xlv 
dated 1779, vols. iii. and iv. 1782, and the supplementary vol., by Stoll, 
1791. Hagen states that parts 1—7 (plates 1—76) were published in 1775, 
and part 8 (plates 77 —96, completing vol. i.)in 1776. Mr. Butler, I believe, 
possesses a memorandum that plates 1—36 were published in 1775, and 
plates 37—48 in 1776. In the part commencing with plate 133, Sulzer’s 
‘ Abgek. Gesch. d. Insecten’ is quoted as having been published in the year 
1776. If plates 133 and following had not been published later than 1776 
it is probable that Cramer would have noticed the book either as ‘just pub- 
lished,’ or ‘published this year.’ Fabricius, in his ‘ Genera Insectorum,’ 
published at the beginning of 1777, quotes only the first four parts, or 
plates 1—48. But as Fabricius in 1781 was only acquainted with 216 
plates, there is good reason to suppose that he did not receive the separate 
parts of Cramer’s work as they were published. In the late Mr. Haliday’s 
entomological library, now in the possession of the Royal Irish Academy, is 
a complete set of Goeze’s ‘Hntomologische Beytrage,’ including even 
vol. iii. part 4 (Leipzig, 1783, pp. xx. 178), unknown to Hagen. The 
prefaces are mostly dated ‘ before Michaelmas, 17—,’ and contain notices of 
the parts of Cramer which have appeared up to the time of publication. 
Unfortunately this inf:rmation is only useful after 1779, when the two first 
volumes of Cramer (plates 1—192) were already completed. Between 
~ Michaelmas, 1779 and 1780, plates 193—276 appeared; between Michael- 
mas, 1780 and 1781, plates 277—336 were published; and the work is 
known to have been completed in the following year. A considerable part 
of vols. iii. and iy. (certainly all after plate 252, and perhaps several earlier 
plates) were edited by Stoll after the death of Cramer. As regards Stoll’s 
Supplement, the title-page bears the date 1791; but I have seen a copy in 
the original covers, upon which part 1 (plates 1—8) was dated 1787, and 
the four subsequent parts 1790, although it is more likely that a part would 
have been issued annually; but of this I have no evidence.” 
“ Papilio Hyale, L.—I have already (Tr. Ent. Soc. 1870, p. 141) ques- 
tioned the correct identification of this insect, and I now feel sure that the 
insect intended by Linnzus is the female of Papilio Croceus, MYourer. 
= Colias Edusa, auct. The Linnean description is as follows (Fn. Suec. 
p- 272) :—‘ Pap. Hyale alis integerrimis rotundatis flavis; posticis macula 
fulva; subtus puncto sesquialtero argenteo. . . . . Simillimis Palenoni, 
sed ale mayis flave. Ale primores flave, apice nigre, nigredine fascia 
quasi lutea in duas partes dissecta. Secundarie supra in medio puncto s. 
macula ferruginea, cui subtus opposita. Puncta duo argentea approximata, 
annulo ferrugineo cincta; altero puncto valde parvo. Antenne et margo 
ciliaris alarum rubra ut in sequente [P. Paleeno].’ In favour of the species 
intended being the modern Hyale, it may be contended, (1) that the ground 
colour is called jlavis; (2) that the Linnean type agrees with this species. 
