[From the ANNALS AND MAGAZINE OF NATURAL HISTORY /or 

 July 1882.] 



On the Priority of Euploea Castelnaui of Felder over Euploea phoebus. 

 By ARTHUR G. BUTLER, F.L.S., F.Z.S., &c. 



In the first part of his 'RhopaloceraMalayana,' p. 24, Mr. Distant 

 gives priority to E. Castelnaui ; he remarks as follows : " As Mr. 

 Butler has himself admitted the identity of his E. pTwebus and E. 

 Castelnaui, Feld., of which there can be no doubt, it becomes neces- 

 sary to use the earlier and Felderian name to this insect, though 

 Butler still retains his own designation." Here Mr. Distant inserts 

 a footnote to this effect : " This author has (Trans. Ent. Soc. ser. 3, 

 vol. v. p. 471) argued that Felder's work was antedated." 



It is an exceedingly uufortunate fact that, although I have been 

 assured positively on two different occasions (by men who knew the 

 truth) that Felder's second volume was antedated, I have never 

 been able to use their declarations as positive evidence the first 

 witness (an Austrian, though not an entomologist) having stated facts 

 of which he did not know the importance, unaware that in so doing 

 he was giving evidence against a personal friend ; to give the name 

 of this innocent informer would have been inexcusable. 



The second case is a harder one, since we have here to do with a 

 well-known German lepidopterist, who, though also a friend of the 

 Felders, ought to have set aside his personal feelings in the interest 

 of truth and justice. This gentleman showed me the actual date of 

 publication written by himself upon the cover of the part when re- 

 ceived, and he assured me that it had been forwarded to him (accor- 

 ding to instructions given to the publisher) as soon as it ivas ready. 



I have elsewhere pointed out that Hewitson gave instructions * 

 that the part should bo sent to him as soon as ready, but that he 

 also never received it until the end of January 1867 ; nay, he was 

 informed in the early part of that month that it was not ready. 

 The explanation offered by the Felders was, I believe, that the 

 coloured copies were not ready, but that the work could be obtained 

 uucoloured. 



* I see, however, that I did not mention his name, although he never 

 asked me not to do 80. 



