Part 7

This magnificent Papilio, for to this appellation it is entitled truly, was one among the number of those rarities of the insect race which Fabricius met with in the Entomological Cabinets of the English Naturalists, when he paid a visit to this country about the year 1792, and the descriptions of which constitute a most invaluable and extensive portion of the work which he published subsequently upon the continent, under the title of _Entomologia Systematica_. Fabricius saw the drawing of this insect in the Collectanea of Paintings formed by the ingenious hand of that indefatigable and liberal Naturalist the late William Jones, Esq. of Chelsea, and was so delighted with its grandeur, as an insect altogether undescribed, that he determined upon assigning to it some name of pre-eminent distinction. The tribe of insects to which it naturally appertains in systematic classification, is that of the _Equites Achivi_; all the species of which are named after the Greeks, and more especially of those commemorated in the Iliad and the Odyssey: the heroes of the Trojan war. This rule determined his choice, and we may readily conceive his admiration of the species from the name selected upon this occasion, _Papilio Homerus_. If Homer had no claim to be considered as a Greek, he had sang the achievements of the Grecian heroes, and had mourned the fall of Troy; and Fabricius disposed alike to compliment the immortal bard, and define the species by an appellation more than usually superlative, has consecrated it to the memory of that ancient poet.

If we advert to the writings of Fabricius, it will be found that this author refers for a figure of this fine Papilio solely to the Paintings of Mr. Jones. The reference is to the eighth drawing of the first volume of his collectanea. This is perfectly correct, the figure occurs in that collection of paintings as Fabricius states, and in the part described. We have not only seen it there with the name assigned to it in _Entomologia Systematica_ PAPILIO HOMERUS inscribed in the hand-writing of Fabricius, but are at this time in possession of an exact copy of that drawing, taken by the express permission of its former very worthy proprietor; and it is from this copy of the original drawing so inscribed by Fabricius himself, that the very beautiful figure is taken which accompanies the present description.

Notwithstanding the general accuracy with which Fabricius has related the local circumstances connected with the history of the insects which he describes, there are occasionally errors in this respect it must be satisfactory to many of our readers to have corrected: errors, which, owing to the lapse of time and death of those distinguished Naturalists which Fabricius had the happiness of meeting with in England, we may venture to presume, without vanity, can be now corrected only through the medium of our assistance. The celebrity of Fabricius throughout Europe as one of the best informed Entomologists of the last century, renders it even of no small importance to correct the most trivial oversights he has committed; and this consideration will, we trust, afford us some apology for that minuteness, if not prolixity with which it may be requisite occasionally to relate particulars of a local nature, in order to correct such errors. An instance of this kind occurs in the note annexed to the Fabrician description of the Papilio now before us; in stating the local circumstances connected with its history, Fabricius says _Habitat in America_. _Dom Latham._ There is obviously an oversight in this passage, for we well know that the Fabrician description of this species was taken from the figure in the series of drawings painted by Mr. Jones, which has been already mentioned; the original of the figure now presented by us to the attention of our readers; and that the specimen of the insect itself from which that painting was taken was preserved at the time Fabricius described it in the celebrated collection of the late Mr. Dru Drury. As we had the pleasure of Mr. Drury’s acquaintance, as well as that of Mr. Jones, and had an unreserved access to the information and cabinets of both, we are enabled to speak upon this circumstance with confidence. The example of Papilio Homerus in the cabinet of Mr. Drury was perfectly familiar to us, it was ourselves who wrote the name _Homerus_, annexed to this insect in that cabinet; and so far as our recollection serves at the distant period of five and twenty years, Mr. Drury stated to us that he had received this individual specimen from the Island of Jamaica. We are in possession of the Entomological manuscripts of this venerable author, but among those we have in vain sought for any positive confirmation of this distant recollection. It appears certain that Mr. Drury had not entered it under the name of _Homerus_ in his catalogue after we had communicated that name to him; and which we did upon the authority of the Fabrician manuscripts annexed to the drawings of Mr. Jones. At the time Mr. Drury received this insect from his correspondent it was assuredly a nameless species, and was probably entered as such, with a number only; such omissions in the nomenclature being, of course, usual when the species proved to be undescribed, till proper names could be assigned to them. A gentleman of the name of Keuchan, and another of the name of Whiting, appear from these entries to be the only correspondents who furnished Mr. Drury with Papiliones of Jamaica; it was probably from the former that he obtained this majestic species; and that Mr. Drury obtained it about the year 1777. This _habitat_ would justify Fabricius in describing the insect as a native of America, although if the conclusion be correct, it might have been stated more distinctly as a native of that island.

At the dissolution of the fine collection of that indefatigable Entomologist, Mr. Drury, which took place by public sale in the month of May, 1805, this beautiful insect was purchased by another very eminent collector, Mr. John Francillon, at the price of _four pounds sterling_,[13] and subsequently at the death of this last mentioned individual, which happened in the year 1817, it passed with many others of the more costly rarities into the cabinet of Alexander Mc’Leay, Esq. S.L.S. &c.

With respect to the Fabrician reference to the cabinet of Dr. Latham, for it is to the cabinet of the venerable Ornithologist of that name the reference applies, we believe it is also in our power to explain its origin, having occasionally, through the kindness of its proprietor, consulted that cabinet, and finally, in conformity with his permission, written a catalogue of its contents. In that cabinet we certainly observed a Papilio allied to P. Homerus, but yet so far remote from it, that we could not venture to pronounce it the same; it may be a variety of the species, but is assuredly not the insect painted by Mr. Jones to which the synonyms of Fabricius allude.

Papilio Homerus is represented in its natural size in the annexed plate. Its colours are various and very beautifully disposed: the ground or prevailing colour is a deep or dark brown with a broad stripe of a yellowish hue across the middle of each wing, forming very nearly a band of that peculiar kind distinguished among Naturalists by the appellation of a common band. There is also a large and somewhat quadrangular spot of the same flavous colour upon the disk within and contiguous to the band, and beyond, towards the apex, a small sub-angular band composed of smaller flavous spots. Behind the yellow band, across the disk of the posterior wings, are a series of blue spots composed of many little shining points, which in the aggregate form a distinct spot of an ovate form, most brilliant towards the centre and paler towards the edge. And finally, there are three distinct sublunate spots of red on each posterior wing, one at the anal angle, and the other two at the posterior margin, one of which is situated on each side near the base of the tail. Beneath, the anterior wings are uniformly dark with a single pale or whitish marginal spot at the tip; the lower wings of a fuscous colour with seven ocellar spots of black, the iris of which are rufous.

Footnote 13:

Lot 305, third day, Saturday, May 25th, 1805.

ORNITHOLOGY.

PLATE XX.

PIPRA PUNCTATA DOTTED OR SPECKLED MANAKIN.

PASSERES.

GENERIC CHARACTER.

Bill shorter than the head, strong, hard, nearly triangular at the base and slightly incurvate at the tip: nostrils naked. Feet gressorial: tail short.

SPECIFIC CHARACTER AND SYNONYMS.

Cinereous brown, beneath yellow: head, wings, and tail black with white dots: tail coverts red.

PIPRA PUNCTATA: griseo fusca, subtus flava, capite alis caudaque nigris albo punctatis, tectricibus caudæ rubris.

PIPRA PUNCTATA. Greyish brown, waved with dusky: top of the head and wings black speckled with white; tail coverts red. SPECKLED MANAKIN, _Nat. Miscell. 111._

PARDALOTUS (punctatus) _Vieillot. Ornith. Elem. p. 31._

* * * * *

This pretty little species of Manakin is one among the number of those numerous acquisitions in the science of Natural History, for which the Naturalist is indebted to the prolific regions of Australasia. The very close affinity which it bears to the Gmelinian Pipra Nævia, a species described originally by Buffon under the title of _Fourmilier tacheté de Cayenne_, may possibly have occasioned some confusion among authors respecting this individual species, but there are still, if we mistake not, sufficient indications of the two birds being specifically distinct. This was the opinion of the late Dr. Shaw: he constituted a new species of the bird before us under the name of PIPRA PUNCTATA, and the english trivial of SPECKLED MANAKIN, and we are induced to follow that example from a persuasion that his conclusion was correct. Pipra Nævia, to which it is so nearly allied, has the throat and chin black, and the breast spotted with black: Pipra Punctata, on the contrary, has the throat and breast yellow, without any black spots. These differences afford a conspicuous distinction of the two birds, besides which, there are some others of less consideration that will appear upon an attentive comparison.

As a new species, it appears, therefore, pretty certain that we have to acknowledge the late Dr. Shaw as the first author by whom this interesting bird was introduced to the knowledge of the learned world: he describes it, as before observed, under the name of Pipra punctata. M. Vieillot is consequently in an error when he refers to authority of Dr. Latham for this name. The bird was so designated in the first instance, in the work entitled the _Naturalist’s Miscellany_, written by Dr. Shaw; nor was the species mentioned by Dr. Latham either in his Synopsis or his Index Ornithologicus. In a final or second supplement published by Dr. Latham long after the Synopsis, we find the bird mentioned under the name of the _Speckled Manakin_, but only upon the authority of the Naturalist’s Miscellany of Shaw, and a drawing of the bird by General Davies, for at that late period even, the bird appears to be unknown to Dr. Latham, except upon those two authorities. This observation is the more material since the Ornithologist M. Vieillot in dividing the Linnæan Genus Pipra into two Genera, Pardalotus and Pipra, assigns for the type of his genus PARDALOTUS the “_Pipra punctata_” of Latham, at the same time, as we have already shewn, the works of Dr. Latham affords us no such name. The present species was described under the appellation of _Pipra punctata_ only by Dr. Shaw. Dr. Latham does not adopt this name, he records the species only under the trivial english name of the Speckled Manakin, which name had also been assigned before by Dr. Shaw. If, therefore, the name of Pipra punctata had occurred to M. Vieillot, it must have been in the work of Dr. Shaw, and not of Dr. Latham. Perhaps Vieillot had inadvertently imagined this Speckled Manakin to be the same as the Spotted Manakin of Dr. Latham’s Synopsis. If this be really the source of error, it may be added, that this latter bird appears to have been described by Dr. Latham upon the authority only of Planches Enluminées, and is no other than Pipra Nævia of Gmelin, as Dr. Latham has himself pointed out in his Index Ornithologicus.

The description of this bird, as it occurs in the first instance, in the works of Dr. Shaw, is to this effect. PIPRA PUNCTATA (SPECKLED MANAKIN) _grisea_, _fusco undulata_, _vertice alisque nigris_, _albo punctatis tectricibus caudæ rubris_. The notice of the species as before-mentioned in Dr. Latham’s second Supplement is subsequent to this, and appears only under the trivial name of the Speckled Manakin.

In adverting to the separation of the Pipra genus as it occurs in the work of M. Vieillot, it will not be amiss to point out precisely those distinctions, which, according to his mode of classification, constitute the characters of those two genera into which he has divided them. The first of these genera denominated PARDALOTUS comprehends those species of the Pipra genus in which the form of the bill is very short in proportion to its length, a little robust or stout, the base dilated upon the edges, entire, conoid, thick at the point, the upper mandible a little bent, and the lower one convex beneath. Those birds which are allowed to remain in the Pipra genus have the bill conoid, trigonal at the base, compressed at the sides near the end, cut off and curved at the point, the lower mandible turning up at the extremity; and the exterior toes connected rather beyond the middle. It may be added, finally, that Cuvier, on the contrary, in his _Règne Animal_, allows the Manakins (Pipra of Linnæus) to remain united as before. He does not adopt the genus Pardalotus, and this circumstance is the more worthy of note since we have seen the species arranged in our Museums with the synonymous appellation of “PARDALOTUS PUNCTATUS _Cuvier_,” and have observed it designated as the type of Cuvier’s New Genus Pardalotus.

This interesting little creature being represented in its natural size in the plate annexed, it will be perceived to be one of the smaller tribes of the feathered race: we have even few birds in England more diminutive, for in point of magnitude it does not exceed that of our common willow-wren, its length being only about four inches. The elegance of its plumage, is, however, in a peculiar degree attractive, and more than amply compensates for this inferiority in size. The general colour above is cinereous brown, varying to a cinereous purple; the throat and breast a delicate fulvous yellow; the crown of the head black spotted with white; the wings, except the coverts, which are the same colour as the back, are black, and the tip of each of these black feathers are marked with a spot of white. The rump coverts are testaceous, becoming gradually redder towards the end: the tail itself is black, having the base of a fine crimson with some intermixture of yellow; and in general, though not invariably, there is a white dot at the tip of each of the tail feathers; sometimes it is only the outer feather on each side the tail that is marked with a white dot. Beneath, the throat and breast is of a delicate yellow colour; the bill black, and legs brown.

In the plate that accompanies this description, this elegant little bird appears perched upon a sprig of the _ovate leaved Goodenia_, GOODENIA OVATA, a vegetable production of the Australasian regions, that flowered in the month of July, during the present year, in the Royal Gardens, Kew.

CONCHOLOGY.

PLATE XXI.

VOLUTA PYRUM PEAR VOLUTE.

_Front View._ UNIVALVE.

GENERIC CHARACTER.

Spiral; aperture without a beak, and somewhat effuse; pillar twisted or plaited, generally without lips or perforation.

**** FUSIFORM.

SPECIFIC CHARACTER AND SYNONYMS.

Shell obovate and slightly tailed with striated whorls on the spire: tip produced and glabrous: pillar with three plaits.

VOLUTA PYRUM: testa obovata subcaudati; spiræ anfractibus striatis; apice producto glaberrimo, columella triplicata.—_Gmel. Linn. Syst. Nat. T. 1. p. 6. 3463. 102._—_List. Conch, t. 815. f. 25._—_Bonann. recr et Mus. Kircher. 3. f. 194._—_Knorr. Vergn. 6. f. 39. f. 1._—_Gualt. test. t. 46. f. C._—_Martini. Conch. 3. t. 95. f. 916. 917._—(B.) _List. Conch. t. 816. f. 26._—_Martini. Conch. 3. t. 95. f. 918. 919._—_Knorr. Vergn. 6. t. 27. f. 2._—(D.) _Chemn. Conch. 9. t. 104. f. 884. 885._—(8.) _Chemn. Conch. 9. t. 104. f. 886. 887._

* * * * *

The animal inhabitant of this shell, according to the generical definition of Linnæus, is a kind of Limax; the Limax is one of the Mollusca Tribe, or animals furnished with limbs; the mouth is placed before, it has a lateral perforation, the feelers are four in number, and the vent common with the lateral pore. This is the Linnæan character of the animal inhabitant of the Voluta Genus, and consequently of the species now before us.

It is not to be disputed that the discoveries which have taken place among the vermes of those testaceous bodies since the time of Linnæus, have introduced us to a far more extensive acquaintance with the beings of this nature than Linnæus could have possessed. The term Limax, which Linnæus applied not only to the animal inhabitants of the Voluta family, but also to the Buccinum, the Strombus, the Murex, the Trochus, the Turbo, in short to almost every genus of the Univalves, and some even of the Bivalves could not fail to excite remark. It could scarcely be conceived that in the very ample range of the creation which those genera embraced, such uniformity could prevail, and the subsequent observations of various Naturalists have tended fully to assure us that the Linnæan character of the animal inhabitants of the testaceous tribes was much too vague and comprehensive. There are indeed, it must be confessed, a considerable number of those testaceous bodies, the animals of which are still unknown, and may possibly so remain, but forming our conclusions, from the great multitude that has been recently discovered, and the number of those which have been examined with anatomical attention, we may presume, with safety, that the Linnæan Limaces ought properly to be divided into several distinct genera. How far a methodical distribution of the shells themselves, founded upon the zoological distinctions of the animal inhabitants, may be admissible in our cabinets appears less certain. The greater number of those shells, of which the animals are totally unknown, present insuperable objections; and the attention of collectors in the formation of the Conchological Cabinet, so rarely extend beyond the more obvious characters which the structure of the shells present, that we can scarcely deem it practicable.

The animal of the shell before us, Voluta pyrum, has been ascertained and well described by Lamarck, De Montfort, and other writers; it has the head armed with two obtuse feelers of a club-like form; the eyes advanced and placed at the base, at the outerside of those feelers; the mantle or fleshy covering terminating in an elongation folded into a kind of tube above the head; the foot, or disk, strong and muscular, and armed with a small round horny operculum.

According to the Linnæan classification, the shelly covering of this animal is a Voluta; and so far as the most prominent criterion of the Voluta genus, the folds or plaits upon the pillar lip be considered, this character is unequivocal. Linnæus regarding this as one of its most essential definitions, has overlooked the differences that prevail in the structure of the spire and beaks, or includes them only as distinctions of the different families into which his Volutæ are divided. Later writers differ upon this subject; these differences are considered by many as generical, and thus the Linnæan Volutæ have become separated into several distinct genera. In the shell before us, the beak is lengthened or produced, and canaliculated; and thus constitutes in the classification of Lamarck, a species of his TURBINELLA; and is the shell in particular which he adopts as the type of that genus. The character of that genus, as proposed by this Conchologist, in his work entitled _Animaux sans vertèbres_, is thus expressed, Turbinelle (Turbinella) a shell turbinated or subfusiform, canaliculated to the base, and having upon the column from three to five plaits or folds of a compressed form and placed transversely. Murex scolymus of Martini, Voluta ceramica of Lister, and Voluta capitellum of the same author, are comprehended with the Linnæan Voluta pyrum in this genus Turbinellus.

It has been observed by De Montfort that Lamarck has made a group of those shells which accord with the above character, and which he himself adopts with some small variations: according to this writer, the genus Turbinelle, of which our Voluta Pyrum is considered as the type, has the shell heavy, univalve, with an obtuse spire ending in a nipple; the mouth sloping and lengthened; the pillar denticulated with large equal folds or plaits, the outer lip strait and cut off, and the base lengthened.

After all the pains, however, which Lamarck and other Continental Naturalists have taken to establish the genus Turbinella, Cuvier in his Règne Animal observes that the shells of this genus differ in no other respect from the Conic Volutes than in the prolongation of their opening, forming a kind of canal, and adding that it is not easy to trace the limits between the one and the other.

We have experienced some surprise in observing that while so much attention has been bestowed by writers upon the generical distinctions of Voluta Pyrum, the differences that prevail in its presumed varieties have almost entirely escaped attention. It should be remarked that in the Gmelinian constitution of this species there are no less than four distinct varieties, all which, according to Gmelin, and subsequently to other writers, appertain to the Linnæan species Pyrum. From the synonymous references which Lamarck has brought together in one view, it is obvious that his opinion is the same; his TURBINELLA PYRUM, which is the same as the Linnæan Voluta Pyrum, will be observed to comprehend the several presumed varieties of the species to be found in the works of Martini and Chemnitz, and the same is again observable in the works of Denys de Montfort. There are, however, some Conchologists in England who do not agree in this particular, for they constitute at least three distinct species of the presumed varieties of Voluta Pyrum. This division of the species was first proposed by Dr. Solander, and has been subsequently adopted in several of our English Cabinets. As the particulars of this arrangement may not prove unacceptable, we shall proceed to describe them.