Meanwhile, in Sweden, in 1758, the eminent naturalist Linnaeus published his revolutionary zoological 

 work on the classification of animals. The incorporation into his systemic work of a progressive grouping of 

 names was innovative, and it laid down the principle of grouping together what were perceived by him to be 

 closely related forms. Linnaeus provided groups of defined generic names and within which were individual 

 names and descriptions for every species he recognised. This provision of two names for every individual 

 species forms the important binominal classification which taxonomists utilise today. The arrangement of 

 genera within higher groupings provided a system of classification, which over the years only required 

 modification. Today, the system has been greatly refined, modified and enlarged so that it incorporates a 

 quadrinominal usage of taxa, i.e., the division of genera into subgenera and of species into subspecies. Similarly, 

 the higher groupings have been enlarged with their relevant analysed subdivisions. 



In Britain also, further important publications were being produced, including that by John Berkenhout 

 who in 1769, was the first British author to freely adopt the Linnaean system of classification, by introducing his 

 Latinized names and importantly, following the discipline layed down by continental workers of acknowledging 

 the authorship of species. He was followed by other established British authors with new editions of their books. 

 The ultimate influence though of Linnaeus's work in the latter part of the 18th century, saw the development of 

 a major shift in the scientific classification of Lepidoptera from British sources, to authors from various parts of 

 Scandinavia and the European Continent. The Englishman E. Donovan, whos major output spanned from 1792 

 to 1813 with his classic work on British insects, was one of the last major 18th century British authors writing 

 on the Lepidoptera. Eventually, Linnaeus himself in 1761 brought out supplementary additions to his magnum 

 opus of 1758, preceded by Clerck in 1759. Following swiftly came a flood of mostly major contributions, by 

 authors such as Scopoli, Muller, Schaffer, Hufnagel, Denis & Schiffermuller, Sulzer, Fabricius, Retzius, 

 Hockenwarth, Goeze, Geoffroy, Villers, Knoch, Thunberg, Borkhausen, Bosc, DeGeer, Esper and Hiibner 

 among others. An important number of these entomologists had access not only to material from the European 

 fauna, but to the already vast collections that were being accumulated from expeditions around the globe. The 

 great Danish entomologist Fabricius visited England in order to study and describe the exotic Lepidoptera 

 contained in large private collections, particularly the specimens acquisitioned into the collection of Sir Joseph 

 Banks that later became the nucleus of the Lepidoptera collections housed in the British Museum. 



Much of the historic information given above was adapted from the excellent account given by A.M. 

 Emmet; for the more detailed historic account on British butterflies, see, Emmet, 1990, The moths and 

 butterflies of Great Britain and Ireland (7(1): 7-21). For further information on the sources of vernacular 

 names for British macromoths there are available the detailed accounts given by P.R. Marren in his superb 

 papers The English names of moths (1998(10)91: 29-38 & 1999(8): 26-31). 



During the first half of the 19th century, major contributions to the study of the Lepidoptera were 

 coming from other sources in the world, though still mainly from Europe, in particular, from authors like 

 Hiibner, Treitschke, Boisduval, Duponchel, Zeller, Herrich-Schaffer, Guenee and Tengstrom. From the British 

 Isles Donovan might be regarded as the father of British Entomology, or at least, a major contender for the title. 

 Following his participation, there developed in the field of British Lepidoptera, an earnest intent to 

 systematically analyse the native fauna. Pre-eminent at the start of the 19th century were the works of Haworth 

 and Curtis, followed later by Humphreys & Westwood, Stephens, Douglas, Doubleday and Stainton. After 1 850 

 a veritable deluge of independent workers from around the world were vastly contributing to our knowledge of 

 Lepidoptera, by the addition of descriptions of new genera and species. Importantly also, by an increased 

 attention to the higher systematic classification at family level and beyond, with the English contributions being 

 dominated since the latter part of the 19th century, by entomologist's such as Stainton, Lord Walsingham, 

 Meyrick and Hampson. A great influence was also coming from the Continental authors, particularly the 

 German entomologist Staudinger and the Frenchman Ragonot. 



Proceeding on through to the present day, it can be seen, that enormous advances have been achieved 

 in the field of global Lepidoptera Taxonomy. The huge proliferation of additional taxa has far exceeded the 

 totals thought possible by the 17th and 18th century lepidopterists, and indeed the total number of species now 

 considered possible globally by today's Lepidoptera taxonomists, reaches figures beyond the comprehension of 

 their predecessor's of even 50 years ago. 



Today it is accepted that in English popular Lepidoptera literature especially that on butterflies and 

 macromoths, they are likely to be referred to by both their scientific and common or vernacular names where the 

 latter exists. In English publications there have been a gradual sifting and transitional change from many 

 vernacular names in use during the 18th century. So that by the early 20th century, thanks largely to the 

 extremely successful books on British butterflies and moths by such author's as R. South and later by E. B. 

 Ford, the vernacular names had become stabilized into those in use today. For many of us who grew up with 

 these books, our initially achieved entomological knowledge was gratefully assimilating the easier to remember 

 vernacular names, while later, or simultaneously, we went on, hopefully, to memorize and understand with 

 appreciation, the more difficult Latinized scientific versions. Along with the names, those who were interested 

 in insect taxonomy were also learning to interpret the true taxonomic significance of the terminology involved. 



48 



