( 419 ) 



containing illustrations of the earl}' stages of exotic Lepidoptera. Tlie Natural 

 ffistori/ of Georgia meant an enormous advance in this direction. 



The series of le])idopterological works of the nineteenth centnr)', as far as 

 thej' concern us here, opened with Hubner's Sai/iml/nu/ Exotincher Sc/imcffl/t/ffr, 

 appearing from 180G onwards. As a collection of fine illustrations the S((mmlii)ii] 

 was a great success, while as a scientific work it was an entire failure. With 

 the exception of the separate volume, entitled Zutriige, there is hardly any text 

 accomjiiinying the plates. Sherborn * says that he does not recognise as valid 

 the names appearing on plates without te.\t. We wonder if he will be bold 

 enough to reject the majority of the new names of the Sammlung. The plates 

 not being numbered, and no date of publication f being given, the work is a 

 great trouble in compiling the bibliography of the insects figured. As every 

 little contribution towards fi.\ing the years of publication of the plates is of some 

 value, we draw attention to tlie fact that Hiibner figures on Plates 114 and 115 

 of the second volume the identical insects which Godart described in 1819 as 

 ? and doubtful c? of his Papilio ]irotoi!amas, which name Hiibner emjdoyed for 

 the male. This can hardly be a coincidence. Hiibner doubtless knew of Godarfs 

 publication when he engraved the two plates — i.e. the plates appeareil after 1819. 



Hiibner's Verzeichniss hekanntev Schim'ttlirige was published from 1810 to 

 1827 or 1828, the Papilios appearing about 1818. A few new names are proposed 

 for American Pajiilios in this much-abused work, which represents the first attempt 

 at classification uf all the known Lepidoptera. 



If Hiibner erred much on the side of descriptions, Godart's treatment of the 

 Butterflies in the Encgdopddie Mi'thodiqui' ix. (1810) suffered from the entire lack 

 of figures. The work is purely descriptive, but the descriptions are admirable 

 for that time. It is a most careful piece of work. There are naturally a number 

 of mistakes, especially in the mating of the sexes of dimorphic species, which is 

 excusable, since hardly any reliable observations on di- or polymorphism among 

 exotic Lepidoptera were known. Godart's species were mostly described from 

 specimens contained in the Paris Museum. Very few authentic specimens are 

 preserved ; the majority appear to have become destroyed already during the 

 first half of the last century. A few of the specimens are in the Royal 

 Scottish Museum {P. serville, triopas, imerius). While previous authors, with 

 some exceptions, employed generally the Linnean formula of nomenclature for 

 Butterflies, interposing between the generic title rapilio and the specific name 

 either the sectional name Eques or the subsectional name Trojanus (or Troes), 

 respectively Achivus, or both these names {Eques Trojanus and Eques Aehivus), 

 Godart adhered to a pure binominal system of nomenclature. In the Supplement 

 to his work, issued in 1824, several Papilios appear with modern personal names 

 standing in the nominative form : Papilio serville, P. devilliers, etc. This kind 

 of name for species had become the fashion in Prance. We do not consider it 

 advisable to alter snch names into servillei, denlliersi, etc., us has been done 

 by most subsequent authors, servillei being no more Latin than is serville. 



The custom of naming species after persons, which is nowadays almost a 

 mania, hails from Liune himself, who named insects Scldijferi, Bergmanniana, 

 Listerellu, etc. 



* Index Animaliiim ji. vii (1S)02). 



t Tlie new eilition o£ the Sammliin// which is now being issued by P. Wytsman is acrompaniod by a 

 text written by W. F. Kiiby. Here, again, no dale ot publication of this text is given 1 1 



