(422 ) 



the exception of some mimetic forms, which are classified with their models. 

 In charactei'isitig the groniis of species the Folders laid great stress upon small 

 differences of neuration, in which they were wrong. The series of specimens com- 

 pared by the authors was generally small, and therefore many small ditferences 

 appeared to them to be constant, while they are in fact individually variable. The 

 same applies to difTerences in size, wing-shape, and pattern, which served tlie Felders 

 as specific distinctions. The numoions " species " of Papilio described by them in 

 the essay mentioned, in the Rcise (lev Fregatte Norara, and elsewhere, are mostly 

 varietal forms, often mere individuals deviating in some character from the average. 

 In many cases the authors were well aware that the new " species " of Papilio was 

 a geographical form ; in fact, they make sometimes a statement to that effect. 

 However, they treated nomenclatorially all such forms as species. This curious 

 phenomenon is by no means uncommon among systematists of our day. To 

 consider all geographical representative forms as distinct species, and treat them as 

 Buch nomenclatorially, is quite consistent. To regard all individual, seasonal and geo- 

 graphical varieties of a species as not necessary to be distinguished by special names 

 and hence deal with all of them under the one specific name, is again methodical. 

 But to call a form a local race, naming it Papilio paudion, and to employ the same 

 formula Papilio uuchisiades for the species, is certainly ill-considered. The formula 

 expressing a conception should show which special conception is meant, whether 

 a family, a subfamily, a genus, a species, a geographical form or another kind of 

 variety. It will doubtless take a long time before all systematists have learned to 

 employ a nomenclature which is consistent witli their own ideas. The more is it 

 necessary to bring the matter again and again before their mind. 



The Felderian types are mostly in the Tring Museum, some being in the 

 Hofmuseum at Vienna. 



In the second half of the last century the number of works and treatises 

 dealing with American Lepidoptera increased very rapidly. In North America 

 especially entomologists became very active in the si.xties, and have ever remaiiied 

 so, being now in some branches well in advance of European systematists. We 

 mention here only those authors whose work is of special importauoe for our 

 Revision. 



The species of Papilio described by Hopfier in 18G6 have partly been over- 

 looked subsequently. We hope that wo shall be found to have identified them 

 correctly. Kirby's Catalofiue of Diurnal Lepidoptera (1871 ; Supplement, isTT) 

 is too well known to require more than passing mention. The nomenclature 

 of varieties needs j)urifyiug. The formula " Papilio eurimedes Cram. var. a. 

 P. agathocles Koll. " for a variety is very cumbersome. The work has been moat 

 useful to us, in spite of the errors in synonymy, which are hardly avoidable 

 in a compilation of this kind. A second edition of the catalogue is a great 

 desideratum. 



The Lepidoptera of the Argentine Republic are dealt with by Burmeister in 

 his Description Physique de la Pcpiihlique Argentine, vol. v. (1ST8) and Atlas 

 (1879). The figures of the early stages, though some are not correctly identified, 

 are very useful. 



Another faunistic work of the same time is Gnndlach's Contribucion a, la 

 Entomologia C'uhana (1881). It is a descriptive catalogue in which former work 

 on Cuban Lepidojjtera by Pooy, Lncas, II(!rricli-Schiifl'er and others is revised, notes 

 on the life-history of many species being added. Since Gundlach had resided so 



