( 414 ) 



it quite clear that, as the distingnishing characters of the various si)ecies in 

 question have never been recognised, absolute certainty as to the application of the 

 name jjiotcsilaus might oul)' be arrived at by ourselves examining the original 

 specimen on which the description was based, or the " name-type," as such a 

 specimen may conveniently be called. In all instances where new distingnishing 

 characters are discovered between forms which were formerly considered the same, 

 it is nearly always indispensable for a conscientious reviser to examine the name- 

 type of each form. As long as the baptizers of new forms are not omniscient, 

 and hence arc liable to publish descriptions and figures which future discoveries 

 may render insufficient, a great deal of instability in nomenclature and of haggling 

 about names, and therefore of waste of time, would be avoided, if every name 

 introduced were made monotypical, and the name-specimen carefully preserved. 

 Many systematists are fortunately in the habit of doing this, thus saving future 

 classifiers much unnecessary labour. The habit of designating as ty])e every 

 specimen of the series the describer had originally before him is not to the point, 

 since there is no guarantee that all these specimens are the same. The history 

 of American Papilios offers many examples of composite species, and not only 

 among those described in the eighteenth century, as will be seen in the body of 

 this llevision. If Linne had been quite precise in the aj'plication of his names, 

 fixing each uame to one particular specimen or a previously published figure or 

 description, we should not now be in such a peculiar predicament with regard 

 to his Fapilio ajax as we are placed in. As said above, the descrij>tion of this 

 r. ajiix and the two references given beneath it contradict one another, each 

 ap])lying, without the slightest doubt, to a different insect. The description fits 

 the Papilio described later as poli/xenes by Fabricins and as asterius by Cramer, 

 and does not agree with the species which is generally known as P. ajax. If 

 we had here to do with some little-known insects, we should hardly hesitate to 

 apply the name ajax L. to the insect figured as such by Clerck — namely, 

 2>olyxenes Fabr. 



However, there is an enormous literature on both these insects, and the 

 rejdacement of the names pob/xcncs or asterius by ajax would lead to endless 

 confusion. The whole mischief is occasioned by Linne's reference under 1'. ajax 

 to Edwards's figure. Now, this reference Linne himself removed to P. prolcsilam 

 in 1704. Under this same name protcsiluus we find in 1758, 17f)4, and 1707 a 

 reference to a figure in Catesby which represents the same insect as Edwards's. 

 And in 1707 Linnt^ described Papilio xuthus as being similar to P. ajax, wiiich 

 would have been quite ludicrous if Linne's ajax had been the insect now so called. 

 There is a remote possibility that Linne described a,jax from a small male of 

 P. i/luiicus. For this reason we have thought it advisable to overcome the difficulty 

 by rejecting the name ajax altogether on the ground of its being of doubtful 

 application. 



The name ajax does not appear in Linno's ^fuscum iMciovicac Ulricae ; this 

 is unfortunate, since the descriptions given in that work are far superior to those 

 of the Si/strma Naturae of 17uS and 1707. 



The most famous and, at that time, the most iuiportauL ]iust-Linnoan works 

 on Entomology were those of Linne's disciple Fabricins. The Si/stcma Entomologiae 

 of 1775, the Spixies Tmcctoram of 17S1, etc., were conceived on the same lines 

 as Linne's Si/stema Naturae. They gave a short, concise classification of all the 

 insects known to the author either from specimens or previous i>ublicatious. No 



