The splendid insect, from which these figures were taken, has been considered by most Lepidopterists to have been in a mutilated and mended state; having the head, concealed palpi, and clavate antennæ of a true Papilio, and the posterior wings nearly truncated at the lower part. These authors have supposed that the insect was a specimen of the Papilio Rhipheus of Cramer (pl. 385. fig. A. B. Leilus orientalis, Swainson Zool. Illustr. N. Ser. pl. 130.), in which the head and antennæ are similar to those of Nyctalemon Orontes, figured in the first volume of this work, and the posterior wings are terminated by three tails. Mr. Swainson has however adopted a different opinion, figuring Drury's insect under the name of Rhipheus Dasycephalus, and Cramer's under that of Leilus Orientalis; considering that this view of the subject "will clear up one of the most intricate and perplexing questions that has hitherto impeded the natural arrangement of the Linnæan Papiliones and even the entire Lepidoptera." Drury's insect exhibiting the nervures of Urania, and the head, &c. of Papilio, is thus considered as establishing as close an affinity as can possibly be imagined between Papilio and Leilus (i. e. the Rhipheus of Cramer). It is true that there are many Lepidopterous insects which, on a {43}casual glance, appear identical, but which belong to distinct groups, especially distinguished by the neuration of their wings, but when we consider the almost perfect identity, in the very peculiar markings and colours, of these two supposed distinct insects, the identity in the nerves of their wings;[4] the slight scruple which the old collectors had in patching up their insects, and the truncation of the hind wings in Drury's figure, which may be exactly imitated by placing a slip of paper over the tails of perfect tailed specimens of Rhipheus, I think we are authorised in rejecting, without hesitation, the views of Mr. Swainson.