302 Zoological Society. 



Syn. PhaliEnaGuineeTisis fiava pereleganSf Petiver, Gazoph. pi. 29. 

 fig. 3. c. 478. Bombyx Bione, Fabr. Ent. Syst. iii. a. p. 410. Pha- 

 Icena Paphia, Linn, {ex parte). 



Hah. 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 antennae 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 antennae 

 are almost filiform. The palpi are short, but distinct and deflexed. 



The nomenclature of this species is involved in some difiiculty. 

 Old Petiver rightly figured it as above referred to, under the name 

 oiPhalcBna Guineensisjlava perelegans et pulchre oculata. Linnaeus, 

 in the 10th edition of the ' Systema Naturae' (p. 496), described an in- 

 sect under the name of Bomhyx Paphia, thus : " P. Bomhyx 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 Linnaeus 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 " Phalaena ingens Caroliniana oculata e luteo fusca lineis dilute 

 purpureis insignita," which Cramer and Fabricius subsequently figured 

 and described under the name of Polyphemus. Linnaeus however, in 

 this 10th edition of the '■ Systema Naturae,' gave to his B. Paphia the 

 " Habitat in Guinea." 



In his ' Museum Ludovicae Ulricae,' Linnaeus 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' {h. Polyphe- 

 mus) ; 2ndly, with a query, to Petiver's Phalcena Guineensis ; and 

 3rdly, to an insect figured by Rumphius in his ' Herbarium of Am- 

 boyna' (iii. t. 7b), which, from the observation of Rumphius, " Fol- 

 liculus est Erucae Bengalensis Tesser vocatae," is evidently the Tusseh 

 silk moth of Roxburgh {S. 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 o^ Paphia ; indeed his reference to the 

 " M. L. U." in the 10th edition of the 'Systema Naturse' 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 Naturae,' we find Linnaeus 

 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 Linnaeus (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 



