56 FRANCIS HEMMING 



ARGUS Gerhard, 1850, Versuch. Mon. europ. Schmett. (1) : 4. Type-species by monotypy : 

 Lycaena ledereri Boisduval, 1848, Bull. Soc. ent. Fr. 1848 : 29. 



Like the two immediately preceding names, the name Argus Gerhard is invalid as a junior 

 homonym of Argus Bohadsch, 1761. 



ARGYNNINA Butler, 1867, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (3) 19 : 165. Type-species by selection by 

 Bulter (1868, Ent. mon. Mag. 4 : 196) : Lasiommata hobartia Westwood, [185 1], in Double- 

 day, Gen. diurn. Lep. (2) : 387, nota. 



ARGYNNIS Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 283. Type-species by selection by 

 Latreille (1810, Consid. gen. Anim. Crust. Arachn. Ins. : 440) : Papilio paphia Linnaeus, 

 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 481. 



Formerly there was some doubt as to the acceptability of Latreille's Consid. gin. as a work 

 containing valid type-selections of genera, but these were set at rest by the Commission by the 

 Ruling given in Opinion 11 1910, Smilhson. Publ. 1938 : 17-18 ; facsimile published in 1958, 

 Opin. int. Comm. zool. Nom. 1 (B) : 17^18, as supplemented by the Ruling given in Opinion 

 x 36 (i939. ibid. 2 : 13-20). There are two later, and, of course, invalid type-selections for 

 this genus. These were the selection (a) of Papilio adippe Linnaeus, 1767 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 

 1 (2) : 786) by Dalman in 1816 (K. svenska VetenskAkad. Handl., 1816 (1) : 57), and (b) of 

 Papilio aglaia Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 481) by Curtis in 1830 (Brit. Entom. 

 7 : pi. 290). 



Up to the beginning of the nineteen-thirties it was commonly considered subjectively on 

 taxonomic grounds that Papilio paphia Linnaeus, the type-species of the present genus, and 

 Papilio niphe Linnaeus, 1767 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 785) were congeneric with one another. 

 Accordingly, a difficult situation arose when specialists began to take the view that these 

 species should be placed in separate genera, for in 1928 Reuss had selected Papilio niphe as the 

 type-species of Argyreus Scopoli, 1777, with the result that all those workers — then the 

 majority — who considered these species to be congeneric, the name Argynnis Fabricius 

 became a junior subjective synonym. In fact, however this change was never made, special- 

 ists considering that it would be so disturbing to existing practice that the proper course 

 would be to ask the Commission to intervene to prevent it from happening. The Commission 

 thereupon gave a Ruling that, without prejudice to the use on taxonomic grounds of the generic 

 name Argyreus Scopoli for those authors who considered that its type-species was not conge- 

 neric with that of Argynnis Fabricius, the name Argyreus was not to be substituted for the 

 name Argynnis in those cases where specialists considered the type-species of these nominal 

 genera were congeneric with one another. At the same time the name Argynnis Fabricus 

 was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 609. These decisions 

 of which the first was taken by the Commission under its Plenary Powers, were promulgated 

 in 1945 in the Commission's Opinion 161 (Opin. int. Comm. zool. Nom. 2 : 307-318). 



ARGYREA Billberg, 1820, Enum. Ins. Mus. Bilb. : 77 (an Unjustified Emendation of Argyreus 

 Scopoli, 1777). 



When I dealt with this name in 1933 (Entomologist 66 : 197), there were no clear provisions 

 in the Code regarding either the status of names published as emendations of older names or 

 the criteria to be adopted for determining when one generic name should be regarded as a 

 homonym of another. As regards the first of these questions, I thought it best to select as the 

 type-species of this genus the nominal species Papilio paphia Linnaeus, 1758, in order to make 

 this name a junior objective synonym of Argynnis Fabricius, 1807 ; as regards the second 

 point, I treated Argyrea Billberg as a junior homonym of Argyria Ffiibner, 181 8 Zutr. z. 

 Samml. exot. Schmett 1 : 28, 30. Both the questions in doubt in 1933 have since been clarified 

 by the International Congresses of Zoology and revised provisions have been inserted in the 

 Code. On the first of the above questions the Code provides (Article 33) that an Emendation 

 of a generic name takes the same type-species as the name so emended ; accordingly, my 

 selection in 1933 01 Papilio paphia Linnaeus as the type-species of Argyrea is invalid, that 



