VI 
PREFACE. 
register, the majority even required descriptions of all denominations hitherto given, no matter from what 
quarter. Everyone could then decide for himself, which of these names were of utility. For this reason we had 
to radically alter our outlook and intentions and we have now included all the names, except such as were 
contrary to the rules of nomenclature. Further wherever such names are not self-explanatory, we have sought 
to give a brief description. 
In regard to the giving of names we have not allowed ourselves any criticism in the Supplementary Volume 
(neither did we in the original Volumes). It is open to doubt whether such denominations as for instance a form 
“ crocecsemivirgatus-caerulescens ” Tvtt, “forma ; punctis-subtus-conjluentibus ” or ‘ ‘subtus-maculis-partim-extensis '’ 
Oberth. can be held to be valid for forms in accordance with Linne’s nomenclature ? Actually these are abbrev¬ 
iated diagnoses and one might just as well consider them as such. Later Coitrvoisier and other authors simi¬ 
larly have attempted to introduce some consistency in denominations, by giving for instance for all forms with 
reduced markings, no matter to which species they belong, the name of “ forma privata ”, whilst for such that 
are especially well marked "decorafci\ for such with abnormal spot markings the names parvipunctata, parci- 
punctata, pluripunctata etc. Courvoisier himself has stated personally to the editor that he did not consider these 
denominations as of equal importance as for instance Apatura ilia forma clytie or Vanessa antiopa forma hygiaea. 
As however latterly he entered behind these denominations “mihi”, he must have ultimately considered them 
as fully valid names. — We can see little to recommend either of these two methods of denomination, the compound 
names and the systematic as both have grave disadvantages. 
The former, the utilising of compound abbreviated diagnoses instead of binary nomenclatural denomi¬ 
nations represents a retrograde Step towards pre-Linne chaos. The latter, Courvoisier’s schematic, systematic 
denominating would mean constant repetition and the indispensible necessity of additional distinctive desig¬ 
nations. Such a naming of individual specimens and of immaterial, purely local aberrations or tendencies would 
create confusion regarding the accuracy of all previous records and illustrations in literature. The question 
whether a system of synonymical names would be feasible becomes unnecessary in cases where only the locality 
label enables one to definitely classify a form, where one requires date of capture to specify to which separately 
denominated generation a specimen belongs, or where one would not know at which specimen one denomination 
should cease and another commence in long series with every grade of transition. 
There is however no reason why we should omit names of this nature that have already been given, nor 
have we any desire to withdraw them or replace them by others. The authors of the various Genera have 
occasionally made remarks as to the superfluity or dispensability of certain names, but each subscriber must 
decide for himself whether he agrees or disagrees with such comment. The attitude generally adopted in this 
work towards this (which has not unreasonably been called the “denomination mania”) can best be judged from 
the fact that in Supplementary Volume 1, of many thousands of names enumerated only 39 are entirely new 
and even these are chiefly where other names have had to be substituted on grounds of prior use. 
It is obviously true that the enumeration of names in the Supplementary Volume, especially those of 
sub-forms, has grown to enormous dimensions and the compilation of the Index reveals more than 9000 
names. It was therefore no easy matter to keep this Volume within reasonable dimensions, as it might easily 
have far exceeded in bulk the original Volumes to which it is merely supplementary. 
Closely allied to the question of denominations is the question of “races”. It is unavoidable that in 
describing single specimens, purely individual characteristics are occasionally included as those of the race. 
It is impossible to create general rules in regard to the applicability of definite characteristics required to 
designate a race. In this question each opinion varies and they frequently diverge quite considerably. As a 
professional rearer and breeder, having often been elected as judge in questions of “race” and whose opinion 
has often been sought in such matters, the editor has had exceptional experience in questions relating to the 
scientific establishment of races. Nevertheless he does not consider himself competent or qualified to influence 
or to seek to correct the opinion of previous authorities or even his collaborators without first making the most 
exhaustive study of each individual case. The expert scientist sees in many cases such a confusion of ideas in 
the layman on this question of “races”, that it appears to him almost purposeless to endeavour to correct or 
revise opinions that have already become ingrained. 
A work that tries to embrace all the names hitherto given, cannot hope to satisfy every single subscriber. 
Whilst many feel annoyed at the enumeration of many names that they deem dispensible, others check through 
each name in the most painstaking way, to try to find whether some name or other has been omitted. Some 
authors actually have felt hurt owing to the descriptive matter relating to one name being more ample than 
another and in some cases have in consequence even gone so far as to openly express adverse criticisms of the 
work as a whole. 
That in spite of the difficulties of world conditions and despite such criticisms, it has been possible to 
complete the Rlwpalocera of the world, the Heterocera of the palaearctic region, the exotic Sphingidae and almost 
