( 172 ) 



can iiejrlett tho!>e uamcs wliicli the iusects have received before the tenth <Mliti(iu of 

 Si/stema Naturae (1758).* 



Linn6 received a great many of his iusects from Holland, and tiiat explains 

 how it came that so many Liunean species are forms inhabiting tlie old Dutch 

 colonies Surinam, (Jai)e Colony, and Amboina. 



The greatest part of the species shortly diagnosed in S'/ntcma Naturae, vd. x.. 

 have been more fully redescribed in Mus. Lud. Ulr. (1764), and an excellent 

 revision of the species of this latter work, based especially upon an unpublislied 

 manuscript of Liune and a good number of Linnean specimens, has been given by 

 Professor Dr. Christopher AurivDlius in 1882 {Recensio Critica Lepidopterorum 

 Mu.iei Ludoticae Ulricae quae descripsit Carolus a Linn^ in Kongl. Sv. Vet. 

 Ak. Handl. XIX. o). Though we agree in most points with Aurivillius' explana- 

 tions, we come nevertheless in some cases to other conclusions, the reasons of which 

 are given under the respective species : so we treat the Aurivilliau P. pantkous L. 

 as T. hypolitus (Cram.), P. helena L. as T. oblong omaculatus (Goeze), P. erithonius 

 Cram, as P. denwleus (L.). 



Some of the Liunean species of 1758 are undoubtedly described from figures, 

 not from specimens (P. E. helena, for examj)le), and in such cases we have to rely 

 upou the figure and the accompanying notes of the (juoted author. 



A great help in identifjing the Linnean Papilios are Clerck's Icones Imectorum 

 (17()4), ])art of the figures in this work, whicli we have compared at the library of 

 the British Musenm, being taken from specimens in the Museum of the Queen 

 Ludovica Ulrica, and it is on the whole not so difficult to apply the Linnean names 

 to the right species of Papilio, though it remains sometimes rather doubtful which 

 special local race of a species Linne had before him (see p. 182). 



Shortly after Liune's Mus. Lud. Ulr. the Thcmuru.'s oi i'mha, came out (17G5), in 

 which a great many Amboiua Lepidoptera are figured. The figures of Seba caunot 

 boast of being correct ; nevertheless cue can recognise the Papilios pretty well, aud 

 must, therefore, accept the names proposed for them by Goeze, Ent. Bei/tr.,m 1779, 

 so far as these species do not have older names, (ioeze's Papilio fuscus has the 

 priority over Cramer's P. .icterus, P. castaneus Goeze over P. pertinax Wallace. 



The post-Cramerian authors, Jablonsky, Herbst, and Esper, characterised only 

 a few new Papilios, of which the P. pandarus Jablousky {nee Linn6)= P. pseudo- 

 pandarus Esper is a ."ipee. Jict. The text of Esper's Ausl'indi.Hc/m Scliinetterlinge 

 contains many useful remarks about the identification of certain Linnean species. 



Of the Fabrician species some are not recognisable (P. pompilim, P. orestes), 

 another is undoubtedly based upou a mutilated specimen (P. astyanax), and they 

 are best treated as synonyms. 



The first important work on Lepidoptera at the beginning of this century was 

 Sammlung Exotiseher Schmetterliuye of Hiibner, who, j)reserving only the specific 

 names of the older authors and dividing the genus Papilio into a profusion of 

 groujis. introduced a great many terms ; in the text of Vol. L (24 pages only) 

 Huliuer ado])ted tlie binomial nomenclature, while on the plates of Vol. I. he gives 

 three names {Princeps heroicus Hector, Princeps dominans Erithonius, etc.) ; the 

 didsion into genera has been carried out in Verz. bek. Schmett. (1816), and on the 

 plates of Vol. II. of Samml. Ex. Scliinett. 



Until l8l'.», when Godart described the Lepidoptera in Enc. Met/). IX., the 



* For the sake of convenience tlic species which have been designateil Ijy old authors (Cinniur, I.inne. 

 Fabricius, etc.) with one, three, or four names .ire quoted in the synonymy of this revision quadriuomially. 



