V 
Preface. 
In publishing the 1 st Supplementary Volume of the Macrolepidoptera oe the World, editor and 
publishers found themselves faced with a series of complex and entirely unexpected new problems. Fundamental 
alterations of all preconceived notions were necessary owing to the progress in technical art, the rapid accumu¬ 
lation of new scientific data and above all the constant changing perplexities and difficulties of the present 
times which were due to the unprecedented economic world crisis. The difficulty was therefore not only to carry 
out the arranged plan, but to combat with the fresh difficulties as and when they arose and of which at the 
present time no end is in sight. Only by working without cessation to produce the part issues quickly, was it 
possible to overcome the difficulties, and give at the same time equal consideration to pure scientists, as well 
as the larger circle of amateur entomologists. 
The first “ Papilio ” chapters appeared in the autumn of 1929, nevertheless the “Hesperides” were 
completed in April 1931, merely 18 months in which all this matter had been elaborated. Besides two additional 
supplementary parts were published and simultaneously good progress was made with the 2 following Supple¬ 
mentary Volumes. 
At the same time no delay was allowed to take place in the publication of the main series of Volumes, 
especially the conclusion of Volumes VI and X. During the lapse of time, i. e. from September 1929 to April 
1931 we published 32 parts of the main series. As each of these parts contains 3 units, comprising printed matter 
or plates, some 170 units appeared in rather less than 2 years, a total of 240 — both of which were printed in the 
german and english languages. 
Thus a period of barely 3 days, taking even Sundays and holidays into consideration, has been required 
to produce each sheet of text or plate and this remarkable achievement should be taken into consideration if 
some small inexactitudes are discovered. 
The publishers have however not deliberately sought to create a record in speed. Both the editor and 
they have made every endeavour to profit by the latest inventions and improvements in graphic art for the 
benefit of entomology. The reader can judge to what extent this has been successful, in spite of the difficulties 
of the present times and the prohibitions and restrictions in intercourse between the nations. Just compare the 
plates given with the last parts published, for instance Supplementary Volume 3, plates 3 and 4 with the 
corresponding plates of the original Volume (plates 5 —8 of Volume 3) and we are certain we may venture to 
feel sure of approval. 
The great complexities that arise in the question of nomenclature, are dealt with in the introduction. 
Stress was laid (compare pages 2 and 3) on the fact that nomenclature should never be otherwise than an 
auxilliary expedient and an aid to natural sciences. There is neither time nor space in the “Macrolepidoptera” 
to discuss the issue or enter into the disputes regarding nomenclature. The monographers can explain their 
attitude towards each individual denomination after studying the entomological catalogues that compile 
the material. 
As, no doubt, has been observed in the original Volumes we sought to omit all names for abnormities, 
such as may occur in every species. It is now nearly 40 years since the introduction of such names as minor , 
major, intermedia, obscura, pallida etc. for all known species. Of this, Tutt was the chief exponent. Soon after 
commencing we were flooded with applications and complaints that Ttitt’s denominations had been “over¬ 
looked”, “left out” or even “deliberately suppressed”. It appeared that most subscribers desired a complete 
