Papilio Pammon offers a somewhat similar case. The female was described by Linnaeus as P. Polytes, and was considered to be a distinct species till Westermann bred the two from the same larvae (see Boisduval, "Species General des Lepidopteres," p. 272). They were therefore classed as sexes of one species by Mr. Edward Doubleday, in his "Genera of Diurnal Lepidoptera," in 1846. Later, female specimens were received from India closely resembling the male insect, and this was held to overthrow the authority of M. Westermann's observation, and to re-establish P. Polytes as a distinct species; and as such it accordingly appears in the British Museum List of Papilionidae in 1856, and in the Catalogue of the East India Museum in 1857. This discrepancy is explained by the fact of P. Pammon having two females, one closely resembling the male, while the other is totally different from it. A long familiarity with this insect (which replaced by local forms or by closely allied species, occurs in every island of the Archipelago) has convinced me of the correctness of this statement; for in every place where a male allied to P. Pammon is found, a female resembling P. Polytes also occurs, and sometimes, though less frequently than on the continent, another female closely resembling the male: while not only has no male specimen of P. Polytes yet been discovered, but the female (Polytes) has never yet been found in localities to which the male (Pammon) does not extend. In this case, as in the last, distinct species, local forms, and dimorphic specimens, have been confounded under the common appellation of varieties.