GENERIC NAMES OF BUTTERFLIES 77 



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

 Neptis amba Moore, 1858, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 26 (cccxlvii) : 7, pi. 49, fig. 4 $. 



When Moore established this genus in 1898, he designated a type-species but did not provide 

 a generic definition. In the following year ([1899], Lep. ind. 4 (37) : 1) he made good this 

 deficiency. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Neptis amba Moore is currently treated 

 subjectively on taxonomic grounds as being the same as that represented by the older- 

 established nominal species Limenitis sankara Kollar, [1844] (in Hiigel, Kashmir 4 (2) : 428). 



BINDAHARA Moore, [1881], Lep. Ceylon 1 (3) : in. Type-species by monotypy : Hesperia 

 phocides Fabricius, 1793, lint. syst. 3 (1) : 282. 



BINGHAMIA Tutt, [1908], Nat. Hist. Brit. Hulls 3 : 41, 43. Type-species by original 

 designation : Hesperia parrhasius Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst. 3 (1) : 289. 



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

 Neptis neriphus Hewitson, [1868], ///. exot. Butts 4 : [46], pi. [25], figs 6, 7. 



When Moore established this nominal genus, he designated 1 type-species but did not give 

 a generic diagnosis. This he supplied in the following year ([1899], he. cit. 4 (37) : 13. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Neptis neriphus Hewitson is currently 

 treated subjectively on taxonomic grounds as a subspecies of the taxon represented by the 

 older-established nominal species Neptis nirvana Felder (C.) & Felder (R.), [1867], in Reise 

 Fregatte " Novara " (3) : 426). 



BITHYS Hiibner, 1818, Zntr. z. Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : 18. Type-species by selection by 

 Riley (1922,7. Bombay nal. Hist. Soc. 28 : 466) : Bithys leucophaeus Hiibner, 1818, ibid. 1 : 



i8, pi. [16], figs 87, 88. 



The name Bithys Hiibner, 1818, is invalid for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for 

 those of the Law of Homonymy, having been ruled to be such by the Commission under its 

 Plenary Powers by the Ruling given in its Opinion 541 (1959, Opin. int. Comm. zool. 

 Nom. 20 : 87-102). Under this Ruling the name Bithys cannot be validly used in the 

 sense in which it was employed by Hiibner in 1818 but despite its having been suppressed 

 in this way, it nevertheless retains its power to invalidate as junior homonyms any later uses 

 of the name. Further in the Opinion cited above, the name Bithys Hiibner was placed by the 

 Commission on the " Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology " as 

 Name No. 1234. 



The grounds on which the Commission was invited to suppress the name Bithys Hiibner are 

 set out in detail in the application submitted to the Commission by Riley and myself and 

 published in the Opinion already referred to (1959, loc. cit. 20 : 90-97). Briefly, the problem 

 arose in this case from the doubts which formerly existed as to the relative precedence to be 

 accorded to new names published in volume 1 of the Zutrdge and in the Verzeichniss respective- 

 ly, preference at that time being given to the Verzeichness over the Zutrdge. On the discovery 

 of the Hiibner manuscripts it was found (Hemming, 1937, Hiibner 1 : 462-468, 517) that, as 

 previously believed, the text of volume 1 of the Zutrdge was published in 1818 but that the 

 text of the butterfly section — other than the first 16 pages — of the Verzeichniss was not 

 published until 1819. In the present, and in certain other cases, the fact that the first volume 

 of the Zutrdge had priority over the Verzeichniss led to a change of type-species, the species 

 included in the genus in the Verzeichniss not being the same as those included in the Zutrdge. 



Type-selections for the genus Bithys, as used in the Verzeichniss ((5) : 75) were made by two 

 authors : the first and valid selection was made by Scudder in 1875 Proc. amer. Acad. Arts 

 Sci., Boston 10 : 127, the species so selected being Papilio strephon Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. 

 Ent. : 522). This selection was never effectively acted upon, mainly no doubt because then, 

 as now, the great mass of Neotropical species were in need of thorough revision and were all 

 grouped together, though very incongruously, in a single genus — currently the genus Slrymoti 

 Hiibner, 1818. The second — but invalid — type-selection made for Bithys in the Verzeichniss 

 sense was that of Papilio quercus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 482), this selection 



