August, 1902.] 1(]9 



" Meneris. 1840. [Boisd. in] Doubl., List Br. Mus. 10f. : Tulbaghia. Sole 

 species, and therefore type." limited the possible type of AEROPKTKS, 

 Billbg. to Billberg's first idionym (whatever it may represent). 



Billberg, I. c, 70, writes thus: — "Aeeopetes Eg — Brassolis Fbr. — 

 Papilio ol. Lieas, Surin. Fbr. Tulbagbia, Cap. b. sp. Linn." 



Licas (F.) teste Billbg. is identified with the Castnian IAcus, Drury. 

 And yet the citation of sinopis, L., is accepted without question ! 



One further example must be quoted to demonstrate Scudder's 

 wanton acceptance of mere logonyms (nomina nuda) as valid genonyms. 



Sedr. Pr. Am. Ac. A.S., Boston, X (2, s. II), 232, No. 766 (1875) :— 



" Ogyris. 1847. Doubl., List Br. Mus. 20 : Idmo, Abrota, Damo 

 (all inedited). 1852. Westw., Gen. Diurn. Lep. 472 : Abrota, Idmo: 

 the former is figured." 



" Since Doubleday's genus was undeseribed, and at the time when it was proposed 

 all the species were inedited, the genus can only date from 1852, though it should 

 bear Doubleday's name : at this time the only published species was Abrota, and 

 this therefore must be the type. Idmo was not published until 18G2, and Damo is 

 still a MS. name." 



Indexing Scudder's record, we obtain the following results : — 



OGYRIS, Wstwd. 

 [= Ogyris, Dbld, MS.}. 



Type, Ogyris abrota, Wstwd. (Wstwd, 1852). 



Ogtbis [Dbld., List Br. Mus., 20, LN.~\, Wstwd., Gen. Diurn, 

 Lp., 472 (1852). 



1 (Type), abrota (Dbld., LN.), Wstwd. 



2. idmo (Dbld., LN.), Wstwd. 



It may be conceded that Doubleday invented all these names, but 

 as he omitted to indicate their signification, they must surely be attri- 

 buted to Westwood, who adopted Doubleday's invalid logonyms, and 

 made them valid. 



[We have accepted Scudder's statement of this generic problem 

 —if there are omitted facts— we are not responsible for such omission.] 



One other remark on the nomenclature of the Rhopalocera. 

 Scudder, I. c, 238 — 40, recognises antiopa, L., as the type of Papilio, 

 L. Those who are interested in this question should note an omission 

 from his references — 



Wood, 111. Linn. Gen. Ins., II, 4—6, PI. 43 (1821), specifies and 

 figures urticae, L., which anticipated Scudder's citation of antiopa, 

 L. (1872). 



To return from Scudder and those who accept Billberg's genera 

 to Billberg's " Enumeratio," we are compelled to express our opinion 



