( 420 ) 



Many of the entomological works of Godart's period have a Fronoh nonicn- 

 clatnre, which cannot he considered valid. Rogers's names for Papilios pul)lished 

 in 1 ^^20 cannot stand, the names given being I'upiUon bias, Papillon piritlious, etc. 



A few of the specimens described by Godart were subsequently fignrcd 

 by Lneas in his Lrpuloptcres Exo/i(/>irs (183.5), which appeared shortly before 

 Boisdnval's Species Gnu'ral i/es Lepidopteres i. (ls:iri). This Sjieeies (Inund 

 is a fundamental work for the study of Papilios. Many errors are cleared up, 

 and also new ones are made. The original specimens from which the new species 

 were described are nearly all in the collection of Monsienr (!harles Oberthiir. A 

 few appear to have been replaced by Boisduval by specimens which do not agree 

 with the descriptions. Snch a result of the habit of removing from the collection 

 the original specimens in favour of better-preserved individuals is very instructive, 

 confirming our contention (see p. 414) that the type-sj)eeimen of a new name should 

 be marked as snch, and be carefully jn-eserved. Barring accidents, the revision 

 of the nomenclature of a family is made comparatively easy by that means, and, 

 what is more important, the results are more reliable, and hence the nomenclature 

 rendered more stable than if a reviser has only the descriptions and figures to 

 go by. The nomenclatorial type, or " name-type " for short, is of no other 

 imjiortance. That should be clearly understood. Nomenclature is an extraneous 

 matter. It is not the natural history, bnt only a convenient method of recording 

 some of the results of descriptive science. The natural history types of one and 

 the same species or form are manifold. One niay call an individual a type, if it 

 represents the average. Since the same individual is not the average in all 

 characters, a species or form has many average-types, one individual being a 

 morphological type in one detail of structure or pattern, other individuals in 

 other details. There are, further, two kinds of jihylogenetic types. Sjiecimens 

 which are the most generalised in a certain character may be called ancestral 

 types in respect to this character, others being ancestral types in other organs. 

 Some individuals are more advanced in certain characters than other specimens, 

 and therefore represent a more advanced type, other individuals being more 

 advanced in other details. Since the variation of the various organs is to a 

 large extent independent — i.e. since retrogressive or progressive development docs 

 not take place in the same degree in the various organs — an individual may be 

 an average type in one organ, an advanced or an ancestral type in another, and 

 not typical in a third organ. To these morjiho- and phylotypes may be added 

 bionomical types, habits being also variable within a species ; and so on. It is 

 obvions that all these types have nothing to do with the name-typo. 



Besides Drury's llli(strations of Exotic Insects (1770-82) very little of 

 importance on American Pajiilios was published in England during the eighteeiitii 

 century and the first four decades of tlie nineteenth. The Zoologicnl llliist rations 

 by Swainson and Donovan's Natui-alist's Repositonj * were the only works 

 which contain more than an occasional reference to exotic Papilios. This 

 became entirely altered iu the forties. With Doubleday's List of the Specimens 

 of Lepidopterous Insects in the Collection of the British Museum (1845) 

 commenced a series of catalogues which, though in the first instance meant to 

 be a list of the contents of the British Museum collection, became synonymic 

 catalogues of all tlie species and varieties described. Doubleday's List of 184r)-48 

 was foHowed by his Genera of Diurnal Lepiiloptcra (]84(i-5~!), by Gray's Catalo(jue 

 * £!ach plate of the Ih-ptrntttrtj bears the date of publication, 



