Whatever happened to Albin’s Hampstead Eye?

Full text

OF'F'PRINT FROM
Entomologist's
Gazette
A IOURNAL OF
PALAEARCTIC
ENTOMOLOGY
2O07 , Entomologist's Gazette 58: 2O5-21-8
Whatever happened to Albin's Hampstead
Eye?
R. I.VANE.\TRIGHT
Deparanent of EntonologSt, Naturul History Museum, Cromwell Road,
Iandon SW7 5BD, U.K; €t DICE, Defatillent olAnthroPology, Untuers;ty
of Kent, Canterburl CT2 7NR, U.K.
dicka an ew r i
g h t @b tint er n e t. c o m
!(/.JOHNTENNENT
Department oJ Entomologlt, Nawral Histo4t Mlserm, Cromuell Road,
Lordon SW7 5BD, U-K
Published by Pemberley Books, 18 Bathurst Walk, Richings Park, Iver,
Buckinghamshire, SLo 9AZ, U.K.

2007, Entomologist's Gazette 58: 205-218
Whatever happened to Albin's I{arnpstead Eye?
R. I. VANE-\TRTGHT
Deparcment of Entomologt, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London
SWZ 5BD, U.K.; €s DICE, Department of Anthropologt, Uniaersity of Kent,
Canterbury CT2 7NR, U.K.
di c ka an ewi ght @b tinternet. c om
\7. JOHN TENNENT
Department of Entomologt, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London
SW7 SBD, U.K.
Introduction
East or Australia and was probably accidentally introduced as a caterpillar or
chrysalis in a consignment of fruit' (Owen, 1985: 99).
Albin's Hampstead Eye is one of the most curious inclusions on the list of
British butterflies. Supposedly collected on Hampstead Heath sometime prior
to 17 17 by Eleazar Albin (circa 1680-1 7 42), the single specimen was described
and illustrated by James Petiver (1663-1718) in an eight-page pamphlet,
Papilionum Britanniae lcones (Petiver, 1717: l2),pL.5, figs 2'b). Petiver's entry
in fult is, 'Papilio oculatus Hampstediensis, ex aureo fuscus. A1bin's Hampsted
Eye. \7here it was caught by this curious person, and is the only one I have yet
seen.' Over one hundred years later the 'Eye' was formally named Papilio
hampstediensis by Laetitia Jermyn (1824: 70), who soon after transferred her
nominal species to Hipparchia Fabricius ([ermyn, 1827 ; 129) . Stephens (1827:
48) named it, apparently independently, as Cynthia hampstediensis.
The identity of Albin's Harnpstead Eye
This insect is now accepted to represent the Indo-Pacific nymphalid
Junonia aillida (Fabricius, 1787) - although sometimes erroneously spelled as
yellida (this dates from Donovan, 1805: pl. 25), and sometimes erroneously
included in the African genus Precis Hribner. Contrary to Owen (1985: 99),
there is now general agreement that it could not have reached England alive at
that time, either by its own powers of flight or on board a sailing ship. The
current and more probable view is that Albin must somehow have mislabelled
an exotic specimen (Emmet, 1989a 9) originally collected somewhere in the
Far East (Emmet, 1989b).
While we have no new information to suggest that this received wisdom is
anything other than correct, the recent account of the 'Eye' given by Salmon
(2000), and of Junonia aillida in Parsons (1998), indicate there are errors to be
corrected and several puzzles still to be solved. In particular, and of greatest
concern, is the fate of the original specimen. First, however, we need to deal
with some basic 'facts' regarding J. oillida.
205

206 Entomologist's Gazefte (2007) Vol. 5g
Junonia ztillida
Fabricius (1787:35) described, Papitio viltidafrom one or more specimens
in the Banks collection, from 'Insulahmsterdam'. There is no doubt that the
island of Amsterdam is what is now known as Tongatapu flMatkins, r 923)rthe
main island of Tonga. Called by Captain Cookthe 'Friendly Isles,, the original
material of j. aillida would have -been collected 4-7 oltober'1773., rDoSt
probably byJohann Forster or his son, during Cook's second circumnavigation
(Banks did not accompany cook orr_thut"uovrg.l. unfortunately, Emmet
(1.989b: 189) erroneously gave the ty_pe locality as iN.* Amsterdam,, an island
(Ile Amsterdam) in the southern maian ocean. irri, was accepted uncritically
by Sa-lmon (2000: 3r1), which led him ,o *rr.. a number of unfounded
speculations.
Plant (1987) states that Junonia aillida is an Australian butterfly - but it is
far more widespread than this implies. In addition to Australia anh Tonga, it
has been found from the Indian ocean (ch;;;; Archiperago) east through
Java, Sumba and many of the Lesser Sunda Isllnds ,o pu., 6rirr. nroluccas,
Palau, New Guinea, the Bismarck Archip.r"g",-irre solomon Isrands, Lord
Howe, New caledonia, vanuatu, Norfork, x.i" z."rand (where it is regarded
as an occasional.migrant), and eastwards through numerous pacific islands to
French Polynesia (Tennent, 2006). Salmon izoool was surely correct in
concluding that the 'Eye' could not have come from Australia, given that the
mainland was unknoyllg Europeans until cook,s arrival in fiio.If so, then
where did it come from? This q.r..tion hm u.*.J .rrio*otogists for decades and
is still unresolved.
Geographical variation in Junonia ztillida
As noted by Tennent (2006: rgz), thgre is great uncertainty regarding the
nature of geographical and seasonal variatio" I.." in this U"tt..n-1. \Watkins
(1925) recognised -four main geographical divisions as subspecies, bur soon
afterwards Riley (rg2g) aaaea a iurther, -e"l.ptiorrrtty small race from
Napuka, in the Tuamotu Archiperago, Frencrr Foty.,.sia. Tsukada (r9g5:
363) tecognised five subspecies, uut tris ,yr,.- Jo.. ,ro, correspond to the
watkins + Riley scheme and his map and account are inaccurate in several
respects - not least in identifiiing the Australian population as ;F. aillida ztillida.
Most Australian entomologists ieem to accept thai their butterfly is J. ztillida
c!2be (Godart, r8r9) (e.g. common & rwaterhouse, Iggr), and that this is
different from nominotypical J. aillidafrom trr. riJ-pacific. However, parsons
(1998) cast doubt on a[ ttre supposed race., p"i",i"g;;;";any have
before, that this is a variable and .rigrutory rp.'.ii..'
Casual examination of the large numbei of specimens available in the
Natural History Museum (BMNHI London, d..rrl'rrr,rates thar, although the
geographical variation is difficult to assess, some of the .*tr.-., (notably
J. aillida chagoensis \watkins and J. "ittidi to"d;aao, Riley) are probably
distinct' If the 'Eye' could not have come from Australia, where else could it
have come from in the early eighteenth ..rr,rryi-irre mid_pacific seems as

Entomologist's Gazette (2007) Vol. 58 207
13ry;r/t",:,t*,fr-nIf,qxr Cczt\nrn,-13RJTTf SH Er.e''rt'i:rsd.-Butte4fVtir :T{B Y
Figs 1-6. 18th and 19th century illustrations of Albin's Hampstead Eye by Petiver'
Do.roiun, Srephens, Humphreys & \Testwood, and Morris (copyright the Natural History
Museum, London, with kind permission)' la, 1b. The Petiver (1717: pl' 5, ftgs 2,2b)
illustrations of Albin's Hampstead Eye, reproduced from ttre 1767 edition of his collected
works edited by J. Empson oithe British lvluseum and published in London by John Millan'
Note the rather uniforlm, greyish and lightly marked underside, possibly characteristic of the
Javanese population rru*."d irnonio oithdo soerabajana I(alis, 1933' However, the coloration'
*ti.tr was applied by hand,lnevitably varies from copy to copy of this work and is sometimes
less grey. The two butterflies to the left are Petiver's renderings of the Peacock, Aglais
enaln;) zo (Linnaeus), which give an idea of 'his rough, though evidently correct, style "''
istephens, iazz, +01.' za, 2b. LJncoloured version of Petiver's illustrations, reproduced from
trre izo+ .ditio., of ni. cott".ted works (published by John Millan). 3. Donovan's (1805: pl'
25,|ftg.3]) image. 4a,4b. Stephens, (|827: pl.5, figs 3,4) images.5. The Humphreys &
'Ofi"ri -*ooa'(18ai: pl. 14, fig. 7) image' 6. Morris' (1853: pl'33, single fig') image'

208 Entomologist's Gazette (2007) Vol. 58
unlikely as Australia, and the same applies to the Solomons, New Guinea and,
one might think, the Chagos Archipelago. However, Fletcher (1943a;1943b;
1947) proposed exactly that.
\7ith hindsight, the most likely source would seem to be the Moluccas or
Java. As -7. villida from these two areas tend to be distinct from each other, and
from Chagos material, comparison with Albin's original specimen would
hopefully give us a good idea of its real source - and deal with the issue of the
precise synonymy of hampstediensis. Petiver himself was apparently acquainted
with natural history material from the Moluccas (Petiver, I 713), although his
illustrated account of Oriental marine zoology is apparently based largely or
entirely on Rumphius (1705) and not his own collection (see Beekman, 1999:
xci). Vane-tVright & Hughes (2005) demonstrate that, by the middle of the
eighteenth century at least, a significant amount of Javanese insect material
had reached England, whereas little had arrived from the Moluccas. On such
circumstantial evidence, Java would seem the most likely source (see also
legend to Fig. l).
Did Albin have access to exotic butterflies?
If we were to accept the notion that Albin made a mistake, somehow
mislabelling or misconstruing a Far Eastern butterfly as a specimen from
Hampstead Heath, then it would be useful to know if he had had access to
tropical insect material. Turner (1943b) indicates that he possessed 'a set of
coloured drawings, prepared by Albin, presumably for a projected work on
exotic butterflies.' We have examined two collections of unpublished
paintings, largely or mainly attributed to Albin, that are now in the BMNH,
and they confirm this to be the case. Although no images of j. aillida are
included in these MSS, there are several paintings of Indo-Chinese species
including, notably, at least two other species of Junonia.
Did Petiver possess the 'Eye'?
Petiver (1717) published Papilionum Britanniae a year before his death.
There is no information regarding when Albin acquired the 'Eye', or when
Petiver first saw it. All that is known, apart from the illustrations, is contained
in Petiver's caption (see introduction). Albin must have been working actively
on British insects about 1715, if not earlier, as the first edition of his great work
on their natural history appeared soon after (Albin, 1720). Evidently he must
have shown, lent or passed the 'Eye' to Petiver, at least long enough for figures
to be made. But did Albin gizte the specimen to Petiver? \7e have found no
original evidence for that. And why would he have done so, when working on
his own book? However, according to Emmet (1989b), 'Petiver acquired the
specimen and after his death it passed to Sir Hans Sloane, whose collections
were to form the basis of the British Museum.' Intriguingly, Emmet provides
the only statement that we have come across asserting that Albin actually
passed the 'Eye' to Petiver, and he is also the only person in the 250 years of
its supposed sojourn in the BM/BMNH to state categorically that it was

Entomologist's Gazette (2007) Vol. 58 209
preserved there, and that he had seen it (see further below). Did Emmet have
independent evidence for the first of these assertions, and if so, what was it?
Or was it just an assumption?
Are coloured Petiver parnphlets original colourings or not?
Separate copies of Petiver's (1717) pamphlet appear to be extremely rare.
At present we only know of two examples, both uncoloured, one held in
Oxford, the other in a private collection. However, according to Emmet &
Heath (1989: 295), some copies are hand-coloured and this is repeated by
Salmon (2000: 417). rWe have examined four copies of volume 2 of Petiver
(17 64), the three-volume version of the collected works issued by John Millan
(Lisney, 1960: 48). None is coloured and the title page does not mention
colour. \We have seen three copies of Petiver (1767), the two-volume version
of the collected works issued by Millan. The foot of the title page of this
'second collected edition'states'Price, Plainr 6l. 6s. -Flies &c. colouredr Tl.
7s.-The tilThole coloured, 2ll.' (Lisney, 1960: 62, 64). One of the three
copies we have seen is coloured throughout, while the other two have the
plates of the l7l7 pamphlet coloured (volume 2), and a set of mainly
entomological plates in volume 1 are also coloured.
The 1764 and 1767 editions of the collected works are, for the most part,
made up of original copies off-prints made during Petiver's lifetime,
subsequently obtained by Millan and bound together with newly-printed title
pages (Lisney, 1960: 43). The nature of the paper of the Papilionum Britanniae
Icones pamphlets included in all seven copies of the collected works issued in
176411767 that we have examined is consistent with them all being original
1717 stock. Based on this, and Lisney's (1960) analysis, we do not consider
these to be 'reprints', conua Emmet's (1989a: 8) comment on the 1767
edition. However, the key question is, 'do the three Papilionum Britanniae
pamphlets bound into the three 1767 collected works that we have examined
have original colourings?'- or, even though the printing is clearly original, 'did
Millan have these coloured at the time of binding, almost 50 years after
Petiver's death?'The fact that of the six 171711764 copies that we are aware
of, none is coloured, and all three 1767 copies are coloured, might be regarded
as slender evidence in favour of the latter.
Lisney (1960: 44, 52), contra Emmet & Heath (1989: 295)' makes no
mention of coloured copies of either the separate original pamphlet, or the
copies bound into the 1764 first edition of the collected works. In accurately
transcribing the title pages of both volumes of the second edition of the
collected works, as indicated above, Lisney (1960: 62' 64) notes that it was
differentially priced uncoloured, partly coloured, or completely coloured (but
he does not indicate whether his own copies are coloured or not). \X/hile all of
this is also consistent with the coloured copies issued rn 17 67 being coloured
at or about that time, it leaves us with several pt:zzles.
If the coloured versions issued in 1767 were hand painted at that time, on
what basis or authority were they so coloured? Given the range of variations of
the butterflies depicted, the general fidelity of the colourings, and presence of

2t0 Entomologist's Gazette (2007) Vol. 58
the unique 'Eye', only two possibilities seem plausible: either a set of pattern
plates was created for Millan by reference to Petiver's collection, or they used
a set of pattern plates made in Petiver's lifetime.By l767rPetiver's collection
was in the British Museum, which had opened in 1759. The BM was largely
founded on the collections of Sir Hans Sloane (1660-1753; de Beer, 1953),
and it was Sloane who obtained Petiver's collection and library, following the
latter's death in 1718. On the other hand, Millan may have had access to a ser
of original Petiver patterns, either obtained with the stock, or borrowed from
the British Museum library (we have been unable to check this possibility).
However, there is a further option. Perhaps, when Millan acquired the
Petiver stock, it included a number of originally coloured, Petiver pamphlets
from l7l7 and these were used to help make up the partly or fully coloured
versions of the collected works. 'W'ere this the case, we suggest that there
should be detectable differences in the pigments and style of colouring used in
main body of any completely coloured version, and the colouring of the British
butterflies pamphlet. In our opinion the colourings do appear to be different
and we think it plausible that those coloured versions of the British butterflies
pamphlets are original and were made circa 1717. However, strong support for
this suggestion would only come from discovery of a 1764 collected work with
the 1717 pamphlet coloured or, most convincingly, a coloured separate copy.
As already noted, we do not know of any such examples (but the available
sample is very small). Moreover, the coloured illustrations of the 'Eye' in
Petiver (1767) are much darker than the Stephens (1827) and Morris (1853)
images, notably having the conspicuous field around the hindvving ocelli
obscure brown rather than bright orange-yellow. In this respect the Stephens
and Morris (see also Aydon, 2005: dust-jacket) pictures look more like
J. aillida than the coloured Petiver (1767) images. This suggests yet another
possibility: that Stephens worked, as his words might imply, from an original
Petiver painting (perhaps available to him in the British Museum?), whereas
the images in the Millan 1767 edition were coloured inexpertly, from some
secondary source.
who has referred to an original specimen or original paintings?
\We believe that following Petiver (1717), over 80 years passed before the
'Eye' was referred to again in print (other than in the re-issues of Petiver's
works published by Millan in 1764 and 1767, akeady discussed). Haworth
(1803: 54), in his monumental but un-illustrated Lepidoptera Britannica, noted
' ... there are two [species] figured and described in Petiver's Papilionum
Britanniae ... which I have neither yet seen nor heard of in British Cabinets;
although I have examined personally and in most cases repeatedly, about 70
collections of British Lepidoptera.' rtr7ith respect to the 'Eye', he says on the
following psge, 'Figure 2 [Petiver, 1717: pl.5] represenrs a papilio entirely
new to me and my Entomological friends.'We have no idea if Haworth looked
at the Petiver Collection, but he lived in Chelsea and S7illiam Jones, Sir Joseph
Banks and J. F. Stephens were among his many friends (Salmon, 2000:
r27-129).

Entomologist's Gazette (2007) Vol. 58 2tt
Provincial authors, such as Laetitia Jerymn Q82a; rc2T from Ipswich and
the Yorkshire priest Francis Morris (1853), more or less accepted Petiver's
'Eye' at face value. However, following Haworth, a number of entomologists
diiectly associated with or employed by the British Museum (BM) (otherwise
known as the British Museum (Natural History), BMNH, or the Natural
History Museum) commented more or less critically on its identity. In all cases
,..orri. to the actual specimen, often widely thought to have been in the BM,
would have provided crucial evidence - but in all cases listed below except the
last (Emmet), there is no reference to examination of Petiver's collection, or
an original specimen.
From about 1818 onwards, J. F. Stephens worked as a long-term visitor in
the BM, preparing his major works on the British insect fauna (Salmon, 2000:
141). In the first volume of his lllustrations of British Entomolog,t, he makes the
following comment about the 'Eye', 'There is something wonderful in the total
disappearance of so large an insect ... which has been seen but once, and that
,p*"idr of a century ago: entomologists are indebted to the persevering
industry of Petiver for a coloured figure, of which I have included a copy, in
his rough, though evidently correct, style ...' (Stephens, 1827: 49). Thus,
although working in the institution that housed the Petiver collection, he based
his illustrations on Petiver's figures and makes no mention of any specimen.
But it is not clear if the source figures are simply the published versions (e.g.
the 1767 collected works issue), or presumptive originals used to prepare the
engravings.
.fh. rr."t reference to the 'Eye' comes, we believe, in Humphreys &
'Westwood (1841: 58), who also figure the insect, stating that their image is
based on Petiver's illustration. Again, it is unclear if this is iust a published
version or a putative original. $Testwood, who was responsible for the text of
this volume and already one of the foremost entomologists of his era, worked
in London at that time - although he was not directly associated with the BM.
Despite the fact that he was clearly convinced of its exotic origin, there is no
mention of any specimen, or the Petiver collection.
The brilliant Edward Doubleday (1811-1849) was appointed to the staffof
the BM in about 1837, with special responsibility for the Lepidoptera
collections. Shortly before his untimely death, he finished virtually the whole
of the first of the two volumes that make up The Genera of Diurnal Lepidoptera,
a groundbreaking work later completed by \Testwood. Doubleday's account of
thi genus Junonia includes a remarkable footnote regarding the 'Eye':
'The butterfly figured by Petiver is a species of this genus, and, as
Mr. Stephens long since suggested to me, one of the species allied to Junonia
orithya. Mr. Stephen's suggestion has received a remarkable confirmation from a
very remarkable painting of innumerable species of our British Lepidoptera
executed about a century since, in which are four very accurate figures representing
both surfa ces of Junonia aellida [sic], the species which we had considered most to
resemble Petiver's figure. The minute accuracy of the figures, worthy of a Sepp or
Curtis, leaves no doubt of the identity of the insect. How an insect now only known
as an Australian species could then exist in a collection of purely British [original
emphasis] insects, and how Petiver, Albin, and others, came to believe it had been

212 Entomologist's Gazene (2007) Vol. 58
captured at Hampstead, I cannot explain. The only other exotic in the painting
referred to is Deiopeia cribaia [sic; - Argina astrea (Drury), Arctiidae], and is
precisely that variety which is found in the easternmost islands of the Indian
Ocean' (Doubleday, 1849: 211).'
Doubleday's footnote appears to have been overlooked subsequently, with
the exception of \Mestwood (1855: 134):
'Of this exotic species (most probably identical with the Australian Junonia
aellida [sic]) nothing is known beyond Petiver's figure and description ... and an
apparently contemporary oil drawing, mentioned by Mr. E. Doubleday in the
Genera of Diurnal Lepidoptera.'
Taken together, these two remarkable statements seem to settle the identity
issue once and for all - but raise so many other questions that we hardly know
where to begin. Perhaps the five most important are, zlho made this painting
and when?, from what source material?, where was the painting in tg49?, and
where is it now? About the only clue we get to any of these vital questions is
that the 'oil drawing' was 'apparently contemporary, or .executed about a
century since.' This suggests it could have been made before Albin died and
might imply that it was based on his collection, not Petiver's (as already noted,
Petiver's collection was acquired, after his death in 171g, by Sloane). As to
where it is, if it survives, we can but hope that it lurks, somewhere forgotten, in
the vast archives of the British Library. It is not generally appreciated that,
when the Natural History Museum opened in South t(eniingt-on in 1881, as
an annex of the British Museum, although all the natural history specimens
were dispatched there, the libraries and manuscripts were not - th.y *...
retained at Bloomsbury and passed to the British Library on its formation.
Naturally, we will try to seek this fabulous image but, with no name for the
painter, no stated repository, no precise date, no idea of size, and uncertain
medium (could it really be an oil painting? - Julie Harvey has suggested to us
that an oil drawing is different), where would one startt Coming across this
passage in Doubleday is as frustrating as it is exciting!
Although there are occasional references to the 'Eye' later in the nineteenth
century and in the first half of the twentieth century (Dale, l g63; Scudder,
1875; Hudson, 1928; Ford, lg45), these are not by London-based
entomologists, and so they would be unlikely to have had access to the BMNH
collections. However, a remarkable series of notes and short papers, apparently
triggered by a typically engaging but erroneous account of the ,Ey.iglven uy
Allan (1937: 290-293), appeared during 1943-1949: Hudson -(tg$;,
Fletcher (1943a; 1943b; 1947), Bacon (1943), Turner (1943a; lg43b), Allan
(1946), Eliot (1946; 1947a; 1947b; 1947c; 1949), Forbes e9a7; 1948) and
Corbet (1948). All of these works were published in London and, significantly,
the majority appeared in The Entomologist. At that time, and for -rry years
past and yet to come, this well-informed journal was edited by Norman iul.y
(Howarth, 1979). Riley was, inter alia, a world authority on butterflies and, as
Keeper of the Entomology Department at rhe BMNH from lg32-1g55,
directly responsible for the very building in which the Petiver Collection was

Entomologist's Gazette (2007) Vol. 58 2t3
housed for many years. Although the Petiver material, along with most of the
other parts of the museum's collections and libraries, *r. .tor.d out of
London during World lVar II, it seems extraordinary that Riley would nor have
encouraged one or more of these commentators to look at the petiver
Collection, or made some editorial footnote to that effect, if he had thought
that the original 'Eye' was to be found there. In this context it is notable that
Fletcher (1943a: 67) suggested that many problems could be solved if the
original specimen were found, and that it might be in Petiver's Collection. So
it was not as if this idea was alien or un-thought - and the same notion clearly
occurred to Ford (1945: 1l).
In passing, this exchange of views on the 'Eye' concerned its identity, its
possible origin, and various biogeographical arguments. \flith respect to its
identity, the emergent consensus from this discussion was that ii must be
J. oillida and, perhaps more precisely, J. aillida chagoensis \Watkins, 1925. The
type material of this race was collected by Fletcher in 1905, who may thus have
had an unconscious desire to promote the idea that Albin's ,p."ih.r, could
have originated from the remote archipelago that he visited in his youth.
Hutson (1981) did not encounter J. aitlida during a two-month stay on Diego
Garcia in 7971, but the butterfly was encountered widely in the archipelago
during the 1980s and 1990s (Barnett & Emms, 1998: ZS). fhe possibiliry that
the 'Eye' could have come from Australia was largely discounted by the
1943-7949 conespondents, as was Java (Eliot, 1946). However, ". ,trtid by
Turner (1943b)' Albin had exotic material, while Fletcher Og$:67) noted
that Petiver had specimens from India, the Philippines and elsewhere in the
Far East. A significant part of the cumulative verbiage might have been saved
had at least one of the authors been aware of Doubliday's (1849) comments,
and a firmer conclusion regarding geographical origin might'have been arrived
at if they had had access to the 'contemporary oil drawing,, or the original
specimen.
Probably the last BMNH worker until now to refer to the 'Eye'was Graham
Howarth, in his book South's British Bunerfl'ies (1973). His Lntry states the
following: 'Junonia aillida Fabricius. James petiver ... l7l7 ... figures and
described a specimen of this Indo-Australian species said to have bien taken
at Hampstead ... As it is a specimen of some historic interest it is mentioned
here it is appropriate to mention here three other tropical species of
Nymphalinae, which have also been taken singly in Britain., 1Ho*r.ih, 1973:
102)- He goes on (p. 103) to give details of Junonia oenone (Linnaeus, 1758),
Colobura dirce (Linnaeus, 1758) and Hypanartia lethe (Fabricius, l7g3), in ali
three cases referring to the unique British examples and specificaily noting that
all are preserved in the BMNH. Throughout his book, Howarth i, ,t p"ir6 to
mention voucher specimens for rare or otherwise unusual tu*r, .rp.cialty
when these were preserved in the Museum's collection (e.g. p. i0, p. 146,
etc.), of which he was immensely proud. Even though he talki otthe ipecimen
on which the 'Eye' was based, he gives no indication whatsoever that it still
existed, let alone that it was in the Petiver Collection. Ford (1945: l1), in his
brief account, states that the Petiver Collection is in the BMNH, but he does
not say that the pafticular specimen is included.

2t4 Entomologist's Gazette (2007) Vol. 58
The late A. Maitland Emmet (1989a;1989b), as already noted above,
appears to be the first to claim, in print at least, that the original specimen of
the 'Eye' is actually in the BMNH. The second to make this claim is Salmon
(2000: 311). Noting that Morris (1853: 80) stated that the original specimen
'... is ... no longer in existence, and cannot speak for itself, he continues
'Fortunately it is and it can.' However, this does not represent independent
verification of its existence. Michael Salmon (pers. comm., November 2006)
has informed us that he did not see the specimen himself, but based his
statement on Emmet (19896) and a verbal communication with Maitland
Emmet circa 1995, when the latter confirmed that he had seen it in the
Museum and that it was J. villida.
Did Emmet examine it himselP His written words are ambiguous and thus
it is impossible to be sure from this source alone, 'There it is still preserved,
and study has shown it to belongto Junonia aillida' (Emmet, 1989b). \il7e have
been through all that appears to remain of the Petiver material and no
specimen of 1. aillida, or anything else that matches Petiver's (1717)
illustrations, can be found. However, the collection does include several
examples of the very closely related exotic Junonia orithya. Could Emmet have
been mistaken? Could he have thought that one of the J. orithya specimens was
the 'Eye'? til(rhile this might seem unlikely (he was a very knowledgeable
lepidopterist), could he really have been the first to look for this infamous
specimen in the most obvious place to seek it out, and to find it where no
entomologist had seen it before? Is it really likely that others simply failed to
look or to search diligently enough? It is certainly not there now, and from
photographic evidence it was not there 10 years ago, and we now know that
Michael Salmon did not see it there either.
Can the original specirnen still be found?
There are in fact many gaps in Petiver's Collection and there seems little
doubt that many (but perhaps not all) of these are of ancient origin. Did
Maitland Emmet really see the specimen, and has it disappeared since? If so,
this is very disappointing - not least because of the lost opportunity to apply
the name hampstediensis to an Indo-Australian butterfly! But more seriously, if
some of the many gaps in the Petiver Collection can be shown to be of recent
origin, then perhaps something can be done to relocate these priceless
specimens. We appeal to readers of Entomologist's Gazette to help determine
whether or not there is independent proof of its existence (in Maitland
Emmet's notebooks perhaps?), and whether or not it - and perhaps the
priceless painting referred to by Edward Doublday - can yet be found.
Conclusions
Identity. Albin's Hampstead Eye was firmly established by Doubleday (1849)
to be based on a specimen of Junonia z;illida (Fabricius). A11 subsequent
controversy concerning its identity seems to have been made in ignorance of
Doubleday's conclusion - which is also entirely consistent with the original
(Petiver, 1717) published images.

Entomologist's Gazette (2007) Vol. 58 2t5
Original specimen. The only specific claim that the original specimen passed
to James Petiver and from him, via Hans Sloane, to the British Museum,
appears to be the statement made by the late A. Maitland Emmet (1989),
subsequently confirmed verbally to Michael Salmon. \We have found no other
statement regarding its continuing existence after L7l7 . The existence of the
unknown painting referred to by Doubleday (18a9) suggests that Petiver was
not the only person to make an image of the 'Eye', and could also imply that
Albin did not dispose of his unique specimen to Petiver, as has generally been
supposed.
Original paintings. The only known original images are the plain engravings
in known separate copies of Petiver (1717), and the hand-coloured engravings
that appear in some copies of the 1767 re-issue. It is uncertain if these
colourings are original (1717), or were made subsequently by Millan. \J7e
surmise that there would have been original Petiver drawings, some of which
may have been coloured, used by the engraver (Sutton Nicholls) to prepare
Plate V for Petiver (1717). N7hether or not these still exist, and whether or not
they were accessed by Stephensr'Westwood and perhaps others in making their
copies, we simply do not know. Finally, Doubleday (18a9) referred with
authority to a roughly contemporary painting that contained four high quality
images of J. villida together with (mostly) British butterflies. The implication
was that these images were made from the original specimen, but we have no
independent proof of this, nor do we know who made this painting, or have
any knowledge of its current whereabouts, assuming it still exists. The last
person to refer to it was $Testwood (1855).
Geographical origin. The only previous claim of any authoriry to precise
origin is that of Fletcher (1943a; 1947), who considered that, based on
Petiver's figures, the 'Eye' was most like Junonia aillida chagoensis., the
population named by \Tatkins (1925) from material collected on the islands by
Fletcher himself (Percy Sladen Trust expedition of 1905). Given that there is
the possibility of rediscovering, if not the original specimen, at least the four
images of 'minute accuracy' referred to by Doubleday, it seems rather
pointless to speculate further on its origin, especially as the geographical
variation of ,7. villida is currently so poorly understood. However, our
examination of several examples of the Petiver images, as they appear in the
17 64 and 17 67 collected works issued by Millan, together with material from
Java now in the BMNH, suggests that, contra Eliot (1946 228) and Fletcher,
Java is a plausible origin. Java was a key trading port on the sea route to China,
and British ships called there frequently from about 1600 onwards. Moreover,
as noted above, numerous specimens of Javanese butterflies had reached
British entomologists by the mid-eighteenth century (Vane-tVright & Hughes,
2005).
In final summary, we know that Albin's Hampstead Eye is Junonia aillida
(Fabricius, L793) from the Far East. We think we know that it was based on a
mislabelled exotic specimen, not a live import. \il7e are unsure if the original
specimen actually belonged to Petiver or not. \U7e do not know where Petiver's
original paintings are, who made the paintings referred to by Edward
Doubleday or where they are now, nor do we know where the original

216 Entomologist's Gazette (2007) Vol. 58
specimen (assuming it has survived) is deposited - we have been unable to
locate it in the BMNH, where Emmet apparently believed he had seen it. 'We
are unsure what population of J. aillida the available nominal taxon Papilio
hampstediezses Jermyn represents, but circumstantial evidence suggests Java
would have been the most likely source.
Acknowledgernents
Kim and David Goodger kindly gave us access to the Banks and Petiver
collections at the BMNH and helped search for photographic records. \il7e also
thank the staff of the BMNH Entomology Library, the Royal Entomological
Society library (Berit Pedersen), the Linnean Society library, and the t$Thitby
Literary & Philosophical Society, for much help with various inquiries. In
particular, we are very grateful to Gina Douglas for alerting us to the link
between Petiver and Rumphius. The illustrations are based on BMNH sources
kindly photographed by staff of the Museum's photographic studio. Terry
Dillon and Mike Perceval also offered numerous suggestions regarding sources
and relevant information. We are grateful to Michael Salmon, Graham
Howarth and Tony Hutson for answering our enquiries. RIV-\X/ also
acknowledges the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts,
for continuing support.
References
Albin, E. 1720. The Natural History of English Insects 12 pp,100 pls. London.
Allan, P. B. M. 1937. A Moth Hunter's Gossip 269 pp.,1 pl. London.
1946. The Hampstead Eye. The Entomologist's Record and Journal of Vaiation 58:
tt2-1t3.
Aydon, C.2005. Scientific Cuiosity xii, 308 pp. London. [Inexplicably, Morris' image of the
'Eye' appears on the dust-jacket of this general work.]
Bacon, A. F. L. 1943. Cynthia hampstediensis. The Entomologist's Record and Journal of
Variation 55:76.
Barrrett, L. K. & Emrns, C. 1998. Butterfly observations on the Chagos Archipelago: a
review and update . The Entomologist's Record and Journal of Vaiation ll0: 73-79.
Beekrnan, E. M. 1999. The Ambonese Curiosity Cabinet. Georgius Everhardus Rumphius cxii,
567 pp. New Haven.
Cornrnon, I. F. B. & Waterhouse, D. F. 1981 . Butterfl'ies of Austalia. Revised edn, 682
pp.,49 pls. Hong Kong.
Corbet, A. S. 1948. Papers on Malaysian Rhopalocera. V: The conspecificity of the
American Precis lapinia (Cramer) with the Oriental Precis oithya (Linnaeus). The
Entomolo gist 8l: 5 4-5 6.
Dale, J. C. 1863. Random notes. Papilio aellida. The Weekly Entomologist 2: 61.
de Beer, G. R. 1953. Sir Hans Sloane and the Bitish Museum 192 pp. London.
Donovan, E. 1805. An Epitome of the Natural History of the Insects of New Holland, New
Zealand, New Guinea, Otaheite, and other Islands in the Indian, Southern, and Pacific Oceans
iv, [41], [2] pp.,41 pls. London.
Doubleday, E. 1846-1849. The Genera of Diurnal Lepidoptera 1: xii, 250 pp., 62 pls.
London. [Completed byJ. O. STestwood, 1850-1852.]
Eliot, N. 1946. Continental drift and Precis lavinia. The Entomologist 79:225-228.

Entomologist's Gazette (2007) Vol. 58 217
1947a. Albin's Hampstead Eye. The Entomologisr 80: 150-151.
1947b. More on continental drift, Precis lavinia Hb. and P. villidaF. The Entomologist
8O:230-234.
1947 c. More on continental drift, Precis lavinia Hb. and P. villida F.: a postscipt. The
Entomologist 80:283.
1949. The significance of the wing pattern of Precis (Nymphalidae) in Ameica. The
Entomologist 82: 17 6-1 84.
Ernrnet, A. M. 1989a. The vernacular names and early history of British butterflies, pp.
7-21. In Emmet, A. M. & Heath, J. (Eds), The Moths and ButterJl'ies of Great Britain and
Ireland 7(l): ix, 370 pp. Colchester.
1989b. Junonia villida (Fabricius) Albin's Hampstead Eye, p. 189, pl. 23, frgs 1,2. In
Emmet, A. M. & Heath, J. (Eds), The Moths and Butterfies of Great Bitain and Ireland
7(1): ix, 370 pp. Colchester.
Ernmet, A. M. & Heath, J. (Eds). 1989. The Moths and ButterJlies of Great Bitain and
Ireland 7(1): ix, 370 pp. Colchester.
Fabricius, l. C. L787. Mantissa Insectontm.2 [2):382 pp. Hafniae.
Fletcher, T. B. 1943a. "Cynthia hampstediensis." The Entomologist's Record and Joumal of
Variation 55: 65-67.
1943b. Cynthia hampstediensis. The Entomologist's Record and Journal of Vaiation 55:
118-11S.
1947. "Albin's Hampstead Eye." The Entomologist 80: 20.
Forbes, W. T. M. 1947. Buckeyes and Vegener. The Entomologisr 80: 56-58.
1948. Notes on Precis laainia. The Entomologist 8l: l5l-152.
Ford, E. B. 1945. Butterfiesxvi,368 pp.,48 pls. London.
flaworth, A. H. 1803-1828. Lepidoptera Britannica [4 volumes] xxxvi, 609 pp. London.
Howarth, T. G. 1973. South's British Butte(l,ies xiii, 210 pp., 48 pls. London.
1979. 'NDR' - Norman Denbigh Riley, C.B.E., 1890-1979. Antenna 3: 130-132.
Hudson, G. V. 1928. The Butterflies and Moths of New Zealand 386 pp., 52 pls. Wellington.
1943. The "Hampstead Eye" (Precis aillida, Fabr.). The Entomologist's Record and
Journal of Variation 55: 49-50.
Hurnphreys, H. N. & Westwood, J. O. 1841. Bitish Butterflies and their Transformations xii,
138 pp., 42 pls. London.
flutson, A. M. 1981. A preliminary list of insects of Diego Garcia atoll, Chagos Archipelago.
Atoll Research Bulletin no. 243: 29 pp.
Jerrnyn, L. 1824. The Butterfly Collector's Vade Mecum; or a synoptical table of English
Butterfl'ies iv, 68 pp., 2 pls. Ipswich.
1827. The Butterfly Collector's Vade Mecum; or a synopical table of English Butterflies.
2nd, enlarged edn, [vi], 5-169 pp., 5 pls. Ipswich.
Lisney, A. A. 1960. A Bibliography of Bitish Lepidoptera 1608-1799 xviii, 315 pp., 39 pls.
London.
Morris, F. O. 1853. A History of British ButterJlies vi, 168, 29 pp.,7I,2 pls. London.
Owen, D. 1985. lX/hat's in a Name. A look at the oigins of plant and animal names 143 pp.
London.
Parsons, M. 1998. Butterfl'ies of Papua New Guinea. Their systematics and biologt xvi,737, fl)
pp.,26, 139 pls. San Diego & London.
Petiver, I. 1713. Aquatilium Amboinae {rc. Icones {g Nomina 4 pp., 22 pls, 1 p. London.
[Consulted in Empson, J.(Ed.), 1767, Jacobi Petiztei, Opera, Histoiam Naturalem
Spectantia 1. London.l
1717. Papilionum Bitanniae lcones, Nomina, &c.2 pp., 6 pls. London. [Separate
pamphlet not seen; consulted in Petiver, J., vol. 2, 17 64, 17 67 .l
1764. Jacobi Petioeri Opera, Historiam Naturalem Spectantia, or, Gazophylacium. 3
volumes. London.

218 Entomologist's Gazette (2007) Vol. 58
17 67 . Jacobi PeizLei Opera, Historiam Naturalem Spectantia ... the additions corrected by
the late Mr. James Empson, of the British Museum,2 volumes. London.
Plant, C. W. 1987. The Butteffies of the London Area 199 pp. London.
Riley, N. D. 1928. In Poulton, E. B. & Riley, N. D., The Rhopalocera of the "St. George"
expedition, from French Oceania. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London 76:
453-468, I pl.
Rurnphius, G. E. 1705. D'Amboinsche Raiteitkamer340 PP., 60, 5 pls. Amsterdam.
Salmon, M. A. 2000. The Aurelian Legacy. British Butterflies and Their Collectors (with
additional material by P. Marren & B. Harley) 432 pp. Colchester.
Scudder, S. H. 1875. Historical sketch of the generic names proposed for butterflies.
Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences l0: 9l-293.
Stephens, I. F. 1827-1828. Illustraions of Bitish Entomology, Haustellata l: 2, 152 pp., 12
pls. London.
Tennent, W. J. 2006. A checklist of the butterflies of Melanesia, Micronesia, Polynesia and
some adjacent areas. Zootaxa no. 1178: l-209.
Tsukada, E. 1985. Nymphalidae (1). 1z Tsukada, E. (Ed.), Buttedlies of the South East Asian
Islands 4:558 pp. Tokyo.
Turner, H. J, 1943a. [Editorial footnote to Hudson, 1943.) The Entomologist's Record and
Journal of Vaiation 55: 50.
1943b. [Editorial footnote to Bacon, 1943.] The Entomologist's Record and Journal of
Variation 55:76.
Vane-Wright, R. I. & Hughes,H.2005. The Seymer Legacy. Henry Seymer and Henry
Seymer Jnr of Dorset, and their entomological Paintings, with a Catalogue of Butterfl'ies and
Plants (1755-1783) x, 320 pp. Tresaith.
Watkins, H. T. G. 1923. Notes on the butterflies of the Banks Collection. The Entomologist
56:204-209.
1925. Precis aillida Fab. (Lep. Nymphalidae), and a new race. The Entomologist 58:33.
Westwood, J. O. 1855. The Buttedl'ies of Great Bitain xl, 140 PP.,2,19 pls. London.