80 FRANCIS HEMMING 



this was a manuscript name proposed by Felder [presumably Felder (C.) was here intended] ; 

 he made a passing reference to this genus on page 132, but on page 138 he definitely adopted 

 this genus and placed it in a key with other genera. By the type-selection which I made in 

 1964, the name Brachycneme became invalid, as a junior objective synonym of Entheus 

 Hiibner, [1919]. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Papilio peleus is currently treated subjectively 

 on taxonomic grounds as representing the same taxon as that represented by the older-establi- 

 shed nominal species Papilio priassus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 487). 



BRACHYCORYNE Mabille, 1904, in Wytsman's Gen. Ins. 17 (B) : 81. Type-species by 

 monotypy : Papilio flyas Stoll, [1780], in Cramer, Uitl. Kapellen 4 (28) : 78, pi. 328, fig. E. 



This name first appeared — in the genitive singular as Brachycorynae — in the middle of a 

 description in Latin of another species contained in a paper by Mabille published in 1883 

 (Bull. Soc. ent. Belg. 1883 : 53). This method of publication did not suffice to provide the 

 status of availability for this generic name or even definitely to establish the termination in the 

 nominative singular that Mabille considered appropriate for this name. It was first duly 

 published in the nominative singular in 1904 in the work cited above and it is therefore from 

 that year that this name ranks for the purposes of priority. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Papilio flyas is currently treated subjectively 

 on taxonomic grounds as representing the same taxon as that represented by the older- 

 established nominal species Papilio philemon Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 534). Further, the 

 taxon so named is currently treated subjectively on taxonomic grounds as representing a 

 subspecies of Papilio areas Drury, [1773] (III. nat. Hist. 1 : index et 38, pi. 19, figs 5, 6). 



BRACHYGLENIA Marschall, 1873, Nomencl. zool. : 280 (an Incorrect subsequent Spelling of 

 Brachyglenis Felder (C.) & Felder (R.), 1862). 



BRACHYGLENIS Felder (C.) & Felder (R.), March 1862, Wien. ent. Monats. 6 : 73. Type- 

 species by monotypy : Brachyglenis esthema Felder (C.) & Felder (R.), 1862, ibid. 6 : 73. 



BRANGAS Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (5) : 80. Type-species by selection by 

 Scudder (1875) Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 128 : Papilio caranus Stoll, [1780], 

 in Cramer, Uitl. Kapellen 4 (28) : 24, pi. 332, figs C, D. 



Papilio caranus Stoll is subjectively considered on taxonomic grounds to be closely allied to 

 Papilio halesus Cramer, [1777], the type-species of Atlides Hiibner, [18 19]. The names 

 Brangas and Atlides were published on the same date and in the same work, and in consequence 

 the relative precedence to be accorded to these names on the choice made by the First Reviser. 

 The name Atlides has been widely used, while the name Brangas is virtually unknown. How- 

 ever, when I examined this matter it did not appear that any author had made a definite 

 First Reviser choice as between these two names. Accordingly, in order to safeguard estab- 

 lished practice, I made a choice in 1964 (Annot. lep. (3) : 82), in which, as First Reviser, I 

 accorded precedence to Brangas Hiibner below Atlides Hiibner. 



BRASSOLIS [Illiger], 1897, Allgem. Lit. Ztg, Halle [Jena] 1807 (No. 2) : 1181. Type-species 

 by selection by Hemming (1964, Annot. lep. (4) : 122) : Potamis leonte Hiibner, [1807], 

 Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : pi. [79]. 



The present case is substantially similar to that already explained in the note on the name 

 Apatura [Illiger], [1807]. It is therefore not necessary here to do more than recapitulate 

 briefly the history of the present name. The difficulty arose out of the discovery in the late 

 nineteen-thirties that in an anonymous review published in 1807 Illiger, the author of that 

 review, had employed certain of the generic names which were published as new by Fabricius 

 a little later in the same year and had placed in the genera in question species quite different 

 from those placed by Fabricius in the genera established by him with the same names. In 

 these cases the Fabrician names became invalid as junior homonyms of the corresponding 

 Illiger names. The greatest confusion would have arisen if this situation had been allowed to 

 develop, and accordingly an immediate request was made to the Commission to suppress the 

 Illiger names in question, thereby validating the well-known and long-accepted Fabrician 



