xliv 
iii. 1, p, 865, n. 29); but the name being applied to Drury’s species, which 
was published before Cramer’s, of course falls. 
«Papilio hyalinus, Gmel. p. 2259 (cf. Tr. Ent. Soc. 1869, p. 356). 
Since the publication of my Cat. Diurn. Lep. I have determined this species 
to be identical with Pierella Dracontis, Hiibn., which it will supersede, 
though Gmelin’s name is not very appropriate. 
“Papilio Acidalia, Weber. This species is synonymous with Neptis 
aceris, Lep. 
“Morpho Crameri, Kirb. Cat. p. 121, n. 8 (= Telemachus, Cr. 
nec Linn.) According to Butler this species = M. Iphicles, Feld. ; but 
it also — M. Ulysses, Meerb. Afb. zeldz. Gew. t.14, 20, which is the 
oldest name. 
“ Athyma Kresna, Moore = Limenitis Jadera, D’Orb. Dict. d’Hist. Nat., 
Atl. Zool. ii. Lep. 4, f. 3 (1849). 
“ TLimenitis Camilla, L. In 1764 Linneeus described the sexes of our 
English ‘ White Admiral,’ calling the male Prorsa and the female Camilla. 
But as he had previously described another species under the name 
Prorsa, he properly changed the name of his second species into Sibilla 
in 1767. This therefore establishes the name of our species to be correctly 
Camilla, L. 
“The first author who described the other species was Drury, who 
figured it under the name of Papilio Sibilla, var.; but it would be better 
to reject this name altogether, as not = Sibilla, L. Scopoli’s name 
rivularis, which is usually quoted among the synonyms of this species, 
properly belongs, according to Werneburg, to Neptis Lucilla, W. /., 
and is therefore inadmissible. Lucilla, Hsp., is likewise inadmissible ; 
and we must therefore adopt Drusilla, Bergstr., as the correct name of 
Camilla, W. V. 
« Attacus Paphia, L. In 1758 Linneeus gave a diagnosis of this species, 
which will apply to several large Bombyces, quoting a figure of Petiver’s 
(which is considered to represent Antheraea Dione, Fabr.) and (with doubt) 
a bad figure by Catesby of Telea Polyphemus, Cr. But in 1764 he carefully 
describes T. Polyphemus under the name of Paphia; and as he describes no 
allied species, and referred in 1758 to Queen Ulvica’s Museum as containing 
specimens of his Paphia, I think we can hardly hesitate to regard Cramer’s 
Polyphemus as identical with it. Cramer figures Antherzea Mylitta, Dru., 
as Paphia, L.; but there can be no doubt that this is an error, although 
some of the figures quoted by Linneus in his later works very possibly 
represent that species.” 
“The date of Cramer's Works.— Cramer’s ‘ Papillons Exotiques’ was 
published in parts at intervals. The exact dates are now lost. The 
address prefixed to vol. i. bears date Dec. 2, 1774; and vols. i. and ii. are 
