( 173 ) 



descriptions of the Papilios liiid been alwajs very incomplete ; but from this time 

 they became more exhaustive and satisfactory. The principal works on Eastern 

 Lepidoptera whicli appeared from 181'.) to 1864 are Godart (1819), Horsfield 

 (1828), Zinkeu (1832), several "Voyages," Lucas (1835), Boisduval (183G), 

 De Haan (184U), Doubleday (1846), Horstield & Moore (1857), Felder (1864). 

 In this period falls the foundation of many Entomological Societies publishing special 

 periodicals, of which the Transactions of the London Entomolo(jic<tl SoriH}/ (1812) 

 and the Bcli/ian Annals (1832) are the oldest. 



In the Felderian systematic List of Papilionidae (1864) the species are for 

 the first time grouped according to their natural relationship, not according to 

 superficial resemblance ; this catalogue is not free from grave mistakes, but there 

 are such a number of then new facts explained in the notes after the list — facts 

 which many recent authors have entirely overlooked— that I consider the Felderian 

 catalogue the most important work dealing with the classification of the Papilios. 

 Felder's descriptions of new " sjiecies " in this catalogue and in his great work in 

 Reise Xoi-in-a (1865) are, however, not so satisfactory ; in many cases the " species" 

 arc characterised from one or a few specimens, which, as the types in Felder's 

 collection prove, were moreover in bad condition, and hence it came that Felder 

 often mistook individual or geographical differences of his examples for specific 

 characters ; indeed nearly all the Felderian " species " of the Indo-Anstralian Regions 

 are local races of older species, or mere individual aberrations, of some sixty forms 

 about fifteen only being specifically distinct. The " types " of Felder's Papilios are 

 not all in the Felderian collection, now in the Museum at Tring ; some are in the 

 Vienna Musenm, others in the collection of Mr. G. Semper (Altona), while of a few 

 forms apparently no specimen has been marked as type. In no case have we been 

 left in doubt about a Felderian form. 



In the same year (1865) when Felder's Lepidoptera in Beise Nocara were 

 jjulilished, Wallace's famous article about the Eastern Papilios appeared, and the 

 new species described in it are mostly identical with those of Felder. The exact 

 dates of publication of Felder's and Wallace's species are unknown ; but Felder 

 seems to have the priority of some months. Wallace's types are all lost, or if the 

 actual type-specimen of one or the other species be preserved in the Hewitson 

 collection, it is not marked as such and cannot be regarded as type. 



Since Wallace's paper our knowledge of the Eastern Papilios has bcim much 

 increased by articles and special books dealing with the Lepidoptera of limited 

 districts. Moore's Lepidoptera of Ceylon, Distant's Rhopalocera Malayana, 

 Semper's 'J'aijfalter der Pkilippinen, Leech's Butterflies of China, Corea, and 

 Japan, Staudinger's Lepidoptera of Falaican, and Elwes's Catalogue of the 

 Lepidoptera of Sikkim are the most important works out of a very great number. 



Local lists which, like Elwes's Catalogue, furnish us with notes abont habits, 

 and, like Staudinger's Lepidoptera of Palawan, with detailed remarks about the 

 indivithiid variation of the insects, are extremely useful, provided the author restricts 

 himself to a small area and takes his notes only from specimens captured in that 

 district. The names under which the species are enumerated in local lists are often 

 erroneous ; but that does not do much injury, in the case of Papilio, to the value of 

 the list, as one can nearly always see which form the author has meant ; we learn, 

 indeed, from the note under Papilio utidrof/etfs Cram, in Elwes's Catalogue of the, 

 Sikkim Lepidoptera iust as much as if the right name P. memnon agenor L. had been 

 api)lied tii this insect. AVliat is, however, very confusing, and often more than 



