( 280 ) 



p. 245. n. 41 (18G9) ; id., P. Z. S. p. 727 (1870) ; Druce, ihid. p. 108. n. 2 (1874) (Siam) : 

 Butl.. Ilml. p. 814. n. 35 (1877) (Formoiia) ; Obisrth., i:i. (PEiil. IV. p. 57. n. 120 (1879) (China : 

 Cochiu China : India) ; Butl., P. Z. 8. p. 609 (1880) (Formosa) ; Elwes, ,h{d. p. 873 (1881) 

 (X.E. Asia); Auriv., Komj. Sv. Vet. Ah. IJumU. XIX. 5. p. 34. n. 33a (1882) (Recensio Lep 

 Mus. L, U.) : Forsayeth, Tr. Ent. Soc. Loiiil. p. 386 (1884) (life hist.) : Butl., Ami. .!/«</. .V. //' 

 (5). XTIII. p. 189. n. 50 (1886) (Upp. Burma) : Elwes, Tr. Ent. Soc. loml. p. 429. n. 414 

 (1888) (Sikkim, only in the outer hills) ; Butl., I.e. (6). I. p. 205. n. 93 (1888) (N.W. Ind.) ; 

 Davids. & Aitk., Jouni. Bombay X. II. Hur. p. 3(>G. n. 71 (1890) (Bombay Presid., metam.) ; 

 JIanders, Tr. Ent. Soc. Loud. p. 536 (1890) (Shan 8t;itcs, very common at low elevations) : 

 Watson, Jonrii. As. Soc. Beiig. p. 268 (1890) (Madras, JIarch to August, very common) : id., 

 Jourii. Bumh. N. II. Soc. p. 54 (1891) (Chin-Lushai) ; Woodrow, ihid. p. 114 (1891) (caterp. 

 enemy of orange-trees) : Betham, ibid. p. 328 (1891) (life hist.) : Leech, Bull, of Cliiiia, etc. 

 p. 554 (1893) (Fooehau). 



jj. Papilio ej/ius. Hutton, Tr. Ent. Soc. Loml. V. p. 48. n. 4 (1847) (Madras ; larva noticed). 



? . Papilio demoletis, Hutton, I.e. n. 5 (1847) (Dhoon). 



cJ(?) ? . Pajiiiio erithoniuK var. demoleinust Oberthiir, Et. d'Eiit. IV. p. 57. sub n. 129 (1879) (China). 



Orphiides erilhoninx, Moore, Lep. of Ceylon I. p. 147. t. 61. f. 2 (1881) (Cej-lon) ; id., P. Z. S. p. 258 

 (1882) (N.W. Himal.). 



Pajiiiio (Orjdieides) erilhonius, Niceville, Journ. As. S"r. Bemj. p. 51. n. 128 (1885) (Calcutta, 

 common) ; Doherty, ibid. p. 137. n. 231 (lS8i)) (Kumaon) : Wood-Mas. & Nici'^v., ihid. p. 377 

 n. 192 (1886) (Cachar) ; Elwes & Nicev., ibid. p. 438. n. 147 (1886) (Tavoy) : Hamps., il,id. 

 p. 363 (1888) (NUgiris, 1000 to 7000 feet) : Fergus., Joki-«. Bomb. X. If. Soc. p. 446 (1891) 

 (Travancore) : Is'ic^v., Gazetteer of Sikkim p. 173. n. 482 (1894) (Sikkim ; rare, at low 

 elevations). 



Opheides {sic/) eritlionius, Swinhoe, ihid. p. 145. n. 137 (1885) (Bombay & Deccan, common every- 

 where); id., l.c. p. 432. n. 95 (1886) (Mhow); Tr. Ent. Soc. L,nd. p. 314. n. 400 (1893) (Khasia 

 Hills). 



Ophiedes (sic .') eritlionius, Swinhoe, Journ. Bomb. X. II. Soc. p. 279 (1887) (Carachi). 



This species is ver}' common in Western India ; it becomes rarer farther east, 

 and in Borneo, Sumatra, and Java it has not yet been found ; from Flores to 

 Queensland it is again fairly common, at least not a rarity, and Mr. Wallace has 

 also found it on Goram Island in the Southern Moluccas. IJeakirl, Tr. Ent. Soc. 

 Phil. p. 472 (1864), records it from the Philippines, but this locality is mcst 

 probably erroneous. Leech's collectors did not meet with it in China, though it 

 occurs there ; Leech himself found one .specimen in I<"oochau. 



The proper name of this Papilio is deiaoleus L. The description of demoleus 

 in Syst. Nat. ed. x. (1758) applies to the Asiatic species, not to the Mrican Papilio 

 which all recent authors consider the true demoleus L., and so do the figures to 

 which Linne refers ; the patria " Asia " is also in favour of my o))inion. In Mus. 

 Lud. Ulr. (17G4) Linne describes unmistakably the African Paiiilio as deriioleii^, 

 and omits in the description those characters of the first description in Synt. Nat. 

 (1758) which do not fit the Afi-ican insect; he also does not refer again to the 

 figures quoted in Syst. Nat. ; as patria he gives here " Cap. b. spei." Most probably 

 Linne described the Asiatic insect from the figures of Ehret, etc., not from a 

 specimen of the insect itself, and confounding it afterwards with the African butterfly 

 in the Museum of the Qvieen Ludovica Ulrica, described this latter Papilio under the 

 same name, probably believing that Ehret's, etc., figures were partly erroneous in 

 pattern. 



Aurivillius, Koiwjl. Sv. Vet. Ak. Ilandl. XIX. p. 34 (1882), comes to the same 

 conclusion, that Linnd first described the Asiatic Papilio as demoleus; but he thinks it 

 unnecessary to make an alteration in the present nomenclature of the two Papilios, 

 because the name of demoleus L. has been applied so long a time by all authors to 

 the African species. Hut is it not much better to correct a fault as soon as possible ? 

 It is certainly quite unsatisfactory to call the Asiatic species P. erithonivs Cram, if 



