SATURN I A PAVONIA. 30 7 



v., figs. 1—8, p. 42 (1793) ; Latr., " Hist. Nat.," xiv., p. 176 (1805) ; Leach, " Edin. 

 Encycl.," ix., p. 132 (1815); Samouelle,' "Ent. Comp.," p. 246 (1819); Godt., 

 "Hist. Nat," iv., p. 68 (1822); Stphs., " Cat. Br. Ins.," p 45 (1829); "List 

 Br. An. Br. Mus.," v., p. 45 (1850); Wood, " Ind. Ent.," p. 21, fig. 39 (1839) ; 

 Humph, and Westd., "Brit. Moths," p. 51 {aire. 1841); Sta./ "Man.," i., p. 

 160 (1857); Humph., "Gen. Brit. Moths," p. 20 (i860); Kirby, " Cat.," p. 

 773 (1892); "Handbook, etc.," iv., p. 105(1897). Carpini, [Schiff.,] " Schmett. 

 YVien," ed. i., p. 50 (1775) 5 e d- ii., p. 66 (1801); Bkh., ■ Eur. Schmett.," hi., p. 34 

 (1790); Brahm, " Ins. Kal.," ii., pp. 173, 450 (1791) ; View., "Tab. Verz.," i., 

 p. 29 (1789); Hb., " Schmett. Eur.," figs. 53, 54, 255, 276 (arc. 1800); text 

 p. 116 (?i8o5); "Larvae Lep.," hi., Vera? A, I, a— c (circ. 1800); "Tent.," 

 p. 1 (1806); Verz., p. 157 (circ. 1822); " Franck Cat.," p. 88 (1825); Schrank, 

 " Faun. Boica," ii., 1, p. 249 (1801) ; ii., 2, p. 149 (1802) ; Ochs., "Die Schmett.," 

 iii., p. 6 (1810) ; iv., p. 46 (1816) ; Germ., "Bomb. Spec," i., p. 10 ^1811) ; 

 Oken, " Lehrb. Zool.," i., p. 714 (1815) ; Meig., "Eur. Schmett.," ii., p. 156 

 (1830); Bdv., "Eur. Lep. Ind. Meth.," p. 49 (1829); "Icon. Ch:n.," pi. ii., 

 fig s - I_ 3 {circ. 1840) ; " Gen. et Ind. Meth.," p. 73 (1840) ; Dup., " Icon. Chen.," 

 pi. ii., figs, a—h (circ. 1840); "Cat. Meth.," p. 79 (1844) ; Evers., "Faun. 

 Volg.-Ural.," p. 116 (1844); H.-Sch., " Sys. Bearb.," ii., p. 96 (1846) ; Heydenr., 

 "Lep. Eur. Cat. Meth.," 3rd ed., p. 28 (1851) ; Spever, " Geog. Verb.," i., p. 

 417 (1858) ; ii., p. 288 (1862) ; Hein., "Schmett. Deutsch.," p. 196 (1859) ; Mill., 

 " Cat. Lep. Alp.-Mar.," i., p. 146 (1874) >' Newm., " Brit. Moths," p. 48 (1869) ; 

 Frey, " Lep. der Schweiz," p. 99 (1880) ; Kirby, " Eur. Butts, and Moths,'" p. 126, 

 pi. xxvii., figs. 3 a — e (1880) ; Buckl.. " Larva?," etc., iii., pi. Iii., fig. 1 (1889) ; Tutt, 

 "British Moths," p. 42 (1895); Barr., "Lep. Brit.," iii., p. 57 (1896) ; Grote, 

 "Die Saturniiden," pp. 3, 25 (1896). Pavunculus, Retz., "Gen. Spec. Ins.," 

 p. 25 (1783). Pavoniellus, Ramb., "Cat. Lep. And.," p. 178 (1866). 



Original description*. — Phalaena Bombyx pavonia, elinguis, 

 alis patulis rotundatis griseonebulosis subfasciatis : ocello nictitante 

 subfenestrato. 



a. Minor, Fn. Suec, 835. Mouff., Ins., 20. Jonst, Ins., 

 t. 8, f. 7. Rai., Ins., 146, no. 1. Pet., Gaz., t. 33, f. 12, Alb., 

 Ins., t. 37. Merian, Eur., t. 13, 23. Reaum., Ins., i., t. 50, 49. 

 De Geer, Ins., i., t. 19, f. 7, 8. Roes., Ins., i., phal. 2, t. 5. 

 Wilk., Pap., 15, t. 2, a. 3. 



[3. Major, Goed., Ins., 3, t. 2. List., Goed. Act. Paris., 



* For comparison we give the following : " Phalaena (Attacus), pectinicornis 

 elinguis, alis rotundatis griseo-nebulosis subfasciatis ; ocello nictitante subfenestrato " 

 (Faun. Suec, no. 835). Also the following: (1) " a. Minor. — 'Faun. Suec.,' i., p. 

 ^35- ( 2 ) ]3. Major. — Goed., 'Ins.,' 3, t. 2." . . . " Major et minor adeo 

 inter se affines ac Sphinx elpenor (sic) et porcellus seu Phalaena antiqua et recens, 

 confirmante Larva et Pupa, sed altera duplo Major alis albido-cinerascentibus ; 

 Minor vero ferrugineis. Sic una ex altera orta, constanter se multiplicans, nee 

 miscenda alterius cum altera in copula" (Sys. Nat., xiith ed., pp. 810— Si 1) 

 Speyer points out (Stett. Ent. Zeit., vol. xl., p. 151) that Linne evidently considered 

 pavonia-minor and pavonia - major as distinct species, since he writes: " Major 

 et minor adeo inter se affines ac Sphinx elpenor et porcellus seu Philaena 

 antiqua et recens (gonostigma), confirmante larva et pupa, sed altera duplo major 

 alis albido-cinerascentibus ; minor vero ferrugineis. Sic una ex altera orta, con- 

 stanter se multiplicans, nee miscenda alterius cum altera in copula" (Syst. Nut., 

 ed. xii., p. 811). He also shows that Linne did not consider such double names 

 as inadmissible and that pavonia-minor and pavonia-major could be paralleled in 

 repeated instances. He, however, doubts whether pavonia-major — pyri, for, 

 although Linne's citations point in this direction, yet his description suggests simply 

 that Linne's pavonia-major was merely the female of the same species of which 

 pavonia-minor was the male. He observes that no one would diagnose pyri and 

 carpini in the terms used by Linne, that the latter knows no difference in the earl}' 

 stages, nor does he note that only one of the two inhabits Northern Europe. He 

 further notes that in the Fauna Suecica, ed. 2, p. 291, only the c? of pavonia is 

 described, and infers (being unacquainted with the 10th ed. of the Systema Naturae) 

 that, at that time, Linne did not know the insect afterwards described as pavonia- 

 major. Speyer concludes that pavonia is, therefore, the correct name for the 

 species, the suffixes -mmor and -major simply referring to the sexes of the same insect. 



