble all the coinmon E u p l e a s of
t h e different islands of the Malay Archipelago.
The Ainboiiia form of H. boliiza mimics E. clintena, Cram.
I n Sumatra it is lrnomn as Hypolintitas nnontala, and mimics
29*
342
COL. C. SWINIIOE ON M I M I C R Y I N RUTTEBFLIES
Isasnniia ( E u p l ~ a singapum,
)
Moore. I n Ki. Island, under the
name of Hypolimims polymena (Pl. XVI. fig. 2), they mimic
EuplEas with broad whitish borders to tlie uppersides of the
wings (Pl. XVI. fig. I), a form of pattern common among the
E u p h a s in this island. I have no fewer than three well-defined
subgenera of E u p l ~ a swith such broad white borders from K6
Islaud-Cnlliplax
Hopfei*i, Felcler (fig. l), Chirosa eurypon,
Hewitson, and Hirdayra fraterna, Felder, all possessing wellmarked sexual subgeneric distinctive characters.
From t h e Solomon group I have examples from two idands :
in Maleita Island both sexes a r e mimetic, the male (fig. 3)
and female (fig. 5) of the Hypoliiiznns known as Hypolinznns
scopas respectively mimiclring tlie correspoudiug sexes of Euylcen
pyryion (male fig. 4, female fig. 6). This is a very interestiug
example, because the differences between the two s e x e ~are fairly
distinctive and cniist:iiit. In aiiother island of this group both
sexes (PI. XVLI. fig. 1) iiririiic E q i l ~ ~pol!/mena
a
(fig. 2). 111
this case no local naiiie, so h r as I know, has yet bcen bcstowcd
upon t h e Hypolinzizns.
In the Fi,jis t h e inale of the local unnamed form of H. bolina
is uormal in appearauce, b u t thc femalcs occur in many varieties,
aiid seem t o exhibit a regular gradatiun from an appearance like
that of the normal male to brown, aud from broxn to yellow
and white, as if the mimetic resemblaiice \{as still in a state of
transition. I n A1ew-s. Godman and SAIL
in's fine collection there
are upwsrds of sixty vatieties of the fcwali., and on t h e table are
upw:irds of se\ enty csamplc s from my o\\ n collection showing
niiiiiy varieties; and this is the o d y iustniice 1 hake found of
any local vnriatiun in I h c mimetic forms of this species. The
oiily tF7o Eupla"ns I h a r e seen from the Fijis are E. TVhltllZ~i
(Butler) aiid E. maryoensis (Butler), t h e first from Lifu Island
~ n dthe secoiid from Margo. These a r e dark X u p l ~ a sand
rweinble tlio dark forms of the f e d e bolrna. B u t we know
very little about the Fijian Lepidoptern, and there may very
meell be other E'uplm~scorrespondiug to other forms of the
feiultle Hypolimncis inhabiting tlie same locality.
In iiinuy of'tlie Southern Ialands H. holinn i n its typical form
is found with femalos inimicl~ing red foriris of Danais ; I have
esaniples from Celebes, KB I s l m d , Alu, New Britain, a n d also
from K o r t h Australia. The Celebes female called H. nerina,
Felder, is a fair iiiiniic of' Uanais chion&pe, Htibu., also found in
t h e sitme locality; there are probably other similar forms of
O F 'I 111: ( * E N D S I L Y P O L I I I X ~ S .
343
red Bnlzais in these id:m(ls. Thc mimic is hcre much lnrqcr
t h a n t h e miniicked. Tliis is the only case I liiiom of, i n whicah
this species of Rypolimnns mimics n red insect and thus p i n s
itself it considerable patcli of tliis colour.
N e s t we t u r n to Africa, a i d we invariably find tlint both ceycs
of what we may fairly call th(b hf'ricnii forms of I I y p o Z h n g s
bolina miniic various slw%s of Daiinine, the normal f (iriii
of t h e male having eirtirely tlihappcwed. lIrnw, from tlie
systematist's point of vicw, t h e spwific characters Iiaviiig breii
lost in both seses, they bear :IS iiiany hpecific iiaiiies :is there :ire
local forms mimicking t h e :iccompan~ingq ) w i e s of Dannis.
I n quest of these iiiiirictic form-, 1 senrclicd tlirough Mr.
Crowley's magnificeut collection of African butterflicx at Croydon, where I fouud very iiiaiiy cxauiples, frotii M liicli I selectcd
three. I n every localit! \\here tlie foriiis occur, tlic iiiiuiiLry
seems to b e remarliahly perfect, b u t therc a r e local peculiarities
io t h e patterns of both iirimic :iiid iiiiiuiclred in inany place*.
The localities a r e as widcly acparated aq Katal in tlic South-e'ist,
and t h e Camerooiis i n the \Vest of Africa.
IIypoZinwins mniyinalis (PI. XVII.
From Natal, I have obti~itie~l
fig. 3 ) , which mimics Bmnuris donzi~iicn~zrts
(fig. 4). From Grahamstown, X.minn miruicl~iiigA . e c h r i n ; from t i i r Cniiierooui,
H. dubia (fig. 5 ) iniiiiichiiig A . egialea (fig. 6).
CONCLUSIONS.
Having t h u s brought together all t h e tict.; I have come aci'oss
and those which have bccn previously publishcl, i t remains t o
ascertain their bearing upoil tlic theory of mimicry, for t l i i ~
theory has never beeri su1)jectecl to t h e evidence derived frotii
the systematic study of :i sinall group of wide-ranging, miiiietic
insects, carefully traced througli all t h e localities included in tlieir
range. This has, however, been done for tlie Papilio nzerope
group, so admirably worlicd out by Roland Trimen (Trans. Liiiii.
SOC.xsvi. 11. 497, and Soiitl1-~4fricnnButterflies, rol. iii. lh80,
pp. 243-55), b u t t h e l o t d raiige of these butterflies is far more
limited and t h e a u m h c r of (liferent forms inuch smaller than I S
tlie case with the ~ y p o i z i m t r sgroup.
B e a ~ i n gupon general Theory of Jlinzicry.
I n t h e first place, b e End the stroiigrst snpport t o the general
theory of mimicry as originally suggested by I€. W. Bate3. The
344
COL. C. BITINHOE ON MIMICRY IN BUTTERFLIEB
varied changes which occur are explained by this theory, and by
n o other yet propounded. W h e n we trace Hypolinzms bolina
from India into Amboina, Sumatra, KQ Island, t w o islnnds of
t h e Solomon group, Fiji, Celebes, and various part of Africa, we
meet with a different form i n each locality, n form which from
t h e biological standpoint may b e called t h e Hypolimnns bolilza
of t h e locality. That local changes should occur may be intrlligible i n many theories, but t h a t they should invariably be in
the direction of a superficial reseniblance to one butterfly (or in
some cases two or more distantly related butterflies) o u t of
the numerous and varied Rhopalocerous fauna of each locality,
and t h a t one a specially defended species, well known and
avoided b y insect-eating animals, is only to be explained by the
theory of mimicry,-by t h e advantages conferred by relatively
greater resemblance having acted as a sclcctive test during all
t h e htages of development. The theory of mimicry has received
much support by the investigations which ha-ie been carried 011
since Bates propounded it in 1862, b u t I believe t h a t no evidence
i s so complete and convincing as thnt supplied by t h e genus
Hypolimmas.
Bearilzg zcpon the special liability of female to mimetic
reseniblanws.
The facts also bear in an interesting manner upon the details
Thus the observation that
females are more liable to be defended by mimicry than males,
and its explanation (suggested by A. R. Wallace), as due to their
‘6 slower flight when laden with eggs, and their exposure to attack
while in t h e act of depositing their eggs upon the leaves,”
receives f u r t h e r support and coiifirmation. Among the numerous f o r m s of both the nzisippus and b o l i m group, we meet with
n o case in which the male is mimetic while the female is nonmimetic : t h e male of nzisippus is peculiarly active on the wing,
and being able t o defend itself in this way, is never mimetic;
the inale of the less active bolina affords a beautiful transition
from the condition met with in misippus to a mimicry as complete
as that of t h e female. I n this respect the group is f a r more
interesting than that of P. merope, i n which t h e males ar0 never
mimetic.
as well as upon t h e general theory.
O F THE GENUS HYPOLIMNAS.
845
T h e ancestral non-mimetic f o r m front which the niinaetic varieties
have been derived : various phases of development of mimicry.
The ancestral form of both groups is preserved in the closely
similar non-mimetic indeu, and t h e rare cases of reversion to the
same type exhibited by the females. B u t t h e beautiful evideiicc
supplied b y t h e existence of t h e auccatrnl nou-mimetic fort11 of'
both sexes i n certain i h i d s is mnnting here, although SO ~ c l l
seen in t h e merope group.
The most ancestral form described in this paper is probably
t h e Fijian bolina, i n which tho feniales exhibit a transition from
non-mimetic t o mimetic forms ; then mould follow t h e Indian
bolina, in which t h e feirialc is not a very perfect ininiic of'
E u p l E a core, and still retainr traces of the blue spots 80 characteristic of the non-mimetic males, culminating in t h e Celebes
form, in which t h e mimicry of the female is fairly complete mid
has entailed a more marked divergence from t h e normal type
than any other forrn in this group : a t this stage misippus must
be placed, with its non-mimetic inale and feinales with extreiuely
perfect and detailed mimicry. We finally reach t h e climax of
change in those island forms of bo7ina iii which the males also
are mimetic, and iu Africa, where no inore ancestral phase is a t
present known.
Bearing upon mimetic ? m e n dIance t o dLferent species in one
locality.
The well-liiio\on mimetic resemblance t o two or more very
differentl! coloured species of dibtastef'ul iusectu in the same
locality is not well exemplified, alt1iough i t appears probable t h a t
some varieties of t h e fetiinles from Fiji bear this interpretatlon,
which may also in part esplaiu the occurrence of all three
varieties of the female wiisipps a t hcleu, where t h e three corresponding forms of D m o i s are also found (Liz. chrysippus, alcippus, and d o r k p u s ) . B u t here, too, we meet with nothing t h a t
approaclies t h e conditiou of some species of the merope group of
the S.-African Pccpilio cenea f'or example, in 11 hich four torins of
t h e female respectively miiriic sucli differently coloured species
as Danais chrysippus, h n a u r ~ donii&canus,
s
aiid two varieties of
Ainauris echeria, tlius \rirlening the area of possible mistake 80
far that the mimetic specics can become comparatively numerous
without the risk of extcmiination.
346
COL. C. ZjWINIIOE ON M I M I C R Y I N B
Diferent conditions uizder zuJiich mimicry nzcry oppear :
attempted e q l a n a t i o n .
Finally our facts have an instruelive bearing upou the very
differe:it conditions under which niiuiicry may appear in the
must closely related species. It seems clear that u e have to do
with two species ahicli are unable t o exist without this deceptiro
resemblance t o some specially protected form, either in both
sexes or in the one which is chiefly expomi t o attack. Wherever
we find these butterflies, whatever chauges they may undergo,
the resemblance which enables thein t o live upon the reput at'ion
of some local distasteful species is maintained. Mimicry being
equally necessary to both w~isipptssand bolinn in order t o nard
off extermination, a e nevertheless find that i t pursued an utterly
different course in these two species. Vypoli~itnas?nisippis has
attached itself to ic single w e l l - h o n 11, conspicuous, wide-rarigiug
species of distasteful butterfly, resembling i t uith great fidelity,
and folloaiug it through the details of even minor changes. In
order to achieve this result, it has been compelled t o depart very
widely from the aucestral form-even more so than is thc case
with any of the bolina group. But tliis extreme variation in one
direction appears t o have deprived it of the pou er of developing
variations in other tlircctioiis ; so that its existeuce and rauge
seem to depend upon the existence and range of a single butterfly, Danais chrysippus and Its varieties. I n Hypolimnas bolina,
on the other hand, we meet with much greater elasticity : its
range is almost unlimited as regnrds the couditions imposed by
mimicry, for it can vary in each locality into the semblance of
some local species.
H o w is this wide divergence to be explained ? Many biologists would be inclined t o lay stress on the amount and kind of
individual variation which has bern a t the cliyiosal of the selective
process during the developmelit of the mimetic resemblance ;
and it is certain that the results must have been largely influei~ced
by this. It is noteworthy that boliiza includes forms which are
both older and younger than those of nziskpus, the latter representing but a single one out of the inany phases of departure
from the ancestral t y p e represented by the former. It mkty be
that this comparatively narro\T liiiiitatioii of misip23zis is merely
due to the exclusive predominance of a single specially advautageoue resemblance, Damais chrysippus being so abundant arid
well-known in the localities where it occurs, aud its distribution
affording scope for a wide range. Or variation m:iy have carried
OF 'I 111: CtI:KrJ I I T I ' ~ J , I \ I X\ 9 .
317
misippus in this direction from t h c ver) first, and sufficient protection being thus conftvrcd there 11oultl be no tendency ton:Lrds
t h e production of otlier forms. I n eitlier case n e iiiiist look
upon t h e selective process as chieflj rehpo!i\ib!e for tlic r ~ ~ \ ~ i l t .
It is impossible t o deuy abuiidant pon ers of variatiou l o m i s i p p s ,
when we remember its fiiitliful reseiiiblmicc t o tlie specid chxriges
undergone by D.chr!/si'ppzrs. B u t v:trint.iou beiiig under t h e
guidance of selection ill otic tl irwtion oiily, has produced uotliiuq
i n any otlier dircctioii. It is casj t o ituagiiic coiiditious uiider
mliich H. b o l i m iirigl~tbccoiiic cqu:illy restricted If Eulllaa
core had the distributioii of Dan& chi*!ys~yus,it. is probable
that n o other mimetic vnricty \could liave beru produced. Or if
Dartais clzionippe of C'tblrbeq Iixd t h e rnngc and abutidance of
D. chrysippus, it is i)rolinl,le that t tie superior ad\ aiit'igcs attciiding the resemblance to it miglit causc t h e ultiiuzrte prcdomiunuce
of this one o u t of the miiiiy iiiitiretic f o m h of H. boliiin.
If, then, we are riglit i n belieriiig that the results are determined by the range and nbtiut1nnc.e of tlie miiuicked form,
because this, through sclcctioii, d r termiiies tlic nutiiber and Lind
of t h e mimickiug varieties, it ir clear that selcctiou rather than
unguided variation iJ the ebsimtial caiisc of the pbenowena,
always assuming the necevsary aruouut of vari:Ltion for selection
t o act upoti.
The fact that seleclioii followd, where possible, the path of
least resistauce :is regnrds vitriatiou, is well been i n H. boli~ta.
Not one of its many uiiiiietic forms departs so nidely from tlie
ancestral appearance ah tliose of mkipp?cs,and for the production
of most of them c o m p r h v e l y small changes are necessary. I n
India and Malayn, with n single exception, L arious dark-coloured
Euplaas are mimicked.
T'he interesting exceptiou of tlie
chianippe form proves tliat much greater divergence is possible,
and that t h e path provided b j the easicat and itiost prob:%ble
variation is ouly followcd wl~cii it is advantageous. When we
pass into Africa, me find that t h e place of the genus Euplats is
taken by the Dmtnis gennq IIII~CIZ~T~S,
and dark-coloured buttcrflies of tliiw specially prot~~ctcd
gcnus liavc afforded ready iiiodels
for mimicry, so that here too tlic uecessnry conclitions have becn
met by less divergmcc tliari has been necessary f o r LT. v z i s i ~ ~ ~ i w
My thanks are due t o PIIessrs. Godiiian, Salvin, a u d Cronley
for examples of various mimetic forms, and especially t o Professor
Poulton for mucli kindly assistatice in deducing the above conclusions.
318
DR. A. 0. BUTLER ON T H E
EXPLdNATION O P THE PLATES,
PIATEXV.
Figs. 1, 3, 5. Hypolimnas misippus, 2 (3 forms).
Pig. 2. Danais chrysippus.
4. ,, dorippus.
6.
I,
alc@pus.
PLATE
XVI.
Fig. 2. Hypolininas po!z/nieiia.
Pig. 1. Eiiplna Hopfferi.
4. ,, p,yr.q:Vion,d.
3.
sco~l"s,8.
6. ,,
I,
2,
6.
$2 ,
PLATFJ
XVII.
Fig. 1. Hypolimicas, sp.
Pig. 2. Euplcea polgmena.
,1
9,
3,
4. Amauris doo?~iinicantcs.
6.
,,
egialea.
3.
5.
,(
,,
mnrginnlis.
ddia.
An Account of the Butterflies of the Genus Charaxes in the
G. BUTLER,
Collection of the British Museum. By ARTHUR
Ph.D., &c., Senior Assiutant-Keeper, Zoological Department.
[Read 7th November, 1895.1
ONE of the first genera which 1 ever otudieil, and t h e Erst which
I monographed, was the geiius Charaxes, a paper ou which I
published in 1865 in the ' Proceedings ot the Zoological Society,'
in which I recorded sixty-eight species (two of which, however,
were noted as doubtful and ere subsequently suppremed) : the
present paper enumerates no fewer than one hundred and fiftynine.
I have followed Prof. Aurivillius in uuiting Palla to Cliaraxes :
if kept separate, it would have t o be broken up into several
geucra, and Charaxes ithelf would i n like inanuer have to be subdivided ; tliis, indeed, has been done for the Iiidian species by
Mr. Moore ; but apart from outline of wing 1have been unable
t o discover any constant structural characters ou which t o base
these genera. That wing-outline in Charaxes is not of generic importance seems clear, from the fact that (i.) in iuany of the species
it differs to an extraordinary degree in the sezes ; (ii.) the most
nearly related species (as, for instance, C. Balfouri and C. warams)
differ in this respect as much as any of the proposed iiem genera ;
and, lastly, (iii.) i t is not uniform, even nhen apparently so to a
casual observer, the shortening or absence of the hind-wing tails
occurriug abruptly in a single species in the middle of R group.
When I last arranged Charaxes, about the year 1892, our
series occupied a siugle cabinet of 20 drawers ; last year, however, Messrs. Salvin and Godiuaii (with their uliual liberality)