206 
RHIPHEUS DASYCEPHALUS. 
classed with the Papiliones. But this anomaly is 
certainly a remarkable one, that it should combine 
clavate antennfe, 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 o? other, under error. We 
have no doubt, however, that his figures afford a 
faithful representation of the specimen from which 
they were taken, as the drawings W'ere 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 Rhipheus. 
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 Salyrut P/iiloctetcs. 
We mention these circumstances as affording means 
by which it is possible to account for the peculiari- 
