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.