GENERIC NAMES OF THECLIN~. 471 
PSEUDOCHLIARIA, Tytler. Journ. Bomb. N. H.1915. T. 8. virgoides, 
S.-p. 139, Tyt. 
PSEUDOLYCAINA, Wallgn. K. Vett. Akad. Vorh. 1858. T. S. marsyas, 
. XV, p. 80. Linn. 
PSEUDOMYRINA, H. H. Druce. Proce. Zool. 1895. T. 8S. martina, 
Soe. Lond. p. 606. Hew. 
PURLISA, Dist. Rhop. Malay. p. 234 1884. T. 8S. giganteus, 
Dist. 
RAPALA, Moore. Lep. Ceylon, I, p. 1881. T. 8. varuna, 
105. Horsf. 
RATHINDA, Moore. Lep. Ceylon. I, p. 99 1881. T. S. amor, Fab. 
REMELANA, Moore. Journ. As. Soc. 1884. T. 8. jangala, 
Beng. p. 37. Horsf, 
RITRA, deN. Butt. Ind. III, 1890. T.S. aurea, 
p. 411. Druce. 
RUMICIA, Tutt. Ent. Ree. XVIII, 1906. T.S. phleas, 
p. 131. Linn. 
RURALIS, Tutt. Ent. Rec. XVII, 1906. T.S. betulae, 
p. 212, 1905 ; Linn. 
MVE ES sp. 130; 
132, 1906; Brit. 
Lep. VIII, p. 313. 
Tutt brings forward this Linnean name stating that it was ‘‘ heterotypical 
in its use by Linneus ” but that Barbut in Les Genres des Insectes de Linné 
(1781) “‘ specifies betulze as the type ”’. 
Actually all Barbut did was to give one example of each of the Linnzan divi- 
sions of Papilio, describing it and figuring it, but always referring to it in the 
full quadrinomial system of Linneus. When dealing with betule he calls it 
P. P. Ruralis betule, and it comes immediately under the heading PLEBEII. 
This cannot be considered as a binomial application of the word Ruralis, and 
hence Barbut’s application of the name can no more be accepted as justification 
for its employment as a valid generic name from that date than can Linnzus’own 
use of the term. If Ruralis is to be accepted as a valid generic name on the 
strength of Barbut’s action, then Candidus, Phaleratus, etc., must also be accept- 
ed, as they were considered of equal rank as subdivisions of Papillo in the early 
days. Theonly sane course with these namesappears to be to neglect them 
entirely until someone employs them in accordance with the strict rules of 
binomial nomenclature. 
Ruralis should therefore be attributed to Tutt, who first uses it binomially, 
the type being specified by him as betula. The name therefore falls to Thecla 
and Zephyrus (q. v.) 
SATADRA, Moore. Journ. As. Soc. 1884. T. 8. atrar, 
Beng. p. 38. Hew, 
SATSUMA, Murray. Ent. Mo. Mag. XI, 1874. T. S. ferrea, 
p. 168, Butler. 
SEMANGA, Dist. | Rhop. Malay. p, 233 1884. T. S. superba, 
Druce, 
SINTHUSA, Moore. Journ. As. Soc. 1884. T. 8. nasaka, 
Beng. p. 33. Horsf. 
SITHON, Hiibner. Verz. bek. Schmett. 1818. - nedymond, 
Do fits Cram. 
The name was employedby Hiibner for nedymond and melampus. The type 
was virtually fixed by Kirby (Syn. Cat. p. 411, 1871) as the former species, whic}, 
was specified by Scudder (.c. p. 269) as the type. 
