68 FRANCIS HEMMING 



older-established nominal species Hesperia arogos Boisduval & Leconte, [1834] (Hist. gin. 

 icon. Lipid. Chenilles Amir. sept. : pi. 76, figs 3 6*. 4 6*. 5 9 [ no text]). 

 ATRYTONOPSIS Godman, [1900], in Godman & Salvin, Biol, centr.-amer., Lep. Rhop. 2 : 

 497. Type-species by original designation : Hesperia deva Edwards, 1876, Trans. Amer. 

 ent. Soc. 5 : 292. 



AUBERTIA Oberthur, 1896, Etud. ent. 20 : 40. Type-species by selection by Lindsey (1925, 

 Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 18 : 79) : Aubertia dulcis Oberthur, 1896, ibid. 20 : 40, pi. 9, fig. 16 q*- 

 The taxon represented by the nominal species Aubertia dulcis Oberthur is currently treated 

 subjectively on taxonomic grounds as representing the same taxon as that represented by the 

 nominal species Carterocephalus christophi Groum-Grschmailo, 1891 (Hor. Soc. ent. ross. 

 25 : 460). 



AUCA Hayward, 1953, Acta zool. lilloana 13 : 30. Type-species by original designation : 

 Satyrus pales Philippi, i860, Linnaea ent. 14 : 268. 



AUDRE Hemming, 1934, Entomologist 67 : 157. Type-species by original designation : 

 Papillo epulus Cramer, [1775], Uitl. Kapellen 1 (5) : 79, pi. 50, figs C, D. 



The nominal species Papilio epulus Cramer has had an unfortunate history in the matter of 

 the generic name used for it for taxonomic purposes. For many years it was erroneously 

 considered to be the type-species of Hamearis Hiibner, [18 19], it having been so selected by 

 Scudder in 1875 (Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 183), despite the fact that (as 

 Scudder realized) Curtis as far back as 1830 had selected as the type-species the nominal 

 species Papilio lucina Linnaeus, 1758, which belongs to an entirely different section of the 

 family Riodinidae. Scudder based his rejection of Curtis' selection of Papilio lucina on the 

 ground that that species was at that time already the type-species of another genus (Nemeo- 

 bius Stephens, 1827). Authors in Scudder's day and for long afterwards were much handicap- 

 ped by the fact that there was no internationally agreed code of zoological nomenclature and 

 were forced to follow whatever unofficial rules seemed to them best. One of these rules 

 which never found its way into the Code when it was enacted at Berlin in 1901 but which 

 prior to that date had a considerable vogue and which was followed amongst others by Scudder 

 was that based on the so-called principle of elimination. Scudder's idea — followed by him in 

 the present case — that a species was not eligible for selection as the type-species of a genus if it 

 had already been made the type-species of some other genus. The position as regards this 

 latter point, though implicit in the terms of Article 30 as adopted in Berlin, was not then dealt 

 with in express terms. This matter was however finally settled by the ruling given by the 

 Commission in its Opinion 62 published in 1914 (Smithson. Publ. 2256 : 147-149 ; facsimile 

 published in 1958, Opin. int. Comm. zool. Nom. 1 (B) : 147-149), in which it was laid 

 down that a species which was already the type-species of one genus was not ineligible for 

 selection as the type-species of another. As from 1914, therefore the use of the generic name 

 Hamearis Hiibner for Papilio epulus Cramer was definitely contrary to the provisions of the 

 Code. The incorrect use of this name in this sense lingered on however for a considerable 

 time, Stichel using this name in this sense as late as 1930 (in Strand's Lep. Cat. 41 : 691). 

 That the use of the name Hamearis should have continued for so long after it became manifestly 

 incorrect was no doubt due partly to the fact that few specialists of the Riodinidae dealt both 

 with the Neotropical Region (the habitat of the pseudotype Papilio epulus) and also with the 

 Palaearctic Region (the habitat of the true type-species Papilio lucina), with the result that 

 for these specialists these two species were not in active competition with one another for 

 acceptance as the type-species of Hamearis. Another contributory reason is no doubt to be 

 found in the fact that, if students of the Neotropical Region were to abandon the incorrect use 

 of Hamearis for Papilio epulus, it was not at all clear what generic name they ought to use for 

 that species and its allies. 



When in 1933 I was preparing my book on the Generic Names of the Holarctic Butterflies, I 

 considered the possibility of employing for Papilio epulus the generic name Lemonias 

 Hiibner, as used in volume 1 of that author's Samml. exot. Schmett., for that genus was still 



