This Genus may be usefully divided into 3 subgeneras 

 and one section : the section will be part of the typical 

 Genus Ornithoptera ; will contain the golden and purple 

 species, such as Crcesus and Urvilliana — insects very dis- 

 tinct in personal appearance from the green forms, but 

 not sufficiently distinct to give them subgeneric value. 

 This will be designated, section Priamoptera ; the 

 three subgenera are amply distinct from the typical 

 Ornithoptera, and will be named, Pompeoptera (its 

 t}'pe 0. Pompceiis) ; Trogonoptera (its type, 0. Brookeana) ; 

 and ^Etheoptera (type 0. Victoria). The characters of 

 each will be given in their respective places. 



In the section Priamoptera, O. Crcesus will be the type, 

 as the difference in colour from Ornithoptera on the under 

 surface is much greater than in the case of Urvilliana. 

 The latter is nearly normal with the Generic forms, 

 while the colour of the former is nearly as golden below 

 as above. Possibly, however, they are both local vars. 

 of O. Priamus. 



The type of Ornithoptera will be, as it has ever been, 

 O. Priamus, Linn. 



ORNITHOPTERA PRIAMUS. 



t Papilio Priamus, Linn., Syst. Nat. ed. X. 458. n. i (1758).* 

 t m ., Mus. Ulr. p. 182 (1764). 



t „ „ Syst. Nat. I. 2. p. 744 n. 1 (1767). 



t » Clerck, Icones, t. 17 f. 1 (1764). 



„ Houttuyn, Naturl. Hist. I. 11. p. 188 n. 1 (1767). 



» Miiller, Naturs. V. 1. p. 565. n. 1 (1774) 



t „ Cramer, Pap. Ex. I. t. 23. A.B, (1775). 



„ Fabr., Syst. Ent. p. 446. n. 16 (1775). 



» », Spec. Ins. p. 6. n. 21 (1781). 



„ Jablonski, Naturs. Schmett. I. p. 195. n. 1. t. 1. f. 1, 2 (1783). 



„ Esper., Austr. Schmett. p. 11. t. 1. f. 1 (17S4). 



„ Fabr., Mant. Ins. II. p. 3 n. 28 (22). (1787). 



„ Gmelin, Syst. Nat. I. 5. p. 2230. n. 1 (1790). 



„ Fabr. Ent. Syst. III. 1. p. n. n. 32 (1793). 



„ Donovan Ins. India, t. 3 (1800). 



„ Thunberg, Mus. Nat. Ups. XXIII. p. 9 (1804). 



„ Turton, Syst. of Nat. III. : p. 10. 2. tab. 65 (1806). 



„ Shaw, Gen. Zool. VI. p/207, t. 65 (1806). 



f P. Priamus $ , Godt. Enc, Meth. IX. p. 22. n. 1 (1819). 

 Xroides Priamus $ , Hubn. Verz. p. 88. n. 919 (1816). 

 Ornithoptera Priamus 6* . Boisdv. Voyag. Astrol. Lep. p. 33. n. 1 (1832).} 

 t „ „ $ , Sp. Gen. I. p. 173. n. 1 (1836). 



„ » $ , Duncan, Foreign Butterflies, p. 89. t. 1. f. 1 (1837). 



„ „ $ , Blanchard, Hist. Nat. Ins. p. 420. n. 1 (1841). 



„ „ $ , Felder, Ver. Zool-bot. Ges. Wien. XIV. p. 290. n. 8. 332. n. 7 (1864).}} 



t „ „ 6* , Wallace, Trans. Linn. Soc. Vol. XXV. p. 35 (1865). 



t „ „ 6*, Chenu, Enc. D' Hist. Nat. Papillons Diurn. p. 3. f. 108 (by Lucas) (1856?). 



„ „ W. F. Kirby : " Notes on the Butt, descr. by Linnseus," in W. Ent. Soc. p. 134 (1! 



Pap. Priamus, Kirby, Syn. Cat. Diur. Lepid. p. 517 (1871). 

 0. Priamus, Dr. C. Fickert, Ueber die Zeichnungsverhaltnisse der Gatt. Orn. p. 702 (1888). 

 t Ornithoptera Priamus $ , 2 , A. Sidney Olliff, Austr. Butterflies, $ . fig. p. 38** (1889). 



[Many of these not marked with a t refer to vars. now called species.] 



This is undoubtedly the type form of the whole genus, 

 possibly the earliest known to authors ; and though the 

 figs, in the " Amcen. Academ." are so absurd, there can 

 be little doubt that the insect was not far from the artist when 

 they were drawn. At any rate they will do as well for 

 this as for any species or var., which perhaps is not a great 

 recommendation, though it is the best comfort that can 

 be offered. The very close resemblance between the 

 males of the typical groups of the genus may render it 

 possible that Linnaeus' artist had seen some other of the 

 many slightly different forms ; but it is not probable. 

 Since the time of the great Father of Entomology, such a 

 multitude of examples and variations have been brought 



before us, that the difficulty of deciding on the specific 

 or varietal value of these has rather increased than 

 diminished, although the tendency must be to more than 

 ever regard them all as local forms of one species — some 

 of these again being ranked as varieties of those local 

 forms. The females, though they vary from each other 

 much more than do their males, considering how won- 

 derfully these variations pass almost imperceptably into 

 each other, rather strengthen this theory than otherwise. 



But however we may view the case, there can 

 be little hesitation in regarding the species of either 

 sex of the typical Priamus as being fairly easy to recog- 



* Linn. Pandora Insectorum, V. 5, 2nd Edit. 1788. Amcenitates Academical, 

 t. 3, fig. 231-1-2, are 2 black figs, of an insect with pointed wings, suggestive of this 

 species, but quite fanciful in neuration and detail ; evidently evolved from the artists 

 inner consciousness. In Edit. 1., Vol. 5, p. 3, fig. 203 (date 1758), these made their 

 first appearance. The author has not seen this edition. 



J A 2 var. figured on PI. 4 of the Ent., figs. 1 and 2, from Amboina andRawak ; 

 and a 2 var. from Celebes is nearly like that described by Boisduval, only the spots 

 are larger and whiter, and there is a large transverse white quadrate spot in the 

 discoidal cell. This should sertainly be the ? of 0. Proiwmus. 



+ } Really the var. Oceanus. 



** The <? only is really Priamus. 



