( -Jn] ) 



This descri])tion fits certain!}' best to the female of prkimiis (L.), which has 

 white maculae on the forewings, and white maculae with black centres on the 

 hindwiugs. 



In J/ Its. LjuI. L'lr. (1 764) Linue describes as jjan.thoiis twofeiiuiJe insects, one after 

 the other, which he mates as j and ? : the "S " which is the first described, is said to 

 have the wings black with white maculae, and is the same as the ? of T. priarnus (L.), 

 which latter insect has been described previous to panthoas; the other insect, the 

 supposed ? (" sexus alter, etc."), is described as having the forewings striped with 

 white, the stripes being united in pairs at their bases, and as having seven 

 maculae upon the hindwings, of which the four anterior ones are yelloW', the three 

 posterior white.* 



This " ? " is certainly the J of the insect named by Cramer hypolitus and by 

 Fabricius reinus. Now, Aurivillius (I.e.) says that the name of panthous must be 

 restricted to the insect chai'acterised as " sexus alter, etc.," i.e. to Cramer's hypjolitus, 

 because, if it has been proved that part of a composite species belongs to a 

 previously described insect, the new name has to stand for the rest of that composite 

 species. This is certainly right in some cases ; but in the present one it would be 

 directly against the law of priority. In the description of 1758 there is nothing 

 which points to any other species than to the female of priarnus; I must strictly 

 deny that the panthovi^ of 1758 is to be regarded as being a composite species. The 

 description of 1764 proves again that tlie name of paiilhous must be applied to the 

 pnainus 5 , the latter being the first described of the two insects which Linne united 

 to one species ; it does not matter at all whether two or more species described under 

 the same name, by the same author, ai-e published on the same page, or in the same 

 volume, or whether there is an interval of 3' ears between the publications of the 

 descriptions — the name must always be restricted to that insect which is first described, 

 and if this first-described species has already an older name (as in the jiresent case), 

 the name of the composite .species sinks into a s\'nonym. 



Cramer's name oi hypolitus (not Iiippolytus, kippol-ytfms) is based on 8eba's 

 bad figures of jilate 46; Cramer's figures (I.e. I. t. 10 and 11) show all the errors 

 of neuration and pattern of Seba's figures, and are certainly nothing but copies 

 of the latter. Specimens agreeing in pattern with Seba's figures of plate 46 are 

 unknown, and I am convinced that Seba had not a variety of the S of the Well-known 

 ^Nloluccan insect, as suggested by several authors, but a mutilated specimen which 

 did not show the exact shape and position of the submarginal spots of the hindwings ; 

 in Seba's fig. 19 the left hindwing is difl'erent in pattern from the right one. Tlie 

 figures are, however, well recognisable as representing the same species describ<>(l 

 two years later, under the name of remus, by Fabricius. 



Cramer gives as " patria " of his hypolitus Amboina ; Seba says (t. 40), " Indiae 

 orientales" ; to the figures of plate 45, which represent the same species, Selia gives 

 however as habitat Amboina: " Varietates hujus Papilionis descriptae sunt pluresque 

 deinceps sequentur," and " haec et, quae sequuntur, ejusdem speciei varietates omnes 

 Amboinenses sunt." From these and some other remarks in Seba, it is pretty clear 

 that all the specimens of the present species figured by Seba were from .\niboina. 

 [Compare also Wallace, Proe. Eat. Soc. Lond. \. p. 23 (1858)]. 



Troides hypolitus (Cram.), which is very remarkable for its pattern and the form 

 of the discoidal cell to the hindwings, has developed into three subspecies, namely : — 



' Linu6 say« of the mai-ulao 2, .S, 4 ; " FI;iv:ic, in medico macula allia " : i-onvc-tly it unglil to be 

 " macula nigra." 



