206 RHIPHEUS DASYCEPHALUS. 



classed with the Papiliones. But this anomaly is 

 certainly a remarkable one, that it should combine 

 clavate antenna?, with an arrangement of the alary 

 nervures exactly corresponding to an insect with 

 which in other respects it is so nearly identical. 

 There being no other example of such a peculiarity, 

 and the insect figured by Drury never having been 

 found since, we are naturally led to suspect that he 

 has been, in some way or other, under error. We 

 have no doubt, however, that his figures aiford a 

 faithftd representation of the specimen from which 

 they were taken, as the drawings were made by 

 Moses Harris, whose accuracy in such matters is well 

 known. But there seems good reason to believe 

 that the specimen in question has been originally 

 defective, and that improper means have been taken 

 to supply its deficiencies. By supposing that the 

 head of a genuine papilio had been attached, in 

 order to supply the want of that part in the speci- 

 men, and give it the appearance of being complete 

 (a practice which has often been followed by ama- 

 teur collectors), we get rid of the greatest objection 

 to its being considered identical with Rhipkeus. 

 The want of the tails is easily accounted for, these 

 appendages being so brittle when dry, that they are 

 seldom preserved except in specimens which have 

 received the utmost care. In other instances Drury 

 has erroneously represented species as destitute of 

 tails ; we recollect in particular Satyrus Pkiloctetes. 

 We mention these circumstances as affording means 

 by which it is possible to account for the peculiari- 



