( 423 ) 



have siuce come to accept Standinger's view that every name should Ije treated 

 as a nouu, and therefore its gender be independent of that of the generic name. 

 For ns Fapilio oregoiiia is as correct as F. opalinus. 



StandiDger was an ardent adherent of the habit of writing all names of 

 Lepidoptera with a capital. One of his argnments for the correctness of this purely 

 lepidopterological custom — in no other branch of Zoology have all the names ever 

 been written with capital initials — was that Liun6 had employed capitals for all 

 names of butterflies. In this Standinger was wrong, Linne having written with a 

 small initial the few adjective names bestowed on butterflies (jlissimilis, assimilis). 

 We consider the writing of all specific and varietal names with small initials, and 

 of generic names with capitals, as by far the most convenient method, generic and 

 non-generic titles being at once recognisable as such. In contradistinction to the 

 habit of capitalising all names (Paj>ilio Priamus), there was early in the nineteenth 

 century the method in vogne, especially among French authors, of writing both the 

 generic and specific names with small initials — papilio priamtis Such matters are 

 purely conventional. One ought to select that method which is the least confusing. 

 Among the literature on Nearctic Lepidoptera no works are so prominent as the 

 Butter/lies of North Ameiica,hj'\N . H. Edwards (1808-97), and Scuddcr's BKttcrflies 

 of the Eastern United States and Canada (1880). The plates issued by Edwards 

 are nearly all of a quality hardly ever reached on this side of the Atlantic, nor have 

 we any work iu which the life history of the butterflies is so well illustrated. 

 His greatest discovery among Papilios was the demonstration by breeding of the 

 polymorphism of I'apilio hairdi and of the seasonal variation of F. mancellus. 

 Though in other places Edwards rather ridicules the idea of frequent occurrence of 

 hybrids in nature, he explains nevertheless this polymorphism of F. bairdi by 

 assuuiing that the insect is a product of hybridisation. 



iScudder's Butterjiies is the most intrinsic work written on Diurnals. No other 

 work on Butterflies can be comjjared with it. The mass of morphological detail 

 which was new is enormous, and, what is more, the facts were well digested, and 

 not merely comjjiled and put together anyhow. But it was perhaps just this 

 abundance of small characters which obscured the great distinctions in Papilio so 

 much that Scudder did not clearly perceive the three main divisions of this so-called 

 genus. It was leil to Erich Haase to rediscover the three natural sections into 

 which the Papilios of all regions are separated. 



l]i his Untcrstwhuiiijcn iiber Mimicnj (1803) Haase gives a classification of the 

 Papilios which is in the main quite correct, starting from the three main divisions 

 which Horsiield had defined in 1857. Many obscure points in relationship which 

 had defied every other author were successfully solved. He was the first and has 

 remained the only author who saw the close connection that exists between Papilio 

 ariarathes, harmodius, eiinjlcon, etc., on the one hand, and Papilio protcsilaus and 

 allies on the other. Those mimetic Papilios are placed everywhere in books and 

 collections with P. unchisiades, or even P. acneas, instead of with P. protesilaus, 

 marcellus, etc. As a student of Mimicry Haase was aware that models and mimics 

 are usually not nearly related, and this general knowledge may have guided him iu 

 the right direction. 



The morphological distinctions advanced by Haase for the three main divisions 

 oi Papilio are only sliglit, and do not ai)i)ly to all the species. We have endeavoured 

 to give the classification a better morphological basis. The only serious mistake 

 which Haase made in rusjject to American Papilios was the position he assigned to 



