NOVITATES ZOOLOOICAE XXXII. 1925. 277 ON DELIAS BELLADONNA AND ALLIED SPECIES (LEP. RHOP.) By dr. KARL JORDAN. (With eight Text-figures.) THE history of Delias belladonna Fabr. (1793) and allies, from the point of view of the systematist, is an unbroken chain of errors. It did not start well. Fabricius described D. belladonna from Jones's drawings, but could not give the locality whence the specimen had come ; and the more detailed description and the figure of this specimen published by Donovan in 1823 differ in important points from everything we have seen in collections. Subsequent authors, never-theless, have applied the name to North Indian or to Chinese specimens. Since 1823 a considerable number of forms similar to D. belladonna have been published ; some were described as distinct species, and afterwards, erroneously, sunk as varieties or even synonyms, and others were described as varieties, but in reality are distinct species or are varieties of other species than those to which they were originally assigned. The acquisition of larger collections from the Hima-layan countries and China appeared to prove the distinctions between the various species and varieties to be very fluctuating, and, the real distinctions not being known, the consequence was great uncertainty and confusion. Elwes (1888) and Butler (1897) drew the logical conclusion that, the differences being unreliable, all the forms known to them belonged to one single species. The latest account we have of D. belladonna and allies is that by Frulistorfer in Seitz, Macrolep. ix, p. 130 (1911). Here Butler's view is adopted. The account bears evidence of being written in haste and not revised. My assistant, Mr. F. W. Goodson, recently had an occasion to inspect the magnificent series of Oberthiir's Delias, now in the collection of Mr. John Levick, of Birmingham, and on comparing the large number of specimens of the various so-called varieties of D. belladonna from the Oberthiir collection, he came to the conclusion that the specimens could be arranged in definite groups which had the appearance of being distinct species. As the opinions expressed by Lepido-pterists on the systematics of D. belladonna and allies were mainly based on the colour and pattern of these butterflies and often differed greatly, it was necessary for me to study the structure of the various forms so as to arrive at conclusions independent of differences in colour and pattern. Owing to the pressure of other work the following notes are somewhat cursory, but as they put the systematics of D. belladonna nevertheless on a firmer basis, they seem to me worth publishing. The next step would be to find structural differences between the $$ of the various species of the belladonna-grow^. The table on page 278 gives a survey of the distinct species and their dis-tribution as far as known to me. The species are confined to the mountains. In Iris, p. 4 (1924), a (J is recorded from Pekin, but I doubt that this single specimen really came from so far north. It will be noticed that no less than 5 species are found in Yunnan, and that D. belladonna occurs in aU districts except Central China and Formosa. Some of the species and varieties were originally described as new on account
BioStor
