(416 ) 



precise identification, it was soon recognised that frood illnstrations were a necessity. 

 The first ironograplicr prndnciiig figures wliieli can be culled good was Itosel. 

 The prodnctions of the earlier authors (Petiver, Mofi'at, Merian, etc.) ,as well as 

 of some later ones, are mnch inferior to the plates in the Inseltten-Belustigungen. 

 There are only a few figures of Exotic Insects in Rosel. The first iconography of 

 great importance for the nomenclature of Lc])ido]itera, however, were the /roues 

 Iiisectontm of Olerck (1764), the figures of which were for the greater part talcen 

 from specimens in the museum of the Queen Ludovica Ulrica, and hence may be 

 considered typical. 



Shortly after the appearance of the twelfth edition of the Si/stenia Ndfiirae, 

 the last edited by Linne himself (1767), Drury published his Illmtrations of 

 Natural History, which is nsnally quoted for the sake of convenience under its sub- 

 title as Illustrations of Exotic Insects. The three volumes contain only insects. 

 The plates are nearly all very good for that time. In using the work one should 

 bear in mind that in some cases the localities are erroneous, some North American 

 insects being stated to have been received from Jamaica, and the reverse. However, 

 in respect to localities the work was a great improvement on former authors. 



If we find the localities given in the works of the earlier writers often 

 deplorably vague and frequently erroneous, we miist remember that the majority 

 of the specimens were collected by people who did not take an actual interest 

 in Natural History, but brought the specimens home as curiosities from foreign 

 countries. Our forefathers iu systematics had not the good opportunities we have 

 nowadays of obtaining correctly localised material. They had to be content with 

 what they got. The wrongly localised specimens misled them often to attribute a 

 much wider distribution to many tropical species than they actually have, it being 

 stated of many species that they occur in all tropical countries. The knowledge 

 of the great importance of exact localisation has come very slowly ; but we may 

 now fairly say that every serious student of some branch of systematics is aware 

 that specimens without exact locality are of little value to the scientist. 



Being acquainted with many large collections of Lepidoptera, we note that 

 the progress made during tlie last ten years in labelling insects is very marked. 

 While the labels, if there were any, were formerly usually hand-written, bearing 

 mostly only such general localities as Brazil, Veueznela, West Africa, etc., we 

 find the labels of recent additions mostly printed, giving often, besides the exact 

 locality, the date or season of capture, altitude, name of collector, and even some 

 biological fact. No doubt we are on the right track, and there is hope that also 

 the general collecting public, which depends to a large extent on dealers for 

 additions to the collection, will soon follow, rejecting with disgust the specimens 

 olfercd with such vague localisation as East Africa, Australia, or Amazons. On 

 critically examining the geographical distribution of the American Papilios, we 

 have come across many errors. Localities mentioned in the literature on these 

 insects which are flagrantly wrong have been put by us between inverted commas 

 (" ") in the bibliography quoted in this Itevision, and have further been designated 

 as /a/.vc or loci error. In a few cases, however, where there is a possibility of 

 the insect being fonnd in the district, we have referred to the record from that 

 locality as being doubtful or as requiring confirmation. 



How erroneous localities get into collections and hence into literature is shown 

 by the fullnwing instructive instance, where we can trace the error (o its source. 

 .Streeker figured erroneously as I'lipilio astcrioides Reak. a specimen of VitpHio 



