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].”