appear so applicable and well chosen as to supersede the propriety of
introducing any other that might be deemed tolerably appropriate, but
upon the whole the species and varieties which it embraces have been so
long known by the name of the Scorpion Shell, that there can be no great
impropriety in allowing it to remain under that name: we have for our
example the authority of Rumpfius, and the sanction of Linnæus
throughout all his works; and in the Gmelinian System it also stands
under the name of Murex Scorpio. The appellation of the Stag’s Horn
Murex, in conformity with the epithet assigned to it by the old French
writers “_bois de cerf_,” is not altogether inappropriate, the elongated
processes have much the appearance of the antlers of the stag, in the
first stages of their growth; or considered in the aggregate, the shell
presents a number of ramose processes like the horns of the Stag or the
Rein Deer, and some other quadrupeds of the Cervine tribe; a
characteristic feature that may perhaps justify the appellation.
There are several varieties of this remarkable shell, some of which
might at the first view be considered as distinct species, and in
reality have been occasionally arranged as such by collectors. These
upon the most attentive comparison do not, however, appear to differ
specifically, notwithstanding the differences in point of colour are
very striking. One variety rather exceeds the rest in size, and is of a
deep testaceous or tawny brown colour, or rather inclining to a chesnut
hue: we have seen it of a tawny tint with darker splashes upon the
transverse ribs, particularly on the body and the tumid whorl of the
spire. Occasionally this shell also occurs of a deep or Ethiopian
blackness; this kind is extremely rare. The white variety occurs more
frequently, but is, nevertheless, uncommon in comparison with the brown
or testaceous kind: two examples of the white variety, clouded with
yellow, appears to have occurred in the celebrated cabinet of the French
collector Davilla, about the year 1776. He distinguishes them by the
title of “deux petites _epineuses_,” and tells us they have six
longitudinal sides like the “_rameuses_,” which are also named “Pattes
de crapaud,” an epithet by which we are well aware the Linnæan Murex
Scorpio was discriminated, and which therefore leads to a conclusion
that the “epineuses” of a white colour, clouded with yellow, which that
cabinet contained, were not specifically distinct from the shell at
present under our consideration. When extremely fine the white variety
of this shell is usually very delicately tinged with violet in all its
shades and transitions of light.
All these varieties, as before observed, are very easily reconciled to
the same species; nor is it ourselves alone that are inclined to this
opinion. Seba, to whom the larger brown and white variety, were known,
admits them as the same without any hesitation.[12] The expression
“_Testa alba aut fusca_,” the Linnæan description of this shell in the
cabinet of the Queen of Sweden, implies the like persuasion, and the
authority of Chemnitz may be adduced still further in support of this
opinion: Some modern writers have thought differently, but we must
confess the distinctions they assign are by no means satisfactory to us.
The larger shell is usually of a brown colour, but we have seen one of
the white variety rather larger than any of the brown colour that have
occurred to our notice.
The shell we have selected for the figures in the annexed plate is
chosen rather for its extreme perfection than the superiority of size;
we have observed it larger by nearly one half, but have not in any
instance met with one more entirely perfect: it is delineated from the
example of this very curious species in the late Leverian Museum.
This species which for a century past or more has maintained its
reputation as a rare production is still held in much esteem, and bears
a price proportionately considerable: it inhabits the shores of Southern
Asia. Gmelin has the expression “_Habitat pretiosus et rarus in_ mari,
Asiam australem _alluente_, _&c._” and describes the species as being
either white, brown, or black.
-----
Footnote 11:
“Cornua cervina—_bois de cerf_.”—Seba.
Footnote 12:
“Horum processus admodum producti sunt; ut ideo Cornua cervina
appellentur ob qualemcunque similitudinem. Corpus tamen Cochleæ
semper pro ratione ramorum minus est, quam in Muricibus
superioribus.”[12a]—_Seba T. 3. tab. 77. p. 172._
Footnote 12a:
As _Murex ramosus_, of which several varieties are given in the plates
Seba, _Murex Saxatilis_, &c.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
_17_
_London. Published as the Act directs, by E.
Donovan & Mess.^{rs} Simpkin & Marshall, Sept.^r 1, 1822._
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORNITHOLOGY
PLATE XVII.
PSITTACUS GALGULUS
SAPPHIRE CROWNED PARRAKEET.
PICÆ.
GENERIC CHARACTER.
Bill falcated; upper mandible moveable, and in general covered with a
cere: nostrils rounded, placed in the base of the bill: tongue fleshy,
obtuse, entire: feet formed for climbing.
SPECIFIC CHARACTER
AND
SYNONYMS.
Green: rump and breast scarlet: crown of the male blue.
PSITTACUS GALGULUS: viridis, uropygio pectoreque coccineis, vertice
(maris) cæruleo.—_Linn. Amoen. ac. 4. p. 286._—_Mus. Ad. Fr. ii.
p. 16._—_Osbeck. it. 101._
PSITTACUS GALGULUS: viridis, uropygio pectoreque coccineis, vertice
cæruleo, lunula cervicis lutea, tectricibus caudæ rubris.—_Lath.
Ind. Orn. T. 1. 148. p. 131._
Perruche à tête bleue. _Buff. hist. nat. des. ois. 6. p. 163._
Petite perruche de Pérou. _Buff. pl. enlum. n. 190. f. 2._
Petite perruche de l’isle de Luçon. _Sonner, it. p. 76. t. 33._
Sapphire-Crowned Parrakeet. _Edw. glean. t. 293. f. 2._
* * * * *
This gay little creature is one of the smaller kind of the Psittacus or
Parrot tribe, and of that family which is distinguished by having the
tail short and equal at the end. Its size is rather less than that of
our common house sparrow. The prevailing colour of the plumage a rich
vernal green, deepest in its hues on the back and wings, and rather
paler or more delicate in its tint beneath; the breast and rump scarlet;
the feathers of the latter elongated and extending far over the tail,
which is green; the crown of the head a beautiful Sapphirine blue. This
appears to be the male bird. That which is considered as the female has
a yellow spot upon the throat: it is destitute of any scarlet spot upon
the breast, and the Sapphirine colour on the crown of the head is also
wanting.
These are the characteristic distinctions observable generally in the
species; besides which there are other less material particulars in
which these birds are known to differ.
In some birds we find a yellow transverse stripe on the hind part of the
neck, varying in colour from luteous to orange, and which is more or
less conspicuous in different individuals. Others have a somewhat
similar band of yellow, but which is situated at the back of the head
instead of the neck. The first of these is distinguished by the name of
the Sapphire Crowned Parrakeet, the other by that of the Phillippine
Parrakeet. Dr. Latham has endeavoured to establish the characteristic
distinctions of these two kinds in his _Index Ornithologicus_: he
considers them as permanent varieties, but we must confess we regard
them rather as accidental than permanent. The characteristic band of
yellow by which they are to be discriminated chiefly, appears to be more
or less developed in different birds at different periods of their
growth; and in the absence of this character from the back of the head
in the Phillippine Parrakeet, or the hind part of the neck in the
Sapphire Crowned Parrakeet, the resemblance is so very near as to afford
no certain means of distinguishing one from the other.
This bird has been long known in Europe. It appeared in the work of
Edwards, the ingenious English Ornithologist, who lived about the middle
of the last century. Linnæus describes the species with much critical
minuteness in the fourth volume of his _Amoenitates Academicæ_, as
PSITTACUS GALGULUS, _brachiurus viridis pectore uropygioque coccineis,
vertice cæruleo_; and this description accords so exactly with the bird
before us, that no doubt whatever can remain of its being exactly the
variety which that eminent Naturalist has described.
Edwards informs us that this bird is a native of Sumatra; Osbeck met
with it in Java, where he tells us it is known by the name of Parkicki.
The title of Perruche de Pérou which it bears in _Pdl. Enl._ might
induce a persuasion of its being an inhabitant of South America, which,
however, is not believed among Ornithologists. We have already mentioned
that it occurs in the Phillippine Islands, and that from this locality,
the particular variety found there has obtained the appellation of the
Phillippine Parrakeet.
We are indebted to Osbeck for a concise description of the manners of
this interesting species when in a state of captivity, “if put into a
cage,” observes this traveller, “it whistles very seldom and commonly
grows quite sullen: it hangs itself with its feet so that the back is
turned towards the earth, and seldom changes this situation: it is fed
with boiled rice; in which manner, in the year 1752, one was brought to
Gottenburgh.” It is probably this information to which Linnæus alludes
in his Academic paper, delivered in 1760, where in speaking of the
manners of this bird, he tells us it sleeps on trees, suspended by one
foot with its head downwards, in order to escape the observation of the
rapacious birds of night. The nest of these birds are described by
Toreen. “We observed,” says this writer, “that their nests were
remarkable for their exceeding fine texture, but we did not see the
birds. If these nests were differently constructed, the monkies would be
very mischievous to them; but now, before they can get to the opening,
the lowest part, as the weakest, breaks into pieces, and the visitor
falls to the ground without danger to the young birds.”
This bird is observed to be very partial to the fresh juice of the cocoa
tree, which flows from the ends of the branches when the fruit has been
fresh cut off; and which before it undergoes fermentation is said in
taste to resemble new-made cyder.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
_18_
_London. Published as the Act Directs, by E.
Donovan, & Mess.^{rs} Simpkin, & Marshall, Sept. 1, 1822._
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENTOMOLOGY.
PLATE XVIII.
PAPILIO ACAMAS
ACAMAS BUTTERFLY.
LEPIDOPTERA.
GENERIC CHARACTER.
Antennæ thicker towards the tip, and generally terminating in a knob:
wings erect when at rest. Fly by day.
* EQUITES TROJANI.
SPECIFIC CHARACTER
AND
SYNONYMS.
Wings indented, caudated, or ending in a tail; brown, above and beneath
the same colour; anterior wings with a yellow band, posterior wings with
red, blue and yellow lunules.
PAPILIO ACAMAS: alis dentato caudatis concoloribus fuscis: anticis
fascia flava, posticis lunulis rubris cæruleis flavisque.—_Fabr.
Ent. Syst. T. 3. p. 1. 8. 22._—_Jon. fig. pict. 1. tab. 72._
* * * * *
Papilio Acamas is one among the number of those Papiliones, which, from
their magnitude, as well as beauty, constitute the more attractive
species of the first family of this interesting tribe, the _Equites
Trojani_ of the Fabrician system. Papilio Acamas is scarcely surpassed
in size by any other of the Papilio genus, and when it is added, as it
may be with confidence, that the figure now presented to the reader is
the first that has appeared in elucidation of such a noble species, we
cannot doubt that its introduction will be received with pleasure by
every Naturalist in this country and throughout Europe.
This fine and very striking species has been long since known by repute
to Entomologists; but from the description only which Fabricius had left
us in his _Entomologia Systematica_. Those conversant with this work of
our author, will be aware, that Papilio Acamas constitutes one of those
many species for which Fabricius refers only to the drawings of the late
Mr. Jones: the present figure is a faithful copy of that original
drawing referred to and described by Fabricius, and as such cannot fail
to prove acceptable to every Entomologist. It is certainly the only
figure extant by means of which the Fabrician species P. Acamas can be
ascertained.
The identity of this species, it will hence appear, does not rest upon
opinion or conjecture, and this circumstance must be deemed of no small
importance in an enquiry of this nature. In the present instance it may
be also added that this identity is essentially material to be
considered, because there is another insect of the same tribe, the
Papilio Laodocus of the same author, which assimilates so closely with
it, that without due attention, the one might readily be confounded with
the other. These two butterflies, however, although they appear so
nearly allied, present characters which considered accurately,
demonstrate very clearly that Fabricius was right in separating them.
Fabricius adverting to this close affinity, observes, that in size and
appearance Papilio Acamas agrees with Papilio Laodocus. The predominant
colour of P. Acamas, he observes, is a dark or fuscous brown, much less
inclining to black than P. Laodocus. The anterior wings in both species
have a yellow transverse band: this band in P. Acamas extends from the
anterior margin almost close to the posterior margin, and touches the
posterior rib; in P. Laodocus this yellow band is abbreviated or
shorter, of greater breadth, and placed more immediately towards the
middle of the wing, the band in P. Acamas being situated rather nearer
towards the exterior end of the wing. There is also a marginal series of
yellow spots at the extremity of the anterior wings, the form of which
is very singular, and affords a striking distinctive character of P.
Acamas. There is also a characteristic difference observable in the
markings of the posterior wings: in both species, on the upper as well
as lower surface, those wings are elegantly marked with a distinct arch
of red lunules, posterior to which is another of blue; beyond these in
P. Acamas is a third series of lunules, rather larger than either of the
former, the colour of which is bright yellow. There is a final or
posterior arch of lunules in P. Laodocus, behind the two series of red
and blue lunules, similar to those of P. Acamas, but they are smaller,
and instead of yellow are white. And lastly, the body in P. Acamas is
dark brown above and pale beneath: in P. Laodocus, on the contrary, the
body beneath as well as above is black, with a longitudinal line each
side the body.
We have been thus minute in pointing out precisely the differences that
prevail between these two Papiliones, from a persuasion that they might
perhaps be otherwise confounded together, either as the same species, or
as varieties of each other. There is assuredly a general approximation
in the appearance of those two insects, although they prove so very
distinct upon a close and attentive comparison.
Papilio Acamas is a native of Jamaica: Papilio Laodocus of South
America. A figure of P. Laodocus occurs in the work of Cramer, under the
name of Papilio Glaucus.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
_19_
_London. Published as the Act directs, by E.
Donovan & Mess.^{rs} Simpkin & Marshall, Oct.^r 1, 1822._
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENTOMOLOGY.
PLATE XIX.
PAPILIO HOMERUS
HOMER’S BUTTERFLY.
ORDER
LEPIDOPTERA.
GENERIC CHARACTER.
Antennæ thicker towards the tip, and generally terminating in a knob:
wings erect when at rest. Fly by day.
* EQUITES ACHIVI.
SPECIFIC CHARACTER
AND
SYNONYMS.
Wings caudated or terminating in tails, black with a yellow band; lower
ones yellowish beneath, with seven ocellar spots:
PAPILIO HOMERUS: alis caudatis nigris: fascia flava posticis subtus
flavescentibus: maculis ocellaribus septem.—_Fabr. Ent. Syst. T.
3, p. 1. 29. 85._
PAPILIO HOMERUS: _Jon. fig. pict. 1. tab. 8._
Corpus magnum nigrum. Alæ anticæ supra nigræ fascia maculari maculisque
apicis flavis. Subtus anticæ concolores, at macula apicis tantum unica,
marginalis, albida posticæ fuscæ, fascia media pallida maculis septem
ocellaribus, atris iride rufa.
* * * * *
In the present instance, as in many others that will occur during the
progress of this undertaking, we have the pleasure of introducing to the
attention of the Naturalist, a species of the Papilio tribe, no less
distinguished for its beauty than its rarity; and one, moreover, that
has never been before depicted in the work of any author.
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.