PREFACE. 
VII 
and illustrious Entomologist, did not actually refer, say to the mid-european “race’ or "population . There 
can be hardly any doubt for instance, that Linne when giving his descriptions of all lepidopteral species 
inhabiting Scandinavia, actually used specimens from that region. For the sake of argument, should I now 
consider that one of the names given by him, referred particularly to a Scandinavian population and should 
I find substantiation somewhere that the central european specimens varied slightly in some immaterial 
manner, I would be at liberty to denominate this nominally nameless mid-european form and my name would 
figure as that of the author! This crime could be committed under the guise of the “rules of nomenclature". 
Actually in the case of such well known lepidoptera as Papilio machaon and Parnassius apollo this state of 
affairs already exists and a similar fate is in process for many other species. The hope that the introduction 
of the rules of nomenclature would, as was intended, lead to a stabilisation has proved illusive. In fact the 
confusion created seems to increase. When a position arises in which two students in referring to one and 
the same species, can call it Papilio podalorius or alternatively Iphiclides sinon and both can claim that his 
particular name is the right one and justified by the rules of nomenclature, then it must be plain that the 
codex is, to say the least, ambiguous and unsuitable for the purpose for which it was created. And even 
if perchance the rights of priority are occasionally violated by ignoring some obscure or long forgotten name, 
it would be illogical to seek to rectify one single injustice by creating hundreds or even thousands of new 
ambiguities. It would also not be fair to all the subsequent authors that might in the meanwhile in all 
innocence similarly have been infringing the rules of priority! It is contrary to common sense to create many 
inaccuracies in trying to remove one lesser wrong. The ultimate purpose of the regulations and of the rules 
of nomenclature should be to create clarity and certainty and exclude ambiguities and inconsistencies. 
Whilst we are prepared to do all in our power to avoid being inconsequent, we are not prepared to pledge 
ourselves to a “fiat justitia et pereat mundus”. We have already laid stress in the Prefaces to previous 
volurnes on the fact that in our opinion nomenclature is not a purpose in itself. It should be the servant 
of science and the means of facilitating reference and collaboration. Such rules that do not serve this end, 
had best be ignored. The rules of nomenclature must thus have a certain elasticity, that permits of ex¬ 
ceptions and that do not impose an inviolable, obligatory codex. 
In a work of the nature of the present one, it is essential to preserve a certain uniformity. Were 
we to seek to enforce a rigorous adhesion to nomenclatural rules the result would be unforeseeable. We need 
only mention one example to illustrate our point. In Volume 2 the Genus “Spilosoma” is cited. According to 
Hampson's “Catalogue” Vol. 3 this name was withdrawn and replaced by the older name “ Diacrisia” and 
this was the name used to denote this Genus in Volume 10 of this work. Meanwhile however Hampson had 
reinstated the denomination “ Spilosoma” in Supplement 3 of his Catalogue and therefore in contradiction 
to Vol. 10, this name was again utilised in the Supplementary Volume 2 of the Macrolepidoptera. 
And this merely in a desire to satisfy the rules of priority! An experience like this should be sufficient 
justification for the contention, that exceptions must be allowed. The editor felt sufficient confidence in his 
sub-editors and collaborators to know that they would not infringe rules, that had been made with the 
best of intentions, merely from arbitrary or egotistical motives. 
The illustrations, which have been the especial care both of the Editor and Publisher, were never 
intended to be works of art. They are to facilitate determination and classification of species. It would 
appear from some of our critics that they have completely misunderstood the manner and purpose of illus¬ 
tration. It has never been the intention of the editor to select the most magnificent specimens as models. 
Nor did he ever wish to impress his reader with the conception of the beauty of a species. This would merely 
lead to disappointment, should a student be induced thereby to acquire a particular specimen, which fell 
far short of his expectations, either in size or beauty as compared with the illustration. Criticisms therefore 
with the complaint that the specimens illustrated are not especially fine and therefore unsuitable for illus¬ 
tration and that larger and finer models would have been available, merely fail to realise the intentions 
of the editor and the purpose of the work. 
In previous volumes we have mentioned already that we do not claim that every one of the thousands 
of illustrations has been executed to our complete satisfaction. The present volume that covers the Australian 
fauna and the many forms that have been newly described during the last decades, has been particularly 
difficult in this respect. Frequently only the type specimen is known and this is preserved in some quite in¬ 
accessible private collection or in a Museum in one of the cities of Australia. One can well understand 
that the possessor of an unique specimen is not inclined to trust same to the risks of a journey to Europe, 
for fear it might suffer irreparable damage. Further, these types are frequently in such a poor state of 
preservation that it is doubtful whether they would be serviceable for illustrative purposes. In such cases 
as this, one was glad enough to obtain a drawing or water colour sketch of the species in question and then 
of course one had to accept same as such without being able to verify whether it was true to life. 
Wherever we have given illustrations of this nature, it has been in the assumption that they represented 
