302 Zoological Society. 
Syn. Phalena Guineensis flava perelegans, Petiver, Gazoph. pl. 29. 
fig. 3. c.478. Bombyx Dione, Fabr. Ent. Syst. iii. a. p. 410. Pha- 
lena Paphia, Linn. (ex parte). , 
Hab. Congo, Ashantee (Mus. Brit.), Sierra Leone (Mus. Hope). 
The fore-wings in the female are not so subfalcate as in the male, 
but the apical margin is slightly emarginate. The male antenne are 
rather broad and flat, with forty-four rays on each side, four being 
emitted from each joint ; about six of the terminal joints are furnished 
only with short, gradually diminishing spurs. The female antennze 
are almost filiform. The palpiare short, but distinct and deflexed. 
The nomenclature of this species is involved in some difficulty. 
Old Petiver rightly figured it as above referred to, under the name 
of Phalena Guineensis flava perelegans et pulchre oculata. Linneeus, 
in the 10th edition of the ‘Systema Nature’ (p. 496), described an in- 
sect under the name of Bombyx Paphia, thus: “ P. Bombyz elinguis 
flava alis patulis falcatis concoloribus ocello fenestratis. M. L. U.,” thus 
indicating that the typical specimen of his species was contained in the 
museum of the Queen of Sweden. But Linnzeus referred not only to 
Petiver’s figure, but also, in the second place, to Catesby’s ‘Carolina,’ 
ii. p. 91. t. 91, where is represented an insect described by Catesby 
as “ Phaleena ingens Caroliniana oculata e luteo fusca lineis dilute 
purpureis insignita,’’ which Cramer and Fabricius subsequently figured 
and described under the name of Polyphemus. Linnzeus however, in 
this 10th edition of the ‘Systema Nature,’ gave to his B. Paphia the 
*« Habitat in Guinea.” 
In his ‘Museum Ludovice Ulrice,’ Linnzeus however treated his 
B. Paphia in a different manner. Without altering his specific cha- 
racter, he refers in the first place to Catesby’s ‘Carolina’ (S. Polyphe- 
mus); 2ndly, with a query, to Petiver’s Phalena Guineensis; and 
3rdly, to an insect figured by Rumphius in his ‘ Herbarium of Am- 
boyna’ (iii. t. 75), which, from the observation of Rumphius, “ Fol- 
liculus est Erucee Bengalensis Tesser vocatze,”’ is evidently the Tusseh 
silk moth of Roxburgh (8. Paphia), thus confounding three American, 
African and Indian species under one name. He moreover in this work 
gives the “ Habitat in America Septentrionali,”’ and his detailed de- 
scription evidently proves that he had the American species of Catesby 
in view in proposing the name of Paphia ; indeed his reference to the 
“M.L. U.” in the 10th edition of the ‘Systema Nature’ likewise fully 
proves that, although giving in that work Guinea as the habitat of his 
Paphia, the American insect was the one before him. 
But in the 12th edition of the ‘Systema Naturee,’ we find Linneeus 
making the matter still more confused ; for we now find the reference 
to Petiver restored to its first position, that to Catesby given with 
doubt, and the reference to Rumphius added in the third place, the 
locality being “‘ Habitat in Guinea, Asia.” 
Now if we are to regard the last work of an author as containing 
his matured opinions, and allow him at the same time the right to 
modify his opinions to an extent involving the change of specific 
names, in the manner followed in this instance by Linnzeus (which is 
however a power which I deny that an author ought to possess), we 
must remove from the Carolina species all right to the name of Paphia 
