1272 THE entomologist's record. 



" These tliree, of which my tale is specially, 



Whan that they saw they miRht not come thereby, 

 Within their bietts fnl sorevveful were their gostes. 

 But home they gon, they niighte not sojourne, 

 The day was come, that homeward must they turne." 



(With apologies to Chancer. 



Further note on Dr. Verity's Linnean suggestions. 



By G. T. BETHUNE-BAKER, F.L.S., F.Z.S., F.E.S. 

 Since writing my criticism on Dr. Verity's paper on the Linnean 

 collection I have been able to refer to all the references given in the 

 case of Papilio podalirins, and 1 tind in the " Mux. Ltutuvicae I'L," 

 that Linnaeus gives on p. 208 (where he describes the species for the 

 first time), a brief diagnosis of it, and also an extended description; in 

 the former he describes it thus, "podalirius 27 alis caudatis subcon- 

 ■colovibns jlare^roitibufi," in the latter he says " supra //arae." 



This description is decisive in being inapplicable to lutteri, no 

 accurate author could call /of^t';-/ yellowish, to say nothing of yellow, it 

 is greyish, and the contrast in colour between it and typical jioilaUiitm 

 is very marked. 



Dr. Verity says that entomologists do not seem to have in all cases 

 noted in which of Linnagus's works the first description appeared. To 

 this I would say the first descriiitlon is not necessary for the validity of 

 the name, a figure or reference to a figure is recognised by the " Code" 

 as sufficient for validity; but further, it seems to me that the doctor 

 himself cannot have referred to this description, as if he had he could 

 not have fitted it into a specimen of lotteii, for no one mnld call lotteri 

 yellow, whereas ordinary jKxUiliriiis would always be called yellowish 

 or yellow. There is another point I think he ought to have referred 

 to, but which he significantly omitted, /•/::., the fact that in the work 

 just quoted, Linna?us, with all the facts before him ranks sinon as a 

 synonym of iiodaliriiis. 



Now let me touch another point still — Duponchel's feuthamdi — that 

 author described his species in his " Hist. Xat. Lep.," p. 7, et. seq., and he 

 here comes in as first reviser, saying that feisthauieli is not jiodaliritix, 

 hut that it is a distinct species, whilst Dr. Verity himself emphasises 

 this very thing. This fact of itself should have prevented him going 

 back from the first reference to figures by Linnaeus and attempting to 

 upset a name that had been in use for 150 years, and the " Code " 

 would certainly rule the action as " ultra vires." 



Let us, however, go back to the figures referred to by Linn!T?us and 

 look at that contained in Rosel's work. This was evidently well-known 

 to that learned author. The figures there given are quite good ones of 

 typical central European podalirius and the}^ are as Linnteus describes 

 them yellow, this " indication " given in the lOth ed. of the '' Sijsteuia 

 Naturae " cannot be ignored ; and again with this before him (and as I 

 suppose Dr. Verity would say with specimens before him as well) 

 Poda's figure puts in an appearance which was recognised by Linnaeus 

 as his }H)dalinus, and the name given by Poda, viz., sinon, was sunk 

 without note or comment to his earlier name. 



I cannot possibly accept Dr. Verity's statement that LinnsBus con- 

 sidered the first mention of the name in 1758 as null, for the whole 

 •evidence that I have now brought forward is absolutely in the contrary 



