466 JOURNAL, BOMBAY|NATURAL HIST, SOCIETY, Vol. XXVIII, 
action must be upheld. Aphnemorpha must fall as an absolute synonym to 
Aphneus in consequence. 
APPORASA, Moore. Journ. As. Soc. 1884. S. S. atkinsoni, 
Beng. p. 38. Hew. 
ARAOTES, Doh. Journ. As. Soc. 1889. 8. 8. lapithis, 
Beng. p. 411, ete. Moore. 
ARHOPALA, Boisd. Voy. Astrol. p. 75. 1832. 8S. 8. helius Cram. 
(phryx- 
us, Boisd.) 
Probably falls as a synonym to Amblypodia (q. v.) 
ARTIPE, Boisd. Lep. Guat. p. 14. 1870. T. 8. ery, Linn. 
(amyn- 
tor, Her- 
bst.) 
Scudder (/. c. p. 12!) states that the name must fall because it is preoccupied 
by Artipus (Schonh. Col. 1826). The similarity between the two names does 
not seem sufficiently close to warrant this, and I consider the name should be 
upheld, if it is required. 
ARRHENOTHRIX, deN. Butt. Ind. MI, p. 1890. T. 8. penicilli- 
337. gera, de N. 
AUROTIS, Dalm. Vetensk, Akad. 1816. betule, 
Handl. XX XVII, Linn. 
p. 63. 
Although the type is not actually specified by Dalman it is most unmistakably 
indicated as betule. Falls to Thecla and Zephyrus (q. v.). 
BASPA, Moore. Proc. Zool. Soe. 1882. S. 8S. melampus, 
Lond. p. 250. Cramer. 
BIDASPA, Moore. Proc. Zool. Soc. 1882. T.S. nissa, 
Lond. p. 250. Koll. 
BIDUANDA, Dist. Rhop. Malay. p. 237 1884. T. 8. thesmia, 
Hew. 
BINDAHARA, Moore. Lep. Cevlon, I. p. 1884. 8. S. phocides, 
PE: Fah. 
BITHYS. Hiibner. Zutr. Ex. Schmett. 1818. S. 8. leucophe- 
p. 18. us, Hubn. 
In his Verz. bek. Schmett. p. 75 Hiibner adds other species, and gives a refer- 
ence to his Zutrage for the description of leucopheus. This shows p. 75 of the 
Verzeichniss appeared after p. 18 of the Zutrage ; in fact it does not seem to have 
been published till 1822-3. 
BRITOMARTIS, deN. Journ. Bom. N. H. 1896. T.S.  cleoboides 
8. p. 305. Elw. and 
deN. 
BULLIS, deN. Journ. As. Soc. 1897. T.S. buto, deN. 
Beng. p. 559. (d nec. 2) 
CALLOPHRYS, Billb. Enum. Ins. p. 80. 1820. rubi, Linn. 
Billberg only mentions vulcanus, rubi and a MS species. Rubi was specified 
as the type by Scudder (1. c. p. 132). 
As there seems to be some disagreement as to whether Billberg’s list ‘ Enume- 
ratio Insectorum in Museo Gust. Joh. Billberg’ should be accepted or not, it may 
be as well to examine briefly the arguments for or against it. 
Firstly it is said that it is merely a list of the specimens in the author’s own 
collection. Certainly it is ; but the fact that the author, in the Rhopalocera 
alone, proposes over 40 new generic names is clear evidence that he did not in 
tend it to be a ‘ mere list’. Further, he gives brief diagnostic characters for all 
the larger divisions down to groups of genera. 
He does not give any generic diagnosis ; but the species (except the MS ones) 
