GENERIC NAMES OF BUTTERFLIES 65 



cannot be doubted that Verity intended to indicate that Papilio athalia was the type-species 

 of the present subgeneric taxon, to which he then gave a name compounded of the specific 

 name athalia, and it appears reasonable to conclude that the indications which he gave 

 amounted, in his view, to the designation of that species as such. Accordingly, Athaliae- 

 formia is here treated as having Papilio athalia as type-species by original designation. It will 

 be realized that, as Athaliaefovmia was published after 1930, it would automatically be an 

 invalid name, if it were treated as having been published without a type-species. The view 

 that it was so published was expressed by Higgins in 1955 (Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 106 : 4) 

 when that author selected Papilio athalia to be the type-species. If in fact Athaliaefovmia had 

 been published without a designated type-species and, as a post-1930 name, it had as a conse- 

 quence automatically been invalid, the selection of a type-species by a later author would not 

 have validated it. 



ATHARIA Moore, [1898], Lep. ind. 3 (32) : 146. Type-species by original designation : 

 Limenitis consimilis Boisduval, [1832], in d'Urville, Voy. " Astrolabe ", Faun. ent. 1 

 (Lep.) : 133. 



When Moore introduced the name Atharia, he designated a type-species, but gave no 

 generic diagnosis. He made good this deficiency in the following year ([1899], ibid. 4 (39) : 

 44)- 



ATHENA Hiibner, [1819], Verz. behannt. Schmelt. (3) : 36. Type-species by monotypy : 

 Papilio thetys Fabricius, 1777, Gen. Ins. : 264. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Papilio thetys is currently identified subjec- 

 tively on taxonomic grounds with that represented by the older-established nominal species 

 Papilio petreus Cramer, [1776] [Uitl. Kapellen 1 (8) : 138, pi. 87, figs D, E). 



ATHESIS Doubleday, [July 1847], Gen. diarn. Lep. (1) : pi. 16, fig. 3 ; id., [September 1847], 

 ibid. (1) : 109. Type-species by monotypy : Athesis clearista Doubleday, [July 1847], ibid. 

 (1) : pi. 16, fig. 3. 



ATHIS Hiibner, [1819], Verz. behannt. Schmett. (7) : 101. 



Although this was described as a genus of butterflies, its type-species by monotypy, Papilio 

 palatinus Cramer, [1777] (Uitl. Kapellen 2 (14) : 98, pi. 159, figs B, C) is not a butterfly but a 

 moth. 



ATHYMA Westwood, [1850], in Doubleday, Gen. diurn. Lep. (2) : 272. Type-species by 

 selection by Scudder (1875, Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 123) : Papilio leucothoe 

 Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 478. 



There has been considerable confusion regarding the proper application of the name 

 Athyma Westwood, owing partly to doubts, until recently, as to the interpretation of originally 

 included nominal species, and partly to taxonomic difficulties in certain respects. Normally, 

 difficulties of this latter kind would fall outside the scope of the present work, but in the 

 present instance some explanation is necessary for the proper understanding of the purely 

 nomenclatorial issues. 



The first point to be noted is that what Scudder selected as type-species was cited by 

 Westwood as " leucothoe Linn., 1764 ". However, Linnaeus did not describe a new nominal 

 taxon in 1764 under the name Papilio leucothoe ; what he did do in the Mus. Lud. Ulr. ( : 292) 

 in that year was to redescribe the nominal species Papilio leucothoe established by himself in 

 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 478). Unfortunately, as specialists are agreed, Linnaeus in 1764 

 included under the name Papilio leucothoe two quite different taxa. This was first clearly 

 established by Aurivillius in 1882 (K. svenska VetenskAkad. Handl., Stockholm 19, No. 5 : 

 68, 93, 94). What in 1764 Linnaeus described as the male of Papilio leucothoe was a species 

 of the " Neptis-Group ", while what he described as the female was a species of the group often 

 incorrectly known in the xixth and early xxth century as the " Pantoporia-Group " and 

 more recently as the " Parathyma-Group." 



The next point to be considered is the identity of the species to which the name Papilio 

 leucothoe Linnaeus, 1758, properly belongs. On this subject there is general agreement that 



