( 413 ) 



naiue in tliat, ruuJiimeutal work, au eighth name (aiitilochiis) being proposed for 

 an exaggerated and partly fictitions figure of the male of P. glaucus. Small as 

 this number is, it presented a good deal of contentious matter for subsequent 

 authors to write about. Linne laboured under the great disadvantage that, as a 

 reformer of the methods in Natural History, he bad to base his work not on actual 

 specimens alone, but had also to include the recorded forms of animals which he 

 did not know authentically. 



Since the pre-Linuean descrijrfious and figures are for the greater part 

 very poor productions, Linne was fre((ueutly misled to quote these figures and 

 descriptions in a wrong 2)lace. Some of his erroneous quotations, however, 

 are doubtless due to mere oversight or absentmindedness — as, for instance, the 

 citation of Edw. av. 34* under Papilio ajax in 1758, under P . protesilaus in 1764, 

 and again under P. ajax in 1767, Edwards's figure not agreeing iu the least with 

 the other quotation given in 1758 and_ 1767, or with Linne's own description. 

 The citations under P. protesilaus comprise several Nymplinlidar and Papilionidae, 

 the references under P. anchises being also wild. Now, iu dealing with such 

 names, it is obvious that the description given by Linne must be the primary 

 guide in the apj)lication of the name ; at least, so it appears to us. The three 

 Linnean names are good illustrations of the diflerent results one arrives at. In 

 the case of P. anchises the description and the reference to the Museum Ludovicae 

 Ulricae (M. L. U.) leave no doubt that the insect figured by Clerck in 1764 is 

 the true P. anchises, though post-Linnean authors have often erred iu tbe 

 application of the name. No such positive result can possibly be arrived at in 

 the case of P. protesilaus. From the descriptions given by Linnd in 1758, 1764, 

 and 1767, we can only conclude that P. protesilaus was one of the numerous 

 white neotroiiical species distantly related to P. potlalirii/s. Among the figures 

 referred to by Linne in 1758 there is only one which does not contradict Linne's 

 descriiJtion. This figure of Merian is unfortunately very incorrect. In 1 764 Linn6 

 gave a better description, which, taken in conjunction with Clerck's figure referred 

 to by Linne, applies best to that species to which we have restricted the name iu 

 this llevisiou. Since neither the figure nor the description is exact enough for 

 absolutely certain identification, it is obvious that Linno's specimen, if he had one, 

 may very well have belonged to one of the other white Papilios. However, it 

 would only be possible to disprove the correctness of our application of the name 

 protesilaus, if the authentic specimen from which the description was presumably 

 takeu were 2)reserved, and iu a sufficiently good state of preservation to exhibit 

 those delicate differences by which the various species allied to P. protesilaus are 

 distinguishable. Perhaps one might agree in this case with Mr. G. H. Verrall t that 

 it is fortunate there is no such Linnean specimen, since it is really very indifferent 

 which sj)ecies bears the name protesilaus, as long as there is no j)ossibility of our 

 application of the name being justly reversed. | Nevertheless, this case renders 



* Kdw. av. p. 36.1. 226 is quotecl_by Linne in 1767 on p. 756 under \Aa Papilio Equcs HcUamiHs 

 thfillo, and again p. SOT under Sjjhiti.v j>i'ctiiiici>rnix. 



t I'rusidential Address, iu J'ruo. JCiU. Stic. Land, for 19.00. p. 47. 



J There are two speeimens of this gioup of species in Linne's culloctiun preserved at the 

 Linnean fiociety iu London. One speeimeu is similar to Clerck's (igiirc, wldlc the other is V. IdcMaus. 

 Unfortunately a former liljrariau, under wliose ctire (?) the collection was, tliought fit to snpitlcment the 

 collection by adding fresli specimens ! ! It is therefore hardly possible to say if these two I'apilios, or 

 cue of them, were originally in the Liuuean collection. The one which agrees fairly well with Clerck's 

 figure has no abdomen. 



