1893.] THE BUTTERFLIES OF THE GENUS THYSONOTIS. 537 



the name Pcqnlio damis. Eabricius in 1807 (Illiger's Mag. vi. 

 p. 286) described the genus Danis, but did not mention bis type. 

 West\vood, in 1852, was apparently the first author to associate 

 the rabrician genus with Cramer's insect, but upon what grounds 

 is not clear. But by the rules of nomenclature a generic name 

 must not be one which has been used as a specific name, conse- 

 quently Bants cannot stand. jS'ow, to make matters still more 

 complicated, Boisduval in 1832 (Voy. Ast., Lep.) uses Damis as a 

 generic name, but by the same law this is inadmissible. 



Westwood in 1852 characterized the genus, at the same time 

 expressing his doubts whether it showed sufficient distinctness to 

 allow of its separation from Lyccena. But why he allowed the 

 I'abrician name to stand for the genus, when Cramer's insect had 

 received it as a specific name some 28 years before seems 

 inexplicable. 



So far as Boisduval is concerned, I think there can be no doubt 

 that he meant Danis when he wi'ote Damis on p. 67 (Voy. Astr., 

 Lep.), as on p. 69 he writes E. damis, Godt., and P. damis, Cr., both 

 of which should be spelt danis. 



The question now is what generic name should be used, as it is 

 not right that Cramer's name should be only a synonym when his 

 insect was described for so long a time before Boisduval's. 



The next name to deal with is Thi/sonotis, proposed by Hiibner 

 in 1816, which has been used by Semper and others for these 

 insects ; and bad as we think is the practice of doing away with 

 well-known generic names for others which may be older but 

 which their authors have employed without characterizing, in 

 this case we can see no help for it, as it affects the specific name 

 of the type of the genus. 



Dr. Felder at one time (1859) used Dams when describing an 

 insect of the group, afterwards (in 1860) Thysonotis, and then 

 seems to have considered Lyccena sufficient. 



In a note by Mr. W. Doherty published by Mr. de Xiceville 

 (Butt. India, iii. p. 261), he speaks of an Arhopala mimicking the 

 danis group of Cyaniris, but as the type of that genus has the 

 costal nervure of the fore wing free, and as after examining a 

 large number of the group we have not found one which at all 

 approaches it in that respect, we do not think, in spite of Mr. de 

 Niceville's remarks about C. transpectus, Moore (Butt. India, iii. 

 p. 92), that they can be placed together under the same generic 

 name. It is evident such a course would alter the synonymy con- 

 siderably, and we venture to think uselessly, as we have here a 

 group of Butterflies which, although they cannot be perhaps struc- 

 turally defined, present in their markings an easily recognized 

 division in the family. 



We have divided the genus into 5 divisions as follows, a short 

 account of which is given under their respective headings : — 



A. The danis group. 



B. The wallacei group. 



C. The schaeffera group. 



D. The taygetus group. 



E. The cyanea group. 



