( 171 ) 



the European P. mackaon and podalir'tiis are described i.ir figured, aud in these 

 books we finil also the first accounts of Exotic Papilios : Petiver, for example, 

 figures P. rmit'inzovius Eschscli. as " Paj/ilio luzonicus maximus" etc. Petiver 

 and Rajus describe P. hector L. 



While the knowledge of the American Lepidoptera increased much in conse- 

 (pience of the appearance c>f Madame Merian's Metamorphosis Insectorum Suri- 

 mtmensiiim (1705), only a few Eastern Pa])ilios became known until Linne's Si/stema 

 Naturae.. In the tenth edition (1758) of this work, Linne adopted, for the first time, 

 regulated nomenclature for all classes of animals ; he carried out the binomial 

 system of nomenclature throughout the animal kingdom, EXCErr in LEPiDorrERA. 

 It is very curious that Linne abandoned his binomial system when treating the 

 Lppido])tera in Si/stema Saturae^ and designated these insects with three names 

 (Pajiilio E(]iics Priamus, Papilio Danaus inr/amtts, etc.), indicating with the 

 first name the genus, with the second a section of the genus (a " phalanx "), and 

 with the third the species. The name of the subsection (Trojanug \_Tros^Prois'\, 

 Achivus, Festivus, Ruralis, etc.) is not added to those of the genus, section, and 

 specirs in S>/sfema Xaturae ; liut subsequent authors have also done this {Papilio 

 Eques Trojanus J'riamus), so that the entomologists of the second half of the 

 last century had not a bi-, but a tri- or quadrinomial nomenclature. The conse- 

 quence of this superfluity of names for a butterfly or a moth was that some 

 authors, like (!ramer, contented themselves with one name, the specific name, and 

 called their Lepidoptera simply Priawas, Midamus, Helcfia, etc., a system which is 

 still high in favour among many collectors of European Lepidoptera. 



As the tenth edition of Systema Naturae Las been accepted by zoologists as 

 the starting-point of nomenclature, chiefly because Linn<5 carried out in 1758 the 

 binomial nomenclature throughout all classes of animals, we must remark that this 

 does not apjily to Lepidoptera ; and if one abandons the pre-Linnean names and the 

 Linnean names in tlie first to ninth editions of Si/stema Naturae by reason of their 

 not being in accordance with the rules of binomial nomenclature, we ought logically 

 to begin with later authors (Donovan, Latreille, etc.), not with Linne. As, however, 

 Linne designated the Rho[ialocera and Sphiugidae witli two names in Fauna Surcica, . 

 Arnoenitates, etc. {Papilio Machaon, Papilio Polydorus, Papilio Aegisthus, etc.), 

 and gave also only two names to the Sphingidae in Si/stema Naturae ed. x., it is 

 clear enough that Linne's trinomial system has as basis the binomial one, aud is 

 nothing else but the trinomial system adojited by many modern authors who put 

 the name of a " subgenus " in brackets between the generic and specific terms. 

 The relatively great number of Lepidoptera which Linnd described did not furnish 

 him with many characters which he thought of generic value, and could tlierefore 

 be divided only into a very limited number of genera {Papilio, Sphinx, Phalaena). 

 Linne erected (1758), for example, 22 geuera for 504 species of Coleoptera, and 

 only 3 genera for 535 species of Lepidoptera. The genera Papilio, Sphinx, and 

 Phalaena contained each so many species that a division into " Phalanges " was 

 necessary ; and in order to indicate the closer relationship of a species, Linne added 

 the name of the "Phalanx" or "Section" or "Subgenus" to those of the genus 

 and species of Papilio and Phalaena, just as Messrs. Elwes, de Niceville, Semi)er, 

 and other reliable authors are accustomed to do at the present time, with the 

 exception that Linne did not put the additional name in unnecessary brackets. If 

 one takes this i>oint of view, as we do, one must accept the Liiuiean names, and, 

 as in the works jmblished before 1758 no regulated nomenclature has been applied. 



