File:Robert Templeton Rhopalocera Ceylon Plate 1.jpg

English: Robert Templeton Rhopalocera of Ceylon Watercolour intended for publication in Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London

Marginal identification notes by Francis Walker (after 1859 the date of publication of A catalogue of the lepidopterous insects in the museum of the Hon. East-India company by Thomas Horsfield and Frederic Moore of the East India Company. London, W.H. Allen and Co., 1857-59.)The obvious confusions relate to the then nascent understanding of Mimicry. See the text here [1]

• 8 Atrophaneura = Invalid Pachliopta aristolochiae Fabricius, 1775 form diphylus Esper, 1792
• 6 Papilio polytes female form romulus Cramer, [1775]

Papilio diphilus Esper is a forma of Papilio aristolochiae Fabricius, 1775

"The taxon represented by the nominal species Papilio diphilus Esper is currently treated subjectively on taxonomic grounds as a form of the taxon represented by the older-established nominal species Papilio aristolochiae Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 443). The name Pachliopta was published on the same date and in the same paper as the name Atrophaneura, and in consequence the relative precedence to be accorded to these names depends on the choice made by the First Reviser. The name Atrophaneura Reakirt was brought into use in 1943 (Entomologist 76 : 206) by Corbet when it was realized that the name Polydorus Swainson, [1833], was invalid under the Law of Homonymy and therefore not available for this genus. Corbet did not however make a definite First Reviser choice in favour of Atrophaneura as against the name Pachliopta and the position of these names remained unsettled until in 1964 (Annot. lep. (3) : 84) I gave precedence, as First Reviser, to Atrophaneura Reakirt over the name Pachliopta Reakirt" Hemming (1967)

Pachliopta Reakirt, 1865 was treated as a junior [subjective] synonym of Atrophaneura Reakirt, 1865 by Hancock, 1980, Australian Entomological Magazine 7 (2) : 28