Genus. ORNITHOPTERA. 



Troides, Hiibn. Verz. bek. Schmett. 87 (1816). 



Ornithoptera, Boisd. Faune de 1'oceanie, t. 4 f. 1 (1832). 



„ [Boisd. Voy. Astrolabe, Lep. p. 33 (1832)]. 



Amphrisius, Swainson, Zool. 111. 2nd Ser. t. 98 (1833). 



Ornithopterus, Westwood, Introd. Mod. Class. Insects, V. II., p. 348 (1840). 



Ornithoptera, Sp. Gen. I. p. 173 (1836). 



„ Doubleday and Hewitson, Gen. D. L., p. 5 (1846). 



„ Cbenu, Encycl. d'Hist. Nat. ; Pap. Diur. p. 33 (1S56 ?). 



Papilio (Ornithoptera), G. R. Gray, Cat. Lep. Brit. Mus. (1852). 



Paohlioptera (part), Reak. Proc. Ent. Soc. Philad. III., p. 504 (1864). 



Ornithoptera, Wallace, Trans. Linn. Soc. Vol. XXV. (1866). 



Papilio, Kirby, Syn. Cat. Diur. Lep. p. 517 (1871). 



Ornithoptera (Subgenus), Distant, Rhop. Malayana, text, Vol. I. p. 32 (1887). 



„ Fickert, Ueber die Zeichnungsverhaltnisse der Gatt. Ornith. (1889). 



Although the differences which obtain between the 

 Linnaean Genus Papilio in its entirety, and Boisduval's 

 Ornithoptera are not really very numerous (being by some 

 regarded as most important in the larvae), and have been 

 by many authors deemed hardly important enough to 

 justify their separation ; yet the general and uniform 

 divergence in superficial appearance, together with a 

 special character in the $ 3- which we shall have to notice 

 later on, the peculiar colouration, and the remarkable 

 shape of the hind wings of the <? in one division of the 

 Genus, together with its almost unique splendour, and 

 the gigantic size of its ? — added to the fact that anyone 

 could at a glance separate examples of either sex of the 

 two genera, quite justified Hubner and Boisduval in 

 removing the latter from its original position and giving 

 it a new generic distinction. 



Whether Ornithoptera should be regarded as a Genus 

 or a Subgenus is a reasonable question, which can only 

 be settled finally, when we know much more than at 

 present of its internal characters, and the life history and 

 variations of its larvae. The structural characters of the 

 wings and bodies differ but little from those of Papilio. 

 Indeed Mr. Distant only allows it the lower rank ; and 

 while there is much to be said for his view of the case, it 

 will be necessary to point out presently a special charac- 

 ter, generally ignored, which we think ought to be taken 

 into account in any diagnosis : this character is confined 

 to the $ $ of the Priamus group, and as far as I can 

 ascertain is not found in any others of the Papilionid.e 

 unless in a very restricted sense. It disappears in the 

 Pompceus group, from the upper wings, and in a new and 

 more complicated form becomes a feature of the $ 

 abdominal fold. In this position it is found also among 

 a multitude of the true Papilios, most especially the $ S 

 of the black and red South and Central American group. 

 In the latter the general shape of the wings of both $ $ 

 and S 2 is even more suggestive of the Ornithoptera, 

 than in an analogous case between the Asiatic Neptis and 

 some of the American Eresias. 



With regard to the rank of the Ornithoptera it is only their 

 grandeur perhaps which may dispose us to give them 

 their position at the head of the Papilios. If the Pierince, 

 are to remain as the ist sub-family of the Papilionidae, 

 Ornithoptera might well take some other and even lower 

 place in the 2nd sub-family ; and in any case it seems to 

 me that the Red and Black groups of Papilios and their 



green allies should follow immediately after, as a genus 

 or subgenus to which the name Ornithopterimis or Orni- 

 thopterina might be applied. We should then have two 

 species of Papilio, which probably are closely related to 

 Ornithoptera, namely P. Zalmoxis, Hewit, and D. Anti- 

 machus, Drury, both W. African forms, to find the true 

 position of. 



It has been suggested to me by Mr. Jenner Weir, whose 

 knowledge is very extensive, that inasmuch as Hubner's 

 name Troides is older than Boisduval's Ornithoptera the 

 former should be accepted in place of the latter. But, 

 although Troides is a post- Linnaean name, it seems unwise 

 to bring back an almost forgotten name, as a substitute 

 for one so universally accepted, and so much more appro- 

 priate to the character of the insects. 



The diagnosis of the Genus by Boisduval being so 

 brief, must be my justification for adopting that of 

 Doubleday and Hewitson. 



" Head large. Eyes large and round. Maxillae of 

 moderate length. Labial Papi closely pressed to the 

 forehead, short, obscurely triarticulate, covered with long 

 hairs, the basal and apical joints very small, especially 

 the former, which is barely discernible. 



"Antennae very long [same length as abdomen], 

 gradually clavate ; the club arched, slightly tapering 

 towards the apex [see Pt. la., fig. 5] . Thorax very stout, 

 the prothorax very distinctly developed. 



" Anterior wings powerful, elongate, triangulate ; upper 

 disco-cellular nervule about equal in length to the space 

 between the two discoidal nervules ; 3rd median nervule 

 mostly thrown off exactly opposite the end of the cell 

 [this varies in the different species from 1 to 2 mm. from 

 the supposed normal position] ; median and submedian 

 nervures connected by a baseo-median nervule [generally 

 of about 3 or 4 mm. in length] . Posterior wings small 

 in proportion to anterior, sub-triangulate, the costa slightly 

 rounded ; the outer margin rounded, dentate ; precostal 

 nervure 2 branched, the inner branch bent downwards 

 and united to the costal nervure. 



" Legs strong, elongate. Anterior tibiae with a very 

 stout spur. Tarsi with the ist joint about equal in length 

 to the rest combined ; 4th joint shortest ; 2nd, 3rd, and 

 5th nearly equal. Claws, simple, strong. 



Vol. I. 



