1922] Barnes and Lindsey: Generic Names in Lepidoptera 91 



1872. Crotch, Cist. Ent. I, 60, cites psidii as type, giving Lamarck as 

 authority. While Lamarck's work does not actually fix the type, 

 Crotch's' definitely cites "Type H. psidii Linn.," and we believe that 

 his must be regarded as a valid fixation. 



1875. Scudder, Hist. Sk. 185, cites Anliochiis as type, but credits the genus to 

 Latreille and says that Crotch was in error in referring the genus back 

 to Linnaeus, Linnaeus' Heliconii, however, form as vaHd a genus as 

 any other of his subdivisions of Papilio, and he does use the singular, 

 Heliconius, in the page headings. Hence we_ regard this as truly a 

 Linnean genus, and Scudder's action as ultra vires. 



1913. Seitz, Macrolep. (2), V, 377, uses Heliconius Latr. 



As a result of this history of Heliconius, we have concluded that 

 it must be dropped from our lists, for psidii is a Danaid and no con- 

 generic species is found in our fauna. The subfamily Heliconiina must 

 be renamed and since Hampson has already applied the name Eueidince 

 (which he spells, incorrectly, EuidincB), we adopt that term. Since 

 Heliconius does not take the place of Danaus we see no reason to change 

 the family name Danaidce. 



MiGONiTis Hbn. Logotype Papilio erato Linn. 



1816. Huebner, Verz. bek. Schmett, 12; erato and others. 

 1875. Scudder, Hist. Sk. 218, cites erato as type. 



Migonitis takes the place of Heliconius Avict. 



Dryas Hbn. Haplotype Papilio paphia Linn. 



1806. Huebner; Tentamen. Paphia sole species and therefore type. 

 Argynnis Fab. Logotype Papilio paphia Linn. 



1807. Fabricius, 111. Mag. VI, 283, paphia, cynara, cethosia, aglaija, liriope, 

 morpheus, hermes. 



1810. Latreille, Consid. Gen. 440, cites paphia as type. 



1816. Dalman, Vetensk. Akad. Handl. XXXVII, 57-66, cites adippe as 

 type. 



1830. Curtis, Brit. Ent. Lep. I, 290, cites aglaia as type. _ 



1875. Scudder, Hist. Sk. 118; cites aglaia as type and says that Latreille cited 

 paphia and cinxia, whereas the latter appears to be mentioned in 

 synonymy. Other writers have followed Latreille and Curtis. 



We regard paphia as the type of Argynnis, though there rnay be 

 some slight doubt concerning Latreilles' citation of both paphia and 

 cinxia. If it can be definitely shown that these were cited as two types, 

 Daiman's fixation must prevail. All appear to be congeneric. The 

 Tentamen genus, Dryas, must take the place of the more familiar name 

 in either case, however, if we are to observe the generic limits adopted 

 by most writers. 



Lemonias Hbn. Haplotype Papilio maturna Linn. 



1806. Huebner, Tentamen. maturna sole species and therefore type. 

 Melitaea Fab. Logotype Papilio cinxia Linn. 



1807 Fabricius, 111. Mag. VI, 284; liicina, cinxia, cynthia, maturna. 



1816". Dalman, Vetensk. Akad. Handl. XXXVII, 57, cites athalia as 



type, but incorrectly, for it was not included by Fabricius. 

 1840. Westwood, Gen. Syn. 88, cites cinxia as type. This appears to be 

 the first valid type fixation. 



