Papilio helenus, LINNAEUS OF CRAMER, 1777

Chainey, John E., 2005, The species of Papilionidae and Pieridae (Lepidoptera) described by Cramer and Stoll and their putative type material in the Natural History Museum in London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 145 (3), pp. 283-337 : 302-303

HELENUS LINNAEUS OF CRAMER, 1777

Pap[ilio] Eq[ues] Troj[anus] helenus, Cramer, 1777: 90 , 149, pl.153, figs A, B [original plate 118, A, A]. China.

Papilio Eques Achivus helenus, Stoll, 1782b: 3 [No. 10].

Material examined. No potential Cramer specimens located.

Identity. Papilio (Menelaides) helenus Linnaeus, 1758 .

HYPOLITUS CRAMER, 1775

( FIG. 13 )

Pap[ilio] Eq[ues] Achiv[us] hypolitus Cramer, 1775: 14–16 , 153, pl 10, figs A, B (♂), pl. 11, figs A, B (♀) [original plate 68, figs A, A]. ‘ Isle d’Amboine’ [= Indonesia, Ambon].

Papilio Eques Trojanus hypolitus, Stoll, 1782b: 2 [No. 7].

Material examined. 1 ♂, with van Lennep label ‘No.7 [possibly added later] HYPOLITUS Cr. 1. 10 & 11. A. A. B. B’ and Felder label ‘Coll. Lenep Orig’ ( BMNH (E)#665104) closely resembles the illustration of remus in Stoll (1782); pl.386, figs A, B. [original plate 348, A, A], but does not match original plate 68, figs A, A of hypolitus very well, e.g. body markings; there is some thoracic damage but no clear evidence that it has been re-pinned, while some small areas of the wings have been touched up with paint. 1 ♂, no data, ex Felder collection is similar; this specimen has the thorax damaged but may not have been re-pinned and there are no traces of paint.

Remarks. Rothschild (1895) states that Cramer’s figures are no more than copies of figures by Seba, and that they ‘show all the errors of neuration and pattern of Seba’s figures’ (but see amphitrion above). Thus it is possible that Cramer had not seen a specimen of this species. However, it is evident from the ‘van Lennep’ label that someone was responsible for the identification of a specimen as hypolitus (perhaps van Lennep himself or maybe he replaced an earlier label by either Cramer or Stoll). The close similarity of the above specimen to the figure of remus might also suggest that the van Lennep label has been misassociated.

Current status. Valid species in Troides (Ripponia) ( Häuser et al., 2003) .

HYPPASON CRAMER, 1775

( FIG. 14 )

Pap[ilio] Eq[ues] Troj[anus] hyppason Cramer, 1775: 46 , 153, pl.29, fig. E [original plate 19, fig. E (captioned euristeus )]. Surinam.

Papilio Eques Trojanus hyppason, Stoll, 1782b: 2 [No. 45].

Material examined. 1 ♂ syntype with van Lennep label ‘ No. 45. HYPPASON. Cr. I. 29. E.’ and Felder label ‘ Surinam Coll. Lenep’ ( BMNH (E)#665042) is a good match for original plate 19, fig. E . 1 ♂ syntype with Felder label ‘ Surinam Coll. Lenep’ ( BMNH (E)#665043) is almost as good. Both specimens have damaged thoraces and at least one appears to have been re-pinned . 3 ♂♂ possible syntypes, with Felder labels ‘ Surinam Coll. Eyndhoven’ ( BMNH (E)#665115–7) are all quite a good match for original plate 29, fig. E; two have been re-pinned, the other ( BMNH (E)#665116) has a slimmer, larger headed pin that may be the original. All these have some minor repairs, mostly in the form of touched up spots of paint. There is also a male in RNHL, which is also thought to be a syntype .

Current status. Valid species in Papilio (Heraclides) ( Häuser et al., 2003) .

Figures

Figures 9–14. Fig. 9. Papilio drusius Cramer (syntype). Fig. 10. Papilio erymanthus Cramer (syntype). Fig. 11. Papilio eurimedes Stoll (syntype). Fig. 12. Papilio gambrisius Cramer (syntype). Fig. 13. Papilio hypolitus Cramer (specimen with ‘van Lennep’ label). Fig. 14. Papilio hyppason Cramer (syntype).