( 415 ) 



entomologist has ever exercised so ninth inflnence on the works of others, and for 

 such a long time, as Fabricins. Nowadays the Fabrician works are rather a source 

 of trouble. The descriptions are no better than in the Sijstema Naturae, and the 

 frequent changing of names indulged in is most confusing. The nomenclatorial 

 errors of Fabricius have, unfortunate!}', been perpetuated by subsequent authors, 

 many of whom, as late as the middle of the last century, followed Fabricius blindly, 

 giving his names preference to older ones, and accepting his identifications even 

 if known to be erroneous. 



The habit of supplanting the name of a species by a new one is bad only 

 in so far as it swells the synonymy unnecessarily ; but very pernicious it is to 

 transfer arbitrarily a name from one species to another. This is occasionally done 

 even nowadays, though not in so flagrant a way as by Fabricius. Some authors 

 appear to be of the opinion expressed by Boisduval in 1836 — that a name which has 

 become a synonym on account of another name having priority, may be used again 

 in the same genus for another species which has no name. Boisduval named 

 a Brazilian species P. mentor according to this principle, though the name had 

 already been employed for a closely allied species but become a synonym, stating : 

 " Dalman a donne le nom de mentor k un autre PapiUo qui est le suivant, et 

 qu'flubner avait fait connaitre avaut lui sous le nom de hjcophron ; nous avons crn 

 pouvoir prendre sans inconvenient le nom de Dalman pour I'appliquer ii celui-ci 

 qui est nonveau."* As this principle leads unavoidably to confusion, we are 

 strenuously opposed to it. We go even farther, and maintain that a name should 

 not recur within the same genus even as a name for varieties. 



A good many of the Fabrician descriptions were taken from specimens which 

 he had seen in England daring his several visits to this island, and from the 

 unpublished drawings of Mr. Jones, of Chelsea. These drawings are now in the 

 possession of Dr. Drewitt, a descendant of Jones. Dr. Drewitt has kindly allowed 

 us to examine the drawings and to take photographs of some of the figures. 

 The two volumes are in the best state of preservation, while Jones's collection 

 of insects had much suffered before it came into Dr. Drewitt's hands. The execution 

 of the drawings is admirable. There are ten names for American Papilios char- 

 acterised by Fabricius from Jones's drawings, respectively from specimens which 

 had served as originals for these drawings (^2^elaus., acamus, dardanus, tros, 

 zaojntlnis, dimns, idaeus, iliis, iphidamas, and komerus). The specimens were 

 in Drury's collection, with the exception of homenis, which was contained in the 

 collection of Latham. Since the Fabrician descriptions are mostly rather meagre, 

 and as most of his types have disappeared, the preservation of Jones's drawings 

 is a very fortunate circnmstance. 



The butterflies described by Fabricius were revised in 1809 by Butlor ; but 

 this revision was not so thorough as the subject required. With the help of 

 Jones's drawings we have been able to identify all the Fabrician Papilios about 

 which there was some doubt. 



In 1779 appeared the third volume of Goeze's Entomologische Beytri'ige, which 

 is a kind of catalogue enumerating all the Lepidojitera known at that time. A few 

 critical remarks are oflered by the author, often beside the mark ; and .some new 

 names are introduced for some of Seba's more or less bad figures, which might 

 with advantage have been left unnamed. 



The short descriptions of Linne and Fabricius being generally insufficient for 



• Sjjec. Gin. Lip. i. p. 352 (183G). 



