23 



figures of both in ale and female C. ediisa, which he calls " Clouded 

 Yellow," but in his 1794 edition refers to it as hi/ale of Linna?usJ 

 and in his " English Lepidoptera or the Aurelian's Pocket Com- 

 panion " (1775), he also mentions a "Pale Clouded Yellow," but 

 fails to find a Linnean name for it. Lewin (1795) makes "con- 

 fusion worse confounded " by figuring ediina, calling it the " Clouded 

 Orange or Electia, Linnteus," and on the next plate figuring liyale, 

 male, as the " Clouded Yellow " and correctly applying Linnaeus' 

 name lu/ale, but also figuring the female as the " Pale Clouded 

 Yellow," without any Latin name." 



In 1792 Donovan commenced the publication of his work on 

 British Insects, and m the second volume gave a figure of the male 

 ednsa and applied the name /n/ale.^ But as time went on he appears 

 to have detected the error into which he, in common with the 

 authors of his day, had fallen, as in 1798 he figured both ednsa and 

 hi/ale under their names as we know them to-day, and gives a long 

 explanation of how the error occurred, in the course of which he 

 says that it had been impossible to detect it until Linnaeus' speci- 

 men was available for examination. ^° From that time Fabricius' 

 name ednsa has stood for our " Clouded Yellow," but in one of the 

 most recent authoritative publications, Seitz's " Macro-lepidoptera of 

 the Palfearctic Region " (p. 68), it has been superseded by croceia of 

 Fourcroy, an obscure French writer who published an " Entomo- 

 logia Parisiensis" in 1785, just two years before Fabricius published 

 his " Mantissa Insectorum," and happened to appropriate old Ray's 

 words. However, for present purposes, I shall perhaps be better 

 understood if I still use the name ednsa. 



Although these old chroniclers may have given us some difficulty 

 in finding out what species they were dealing with in their writings, 

 they have, now that we are able to understand them, at least given 

 us some of the earliest available information as regards the occur- 

 rence of ('. ednsa in this country. It is pref.ty certain that if it was 

 taken near an inland town in Essex and at Cambridge, as related by 

 Ray, it must have been fairly common at or about the time that he 

 was writing, now just over 200 years ago, and Moses Harris* 

 remark that it had been " taken in plenty on Epping Forest,"" is 

 equally significant, while Donovan's remarks are sufficiently interest- 

 ing to be quoted in extenso.^ He says, " With us it has ever been 

 esteemed a rare insect, though seen this season in Kent in greater 

 plenty than for several years ; but as they were probably only an 

 accidental brood, they may again disappear for a considerable 

 time."^-^ This must refer to the year 1792 or 1793. Then we have 



■^ Moses Harris. " The Aurelian," 1766 ed., p. 61, pi. xxix. ; 1794 ed., p. 

 54, pi. xxix. 



8 Lewin. " The Insects of Great Britain," vol. i., pp. 68-70, pis. 32 and 33. 

 " Donovan. " The Nat. Hist, of British Insects," vol. ii., p. 17. pi. 43. 



10 ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, vol.vii.,pp.57-61,pl. 238. 



11 Moses Harris. " The Aurelian," 1766 ed., p. 61 ; 1794 ed., p. 55. 



12 Don. "Nat. Hist, of Brit. Insects," vol. ii., p. 18. 



