(412 ) 



are also indebted to Herr G. Weymer for a sketch of P. orthosilaus. AVo liave 

 not had au opportuuity of visiting for the purpose of this Revision the fine colliction 

 of the late Dr. U. Standiuger. However, we do not think that we have made a 

 mistake in regard to any of the forms of I'apilio of which the name-type is 

 contained therein, nearly all the forms described by Dr. Standiuger being now 

 also in other collections. 



The series of Papilios sent for inspection by Prof. Dr. Goeldi, the founder 

 of the well-known Goeldi Mnseum at I'ara, lias been very serviceable. We were 

 the more pleased to have these specimens for examination, as our own material 

 from the Lower Amazons is very limited. 



With the exception of the North American forms, the literature on tin; 

 American Papilios is generally not very extensive. There are comparatively few 

 local lists of South and Central American Lopidoptera, collectors of neotropical 

 butterflies apparently not being given to publishing lists of captures, as is so 

 frequently done with African Lepidoptera. We are not over-sorry that this is so ; 

 for we have found some of the lists more a source of trouble than a help, on account 

 of the species being })artly enumerated under obviously wrong names.* In the 

 case of some difticnlt species, such as P. protesilaus and P. iphidamas, we have 

 been obliged to discard a number of references, as we could not possibly ascertain 

 which of the numerous allied forms is concealed under the name quoted in the list. 

 Utherwise we have endeavoured to make the bibliography fairly complete. Most 

 of the works referred to are in the Tring Museum, and those which are wanting 

 have been consulted at the British Museum, very few books being quoted in this 

 llevision which we have not seen ourselves. We hope, therefore, that we have not 

 missed any observation of importance bearing on our subject, or names proposed 

 for American Papilios. 



However, although there is little written abont the greater percentage of 

 American Swallowtails, the literature jiresents nevertheless a great deal of nomen- 

 clatorial intricacy, which it was one of the olijects of this Revision to unravel. 

 Owing to a great looseness in the descriptions published by some of the old authors, 

 and an equally great arbitrariness in the application of names, the uomenclatorial 

 puzzles are numerous and partly difKcult to solve. This laborious research in 

 mere nomeuclatorial matters might easily have been avoided for the greater part, 

 if a little more preciseness had been exercised on the part of the authors of names. 

 We can only regret the unnecessary burden unconsciously put on the revisers by 

 former authors ; but we express the hope that it will serve our contemporaries, 

 as it has served us, as a warning not to be equally loose in matters nomeuclatorial 

 and vague in the introduction of new names. A name too many does not much 

 matter, if one knows to what it is meant to apply ; but a name which one does not 

 know where to place correctly is a great nuisance. 



It is now close on a century and a half since tlie publication of Linne's 

 Si/stema jSatiirae (1758), the starting-jxiint in nomenclature. The knowledge of 

 American Papilios was extremely meagre at that time, only seven diiferent species 

 {glauiKs, jiliiknor, thoas, acneas, anckiscs, and protesilaus) being distinguished by a 



* An erroiR'uu.s name for a .siiecies is distiiii^uislicd by us in the synonymy from lliu prcdccupieil 

 name by putting err. det. {error dttcrmiiiutionls) after ihe autbur wlio misapplied the name. For 

 instance, Fajiilia a^terioides Slaudinger (non Keakirt, l.sG:t, en-, det.) means tbat Staudiuger called an 

 insect aMrriindcs ileakirt which was not Ueakirt's insect ; while I'ajnUo mentor Boisduval (non Jialman, 

 1S23) means that lioisduval gave, in 1836, to a new species the name mentor which had already been 

 employed in lS2a for another insect. 



