Part 11

Although the butterfly seems to occur so frequently, we are not aware that the caterpillar has been noticed by any competent observer since the time of Madam Merian, at least no notice of it has been published since. It was long suspected that her figure of it was unworthy of credit, but from what has been recently observed in relation to the larvæ of kindred species (particularly that of _T. Rhipheus_), it now appears probable that her information was correct. Anomalies similar to those which characterise the perfect insects, likewise attend them in their previous state. They are covered with spines, as is the case among many of the _Nymphalidæ_, and they are provided with a retractile tentaculum as in _Papilio_. In the present instance the spines are remarkable for their length and rigidity, particularly those on the anterior and posterior segments.

RHIPHEUS DASYCEPHALUS.

PLATE XXX.

Urania Rhipheus, _Var. Cramer, Godart_.--Rhipheus Dasycephalus, _Swainson, Zool. Illus._ Pl. 131.

We have copied the accompanying figures from Drury’s work on exotic insects, in order that they may be compared with those represented on Plate XXVIII. It will at once be perceived that they present numerous points of agreement, as well as very obvious differences, and when every consideration is taken into account, it is not easy to say whether they ought to be regarded as distinct species, or merely varieties of the same. Drury states that his insect was brought from China, and when the drawing was taken, it was in the possession of Captain May of Hammersmith; in all probability, however, it is now lost. The antennæ are described as black and knobbed at their extremities, and the hinder wings are without tails.

On the supposition that Drury’s figures accurately represent the insect as it appeared when alive, the only connexion which it has with Urania arises from the similar distribution of colours and neuration of the wings; in other respects it would be classed with the _Papiliones_. But this anomaly is certainly a remarkable one, that it should combine clavate antennæ, 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 or 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 were 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 specimen, and give it the appearance of being complete (a practice which has often been followed by amateur 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 _Satyrus Philoctetes_. We mention these circumstances as affording means by which it is possible to account for the peculiarities presented by Drury’s figure; but it is likely that different opinions will be held on the subject. The following are Mr. Swainson’s observations:--“If the imagination was taxed to invent, or to concentrate into one figure all that was splendid, lovely, or rare in the insect world, Nature would far exceed the poor invention of man by the production of this incomparably splendid creature; its rarity also is so great, that but one specimen has ever been seen. It is not, however, on this account only that we have been induced to copy this figure, but because its illustration will clear up one of the most intricate and perplexing questions that has hitherto impeded the natural arrangement of the Linnæan _Papiliones_, and even of the whole order of the _Lepidoptera_.

“The error of Cramer regarding _Rhipheus_ has already been rectified. It will now be demonstrated that not only are the two insects distinct as _species_, but that they actually belong to different _genera_; Cramers being a _Urania_ of Fabricius and Latreille, while Drury’s is a _Papilio_ of the same authors. This is proved by the figures, and confirmed by the following words of Drury :--‘The antennæ are black, and knobbed at their extremities,’ in other words, clavate; while the palpi, as expressed in the figure, are so small as not to project beyond the head, where they lie hid among the frontal hairs; this also being a typical distinction of the Latreillian _Papiliones_. The figures in Drury’s work were all drawn and engraved by Moses Harris, well known as one of the most accurate artists that ever lived; as a remarkable proof of this, we find that he has not failed to delineate that peculiar neuration of the anterior wings which belongs only to the types of _Leilus_. A closer affinity therefore between _Papilio_ and _Leilus_ cannot possibly be imagined; while its remarkable hairy front points out its analogy, as an aberrant type in its own genus, to _Chlorisses_ among insects, and _Dasycephala_ among birds. So true it is that the natural system ‘illuminates with a flood of light’ every supposed anomaly, and reconciles facts apparently the most inexplicable[39].”

FINIS.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: See his _eloge_ on Lamarck, of which a translation will be found in the Thirty-ninth Number of the Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal. To this memoir we have been chiefly indebted for the particulars of Lamarck’s life.]

[Footnote 2: Memoir on the substance of fire, considered as a chemical agent in analysis.--_Journal de Physique, Floreal, An._ vii.]

[Footnote 3: Memoir on the substance of sound.--_Journal de Physique, 16 & 26 Brumaire, An._ vii.]

[Footnote 4: _Animaux sans vertébres_, vol. i. p. 188, 189.]

[Footnote 5: _Animaux sans Vertébres_, vol. i. p. 197, 198.]

[Footnote 6: _Ib._ p. 199.]

[Footnote 7: Ann. du Museum d’Hist. Nat., tom. i. p. 234.]

[Footnote 8: Lyell’s Principles of Geology, ii. p. 31.]

[Footnote 9: Principles of Geology, ii. p. 8.]

[Footnote 10: This subject will be found to be discussed at considerable length, and in a very satisfactory manner, in the second volume of Mr. Lyell’s Principles of Geology, p. 1-65.]

[Footnote 11: _Animaux sans Vertébres_, i. p. 260.]

[Footnote 12: _Ibid._ 258, _N. Dict. d’Hist. Nat._ xvi. Art. _Intelligence_.]

[Footnote 13: _Kirby’s Bridge. Treat. Intro._ p. xxxii.]

[Footnote 14: N. Dict. d’Hist. Nat. xxii. Art. _Nature_, 377; _Anim. sans Vert._ i. p. 317.]

[Footnote 15: _Anim. sans Vert._ i. p. 316.]

[Footnote 16: _Anim. sans Vert._, vol. i. 322.]

[Footnote 17: On the Influence of the Moon on the Earth’s Atmosphere; _Journal de Physique_, Prairial, an. vi. Most of Lamarck’s other essays on Meteorology will be found in the periodical just named.]

[Footnote 18: The most recent and probably the best edition of the _Animaux sans Vertébres_, is in eight volumes octavo, augmented with notes by M. M. Deshages and Milne Edwards.]

[Footnote 19: _Animaux sans Vertébres_, i. 381.]

[Footnote 20: Horæ Entomologicæ, p. 213.]

[Footnote 21: Cuvier conceives that the basin of Paris contains a greater accumulation of fossil shells than any other place of equal extent. At Grignon, no fewer than six hundred different species have been collected in a space not exceeding a few square toises.]

[Footnote 22: See Boisduval, Nouv. Ann. du Museum, vol. ii.]

[Footnote 23: Benett’s Wanderings, &c. i. p. 265.]

[Footnote 24: Bridg. Treat. ii. 350.]

[Footnote 25: Horsfield’s Catal. of the Lepidopterous Insects of Java, Intro. p. 9.]

[Footnote 26: This work extends to fourteen volumes (the last published in 1833), and three supplementary ones are in course of preparation.]

[Footnote 27: Species général des Lépidoptères, p. 158.]

[Footnote 28: _Voyage de l’Astrolabe, Ent._, pl. 4, fig. 1 and 2.]

[Footnote 29: Species général des Lépidoptères, vol. i. p. 184.]

[Footnote 30: Encyclop. Methodique, Art. _Papillon_, p. 67. No. 116.]

[Footnote 31: Descrip. Catal. of Lepid. of Indian Company, pl. i. fig. 14.]

[Footnote 32: Species général des Lepidoptères, i. p. 435.]

[Footnote 33: Wilson’s Illust. of Zoology, fol. 27.]

[Footnote 34: On the Plate the under figure should have been marked 1, the upper 2.]

[Footnote 35: Supp. to Cramer, p. 10, 11.]

[Footnote 36: Owing to the resemblance which this species bears to _H. Cupido_, the latter name has been inadvertently attached to the figure on the adjoining Plate.]

[Footnote 37: Zoological Illustrations, 126.]

[Footnote 38: Trans. of Zool. Society of London, i. p. 187.]

[Footnote 39: Zoological Illustrations, 2d series, 131.]

[Transcriber’s Note:

Obvious printer errors corrected silently.

Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation are as in the original.]