( 17-1 ) 



confusing, is the meth(xl aJojitcd by Mr. Leech in liis ButtirJIies of China, otc, wbo 

 compiles the descriptions of the species and varieties from other authors oven 

 when the description does not fully fit the Chinese insect, and omits in many 

 cases to say whether a certain aberration which he refers to occurs all over tlie area 

 dealt with, or is localised, and whether certain species vary iu tlie same direction 

 and to the same extent in all the Chiuo-Japanese localities which have been 

 explored. 



Four recent papers deal with Papilionidae alone : Elmer, Die ArtbilduMj uml 

 Verwandtschaft hei den Schmetterlingen (1889) ; Fickert, tjber die Zeichnungs- 

 cerhdltnigse der Gattung Ornithopterii (in Zool. Jahrbilch. IV. 1 889) ; Haase, 

 'JntersMhungen iiber die Mimicry I. (1893) ; Rippou, Icones Ornitkopteroruni 

 (1889—). The general results of Elmer's and Fickcrt's investigations are very 

 interesting ; the papers are nevertheless of little conseipience for the systematic 

 worker, as both authors apparently employed too small a material to enable them 

 to avoid grave errors iu respect to the relationship of the various Pajiilios. In 

 Haase's Untersuchungen so many single new facts are mentioned that we derive 

 from this work more knowledge as regards (he relation of the species and races than 

 from any other paper since Felder's catalogue. Rippon's Icones are not yet 

 completed ; the types of Rippon's new forms of Troides are in the Tring Museum, 

 so that we could easily decide about their specific distinctness. 



After having satisfied ourselves that our identification of a Papilio was correct, 

 we tried to trace the species, subspecies, or aberration from its first appearance in 

 zoological literature up to the present time, and .so came naturally to draw up the 

 bibliography — which cannot be expected to be complete in every case— and 

 synonymy of each Papilio ; the bibliography of aberrations could not always be kept 

 separate from that of the typical form of the species or subspecies. The various 

 forms of polymorphic Papilios, like those of P. pobjtes L., memmn L., etc., are 

 designated before the quotations thus: ?"', ?'-', ?''', the nnmbers (1), (2), (3) 

 corresponding with the order in which the resisective forms are treated in the 

 text ; these designations conld not always be em}iloyed in the synonymy, as we 

 were sometimes unable to ascertain whicli special form an author had dealt with. 

 Behind many quotations the reader wDl find a short note concerning the habitat, 

 habits, etc., of the Papilio as it has been given by the quoted authors ; the remarks 

 printed in italics are ours. 



After the heading of every sjiecics and subspecies we give a short note stating 

 which sex and state of the Papilio are known. In the synonymy we employ, besides 

 the usual designations for the sexes ((?, ? ), — 



/. for lar>:a ; 

 p. for pupa ; 

 metam. for metamorphosis. 



The number of species of which we do nut know tlie larvae and pupae is still 

 very great ; but I am sure that the entomologists residing in India., Borneo, 

 Sumatra, etc., can in some cases easily increase our knowledge of the earlier stages 

 of Papilio. 



As the name of the author of a species is as necessary as the generic term 

 to comprehend which insect is meant by any specific name, and as the generic and 

 specific names cannot be separated from one another by a comma or point, we 

 think it only logical not to separate the name of the actual author of a species 



