LEILUS Orientalis. Sw.
That the natural affinities of this superb and highly interesting group of insects should be no longer a matter of doubt, we are induced to deviate, for the first time, from our usual practice. On this and the next plate we have copied two figures of insects which we have never seen, for the purpose of bringing them immediately before the eye of the entomologist, and of clearing up some remarkable facts concerning them.
LEILUS Orientalis.
Oriental Emerald Butterfly.
Specific Character.
Posterior wings six tailed; anal angle with a large flame-coloured space, varied with black spots; tails unequal, whiteish.
Papilio Rhipheus. Cramer, Vol. 2, page 193, pl. 385, fig. A. B.
The first of these is taken from Cramer, who calls it Pap. Rhipheus, from an unaccountable idea that it was the same species as one figured by Drury, under that name. He imagines that this latter figure was made from a mutilated specimen, in which the tails had been broken off, and that his, consequently, represented the insect in its perfect state. Every succeeding writer, so far as we can discover, has taken up this idea, without the precaution of investigating its correctness. Now it follows that if the two species were the same, the posterior wings of Cramer's, would be spotted like those of Drury's, yet they are essentially different: a piece of paper, put over to hide the tails in our present figure, which may then be compared with the next, will at once explain our meaning: but setting this aside, Cramer expressly asserts that his insect has the Antennæ "sans boutons", and "comme filiformes", and very justly compares it with our Leilus Surinamensis, "mas plus encore," with Pap. Orontes, L. (Orontes Noctuïdes, Sw.) the immediate type to which it leads.
How totally inapplicable this account is to Drury's insect, will be presently shewn. Cramer has most correctly given the immediate affinities of this insect. We have no space to state our reasons for considering it, at present, as a true Leilus; although with six tails, instead of two. It may possibly, however, be the fifth, or natatorial type, which in our synopsis of the genus at Pl. 125, we have not ventured to indicate. We have never seen, or even heard of a specimen in modern cabinets; that figured by Cramer, was found at Chandernagor, in Bengal, and was in the rich collection of M. Gigot d'Orcy.