GENERIC NAM I )S 01 BUTTERFLIES 21 



ACAPTERA Billberg, 1820, Enum. Ins. Mus. Billb. : 76. Type-species by monotypy : 

 Papilio crisia Drury, [1782], ///. nat. Hist. 3 : index et 51, pi. 37, figs I, 2. 



ACCA Hiibner, 1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (3) : 44. Type-species by selection by Scudder 

 (1875, Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 99) : Papilio venilia Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. 

 Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 478. 



ACENTROCNEME Scudder, 1875, Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 100, 103. Type- 

 species through Section (i) (replacement names) of Article 67 : Aegiale kollari Felder (C.) & 

 Felder (R.). i860, IVien. ent. Monats. 4 : 111, pi. 2, fig. 3 9- 



Scudder stated (: 100) that this was a manuscript name proposed by Felder [presumably 

 Felder (C.)] in a copy of the " Lepidopterologische Fragmente " sent by him to Frauenfeld as 

 a substitute for the name Aegiale Felder (C.) and Felder (R.), i860. Later (: 103) Scudder 

 amplified this statement, saying that in the Frauenfeld copy (which he explained was by this 

 time in his own possession) Felder had erased the name Aegiale, substituting the name 

 Acentrocneme for it. Scudder himself rejected the name Aegiale on the ground that it was too 

 close to Aegialea Latreille, 1807 (an argument which is not valid under the present Code) and 

 accordingly accepted the name Acentrocneme which he believed (: 100) quite correctly to be 

 still unpublished and of which he looked upon himself as the effective author for nomen- 

 clatorial purposes. He specified Aegiale kollari as the type-species of Acentrocneme, but this 

 was unnecessary because, as a substitute genus, Acentrocneme automatically takes that species 

 as its type-species, it being the typ of the genus [Aegiale) so replaced. The name 



Aegiale is an available name under the (Ode, and accordingly the name Acentrocneme, pub- 

 lished as a replacement for it, is invalid and falls as a junior objective synonym of Aegiale. 



ACERBAS de Niceville, 1895, J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 9 (4) : 381. Type-species by original 

 designation : Hesperia anthea Hewitson, 1 868, Descr. One Hundred new Spec. Hesp. (2) : 

 29. 



ACESINA Moore, 1884, J. asiat. Soc. Bengal, Pt II, 53 (1) : 41. Type-species by original 

 designation : Amblypodia paraganesa de Niceville, 1882,7 asiat. Soc. Bengal, Pt II, 51 : 

 63 



ACHALARUS Scudder, 1872, 4/// Ann. Rep. Peabody Acad. Sd. 1871 : 71. Type-species by 

 original designation : Papilio lycidas Smith, 1797, in Abbot, Ins. Georgia 1 : 39, pi. 20. 



The name Papilio lycidas Smith is invalid as being a junior homonym of Papilio / 

 Cramer, [1777] (Uitl. Kapellen 2 (10) : 25, pi. 113, fig. A). It has been replaced by the name 

 Proteides lyciades Geyer, [1832 1 (in Hiibner, Zutr. z. Samml. exot. Schmett. 4 : 10, pi. [108], 

 figs 621-622 $), which is thus the oldest available name objectively applicable to the present 

 species. 



ACHILLIDES Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (6) : 85. Type-species by selection by 

 Scudder (1875, Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 100) : Papilio paris Linnaeus, 1758, 

 Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 459. 



ACHIVUS Kirby, 1896, in Allen's Nat. Libr., Lepid. 1, Butts 2 : 286. Type-species by 

 original selection : Papilio machaon Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 462. 



The name Achivus Kirby is invalid as it is a junior objective synonym of Papilio Linnaeus, 

 1758, of which the same species is the type-species. 



Kirby erroneously supposed that the word " Achivus " had been used by Barbut in 1781 

 {Gen. Ins. : 169) as a genus-group name. In fact, however, Barbut placed all the Butterflies 

 in the single genus Papilio. The species were grouped under terms given in Latin and 

 French, the arrangements being identical with that adopted by Linnaeus, Fabricius and other 

 XVIIIth century authors when enumerating the species attributed by them to various genera. 



By a Ruling given in its Opinion 124 (1936, Smithson. miscell. Coll. 73 (No. 1) : 1-2 ; 

 republished in facsimile in 1958, Opin. int. Comm. zool. Nom. 1 (B) : 465-466) the 

 Commission rejected terms published in this way and ruled that such publications did not 

 confer upon such terms the status of subgeneric names as of that date. In all these cases 



