23 



clotbing; its habit of seltlinjj: on the trunks of trees and its bohl rapid style of flight 

 very much resemble the manner of the Ageroniae, and I am quite satisfied that the 

 true position of the genus Pandora is in proximity with Ageronia. There are two 

 grand species of this hitter genus new to me also found here, one of which has the 

 greater part of the under surface of the hind wings red, and the other has the same 

 part saffron-yellow *. they fly in company with Pandora at the place on the borders of 

 the forest, but do not wander so far in their flight. I wish to mention here 

 that I think there is quite an erroneous conception established by lepidopterists, of the 

 nature and aflinities of the Ageroniae. M. Lacordaire and Mr. Wallace have said 

 that the chrysalis is secured by a ligature round the body ; I think there is some mis- 

 take about this: I have bred two species of the genus, and most certainly the chry- 

 salis is suspended by the tail like all the other Nyuiphalidce. In our systems 

 the Ageroniaj are placed at the head of the Nymphalidie, near the true Papilionids, 

 as though forming the connexion between the families. I think all this is a mis- 

 conception. There is no proximate afliuily at all between the Papilionidae and 

 the Nymphalidse ; the two families are separated by the whole miiss of the Ery- 

 cinidae. I should as little expect to find an Ageronia chrysalis with a ligature round 

 the body, as a true Papilio chrysalis suspended only by the tail. The larvae of 

 Ageronia are spinose ; the lines of thoracic segments densely ramose. In their flight 

 they make a smacking noise with their wings like the clicking of castanets, but rarely 

 repeated. The Pandora does not produce this noise." 



The Secretary read the following paper by Mr. A. R. Wallace: — 

 A disputed case of Priority in Nomenclature. 



" Allow me to call the attention of the Entomological Society to what seems to me a 

 novel and most erroneous as well as inconvenient interpretation of the law of priority: 

 it is, that of transferring a name long borne by one insect (but which it has lost by 

 being found to be but a sex or variety) to another insect which has been erroneously 

 referred to the same species. This has been done by the late Mr. Doubleday, who has 

 changed Ornithoptera Remus, a name which for fifty years has been invariably borne 

 by one well-known species, into 0. Panlhous, a name which for a still longer period has 

 been applied to the female of O. Prianuis. Such a change would be most inadvisable, 

 even were the principle on which it was made a good one ; whereas it is one which 

 gives, at it were, a premium to error. Linnteus described the female of Priamus as a 

 distinct species (Panthous) and Remus as the male of Panthous. Cramer corrected the 

 latter error and figured the two sexes of Remus correctly, giving the species for the 

 first lime a distinct name. This name it appears to me cannot be changed for that of 

 Linnaeus, who erroneously supposed the species to be the same as one he had previously 

 named, although that name has been reduced to a synonym. The two errors of Lin- 

 naeus should not be allowed to take precedence of Cramer, who first correctly named 

 the species. The question here raised is of importance because an analogous case is 

 now open for decision. P. Darsius of G. R. Gray was previously figured bv 

 Doubleday as the male of Amphimedon. Now, Amphimedon is certainly the female 

 of Helena, and, if the rule holds good, the new species Darsius must take the old name 

 of Amphimedon, just as Remus has been made by Messrs. E. Doubleday and G. R. 

 Gray, to lake the name of Panthous. Such a practice will certainly not be generally 

 followed, and I would humbly suggest that it is one of the duties of an Enloiuological 



