70 THE KNTOMOLOGISt's RECORD. 



{A. mauretanica) under stones, and the CEdipodid Thalpnmena ahjeriana, 

 Luc, on some baked clay which was exactly the colour of the insect 

 itself, a quite peculiarly good case of protective coloration. At 

 Timgad I took a few Embiid larviis under stones. 



On April 7th we climbed Djebel Tuggur, also called the Pic de 

 Cedres. The whole mountain is thickly covered with a most magnificent 

 forest of Cedars, in which the peculiar Cole Tit of the country was 

 common. No butterflies, however, came ray wa3^ The Blattid 

 Loboptera decipiens occurred up to the summit (6,000ft.), with the grass- 

 hoppers T. alijeriana and Kiinapins bninnei i, both quite high up. The 

 ant Botliriuwyvmex vieridumalis, Rog., was noticed at 3,500ft. 



There is an extraordinary rockwall north of Batna beyond the 

 railway. It is composed of a hard vein of rock tilted almost per- 

 pendicular. On its overhanging side there is a clear drop of forty or 

 fifty feet, yet the wall is only about ten feet thick. The surrounding 

 country is typical of the plateau, dry and stony, covered with xerophytic 

 bushes and scrub. The usual butterflies were by no means rare, 

 together with Parartje ae(jeria, Scolitantides baton and 6'«('rt stellataniin. 



(To be concluded.) 



Papilio podalirius, Linne ( = sinon, Poda). 



By JOHN HARTLEY DUKRANT, F.E.S. 



Dr. Verity in his " Revision of the Linnean Types of Palaearctic 

 Rhopalocera " [Jr. Linn. Soc. Lond., Zool., 32, 173-191 (1913)] in a 

 long note on ''Papilio iiodalirins [(1768)-1764] " states (pp. 17-1-6) that 

 he has decided to treat Linne's " first mention of the name in 1758 as 

 null: the lack of any description, and the imperfect and incorrect 

 statements accompanying it proving that Linntpus did not know the 

 insect he was mentioning, would, according to my [Dr. Verity's] 

 views, be quite suflicient ; furthermore, the original description of 

 1764 is given full value by the documentary evidence of one of the 

 very specimens from which it was drawn." 



Dr. Verity rejects Papilio podalirius, Linne (1758) and reduces the 

 argument to Papilio sinon, Poda (1761) versus I^apilio podalirius, 

 Linne (1764) — but Dr. Verity has overloolced the description of Papilio 

 podalirius by Scopoli in 1763 ! !! 



What has to be actually determined is the application of the follow- 

 ing names: — 



1. Papilio podalirius, Linne, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10), 1, 463 footnote 

 (1758). 



2. Papilio sinon, Poda, Ins. Mus. Graec, 62, sp. 2, PI. 2, fig. 1 

 (1761). 



3. Papilio podalirius, Scopoli, Ent. Cam., 167, sp. 445 (1763). 

 The publication by Linne of "Museum Ludovicae Ulricae " (1764) 



and " Systema Naturae," ed. 12 (1767) are both subsequent to Scopoli 

 who was First Reviser of the works of Linne and Poda. 



It is necessary to reprint what Linne published about Papilio 

 podalirius in " Syst. Nat.," (ed. 10), 1, 463 (1758). The footnote is as 

 follows: — 



"Podalirius. Jlaj. ins. 111. n. 3. Has. ins. 1. pap. ii. t. 2, Pleauiii. 

 ins. 1. t. 11. /'. i, o. 



Habitat in Kuroptr australis <('■ Africa Brassica. 



