200 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 



1850. Steph., Cat.- Brit. Lep. 2 [Jasonides] : Machaon. 



So also Kirby (1858). 



Machaon, however, had already been made the type of Princeps : 

 the other species, excepting Glaucus, are congeneric, and hence this 

 must be talien as the type. See Euphoeades. 



591, JUNONIA. 



1816. Hiibn., Verz. 34: Aonis, Lavinia, Orithya (Orithya, Ocyale, 

 Isocratia), Clelia, Erymanthis (Lotis), CEuone. 



1849. Doubl., Gen. Diurn. Lep. 206 : places in his typical section 

 all the species of Hiibner excepting Erymanthis, besides 

 others not mentioned by him. 



1861. Feld., Neues Lep. 13 : divides the group into two sections, in 

 the second of which he places two species, referred by 

 Doubleday to his typical section. None of Ilubner's 

 species are specially designated. 



1871. Kirb., Syn. Cat. 186: follows Doubleday. 



1872.- Scudd., Syst. Rev. 22 : designates Lavinia as the type. 

 ISee Alyconeis. 



592. Kallima. 



1849. Doubl., Gen. Diurn. Lep., pi. 52 : Rumia, Paralekta. 



1850. Westw., Gen. Diurn. Lep. 324: nine species are given, in- 



cluding the above. 



The question of type is a somewhat peculiar one. The "Paralekta" 

 of Doubleday is considered by Westwood to be distinct from " Para- 

 lekta " of Horsfield, and the same as " Horsfieldii " of KoUar. Kirby 

 (Syn. Cat. 193), on the other hand, makes "Paralekta" of Doubleday 

 the same as the " Paralekta " of Horsfield; and the " Paralekta " of 

 Westwood (together with the " Horsfieldii " of KoUar), the same as the 

 " Inachis " of Boisduval, placed as a possible synonyme of " Paralekta." 

 Now Westwood regards his " Paralekta " as type. If, however. West- 

 wood's "Paralekta" is not the "Paralekta" of Doubleday, it could 

 not beconie the type of the genus, because not mentioned in the first 

 instance. If the same, it would have to be taken as type ; consequently 

 it would best be considered the type. The question, however, is still 

 further complicated by the following : — 



1861. Feld., Neues Lep. 14: refers to it only Inachis and Rumia. 



If Inachis (which includes the " Paralekta " of Westwood) is distinct 

 from the Paralekta of Doubleday, and Westwood's decision of a type 

 is thereby ruled out of place, then Rumia becomes the type. The 

 question is, in reality, of little importance, since all the species men- 

 tioned are congeneric in the strictest sense, and variety of opinion as 

 to specific alliances does not affect the generic nomenclature. 



1871. Kirb., Syn. Cat. 193: employs it for all these and another. 



