( xii ) 



the name of Euploea hamataJ " (" Wanderings," vol, i, 

 p. 269.) 



I have verified the quotation in King's "Survey," which 

 was published in London in 1827. Cape Cleveland is in the 

 present Colony of Queensland. In King's time it was in 

 New South Wales, as shown in his map. MacLeay's descrip- 

 tion is in King's second volume. Appendix, p. 461. In the 

 course of it he says, " This insect comes so very near to the 

 Uuplcea limniace of Godart and Cramer, which is common 

 on the Coromandel Coast as well as in Java and Ceylon, that 

 I can scarcely consider it as anything but a variety of that 

 species." 



From this it is clear that Captain King conjectures his 

 Euploea (i. e. Tirumala) to be the same species as that observed 

 by Captain Cook, which may or may not be correct. Mr. 

 Bennett, however, merely adduces their accounts as illustra- 

 tions of the gregarious habit among lepidoptera, and in no 

 sense attempts to identify these butterflies with his Bugong. 

 But in the year following the publication of the " Wander- 

 ings," Mr. Kirby brought out his Bridgewater Treatise. In 

 it he took occasion to reproduce fx'om Mr. Bennett's book the 

 account you have just heard, adding that "millions of these 

 animals were observed also, on the coast of New Holland, 

 both by Captains Cook and King." (Kirby, Bridgewater 

 Treatise, London, 1835, vol. ii, p. 351.) Referring also to 

 the Bugong, he speaks of "these moths, or rather butterflies," 

 and appends a note giving their name as Euplrexi hamata, 

 MacLeay. 



The original mistake was therefore the late Mr. Kirby 's. 

 He had evidently read Mr. Bennett's narrative, and tlie foot- 

 note giving the experiences of Captains Cook and King. 

 F'rom tliis he jumped to the conclusion that all three observers 

 were speaking of the same insect — a conclusion from which 

 a slightly more extended study of Mr. Bennett's work would 

 have saved him. But having fallen into this error, he un- 

 fortunately carried Prof. Westwood with him, and one or other 

 of these authorities is probably responsible for the appearance 

 of the same mistake in at least one work of popular natvu'al 

 history, where indeed it first attracted my attention. 



