82 FRANCIS HEMMING 



The nominal species Papilio proserpina is currently treated subjectively as representing the 

 same taxon as that represented by the nominal Papilio circe Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 

 495). Fruhstorfer, accepting this synonymy of these names and giving precedence to the 

 specific name circe Fabricius over the name proserpina [Denis & Schiffermiiller], both of these 

 names being names published in the same year, designated Papilio circe Fabricius to be the 

 type-species of his genus Brintesia. In this he was in error, for Brintesia as a replacement 

 name, automatically takes as its type-species the nominal species which is the type-species of 

 Oreas Hiibner, the generic name so replaced. Thus under the Code the nominal species which 

 is the type-species of Brintesia is the nominal species Papilio proserpina [Denis & Schiffer- 

 miiller], despite the designation as such by Fruhstorfer of the nominal species Papilio circe. 

 This minor nomenclatorial error on Fruhstorfer's part is of no practical importance, since the 

 taxonomic identity of the taxa presented by these nominal species is firmly accepted sub- 

 jectively by all workers in this group. 



The Ankiindung of Denis & Schiffermiiller and the Syst. Ent. of Fabricius are two of a num- 

 ber of works published in the year 1775 for which the available bibliographical data were 

 insufficient to provide a firm basis on which to assign a definite order of precedence. This was 

 for long a cause of uncertainty and often of diversity of practice in those cases in which two or 

 more of these works each contain names for new nominal taxa considered subjectively by 

 specialists to represent the same taxon. In order to put an end to these uncertainties this 

 matter was submitted to the Commission which in its Opinion 516 (published in 1958 (Opin. 

 int. Comm. zool. Nom. 19 : 1-44) gave a Ruling under its Plenary Powers which provided 

 inter alia, that precedence be given to the Syst. Ent. of Fabricius over the Ankiindung of 

 Denis & Schiffermiiller. Under this Ruling therefore the name Papilio circe Fabricius, 

 1775, takes precedence before the name Papilio proserpina [Denis & Schiffermiiller, 1775] 

 consequentially upon the adoption of the above Opinion, the Commission rendered a 

 Direction (Direction 96) (1958, ibid. 19 : (i)-(xiv), in which the Commission gave an express 

 Ruling to the above effect and placed the name circe Fabricius, 1775, as published in the 

 combination Papilio circe on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 15 13). 



In the same Direction the Commission placed the name Brintesia Fruhstorfer on the 

 Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 1269. 



BRITOMARTIS de Niceville, 1895, /. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 9 (3) : 304. Type-species by 



original designation : Camena cleoboides Elwes, [1893], Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1892 (4) : 



6 37- P 1 - 44. figs 4 6\ 5 ?• 

 BRONTIADES Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (8) : 113. Type-species by selection 



by Butler (1870, Ent. mon. Mag. 7 : 94) : Papilio procas Cramer, [1777], Uitl. Kapellen 



2 (15) : 127, pi. 179, fig. D. 



BRUASA Moore, [1894], Lep. ind. 2 (18) : 144 ; ibid. 2 (19) : 164. Type-species by original 

 designation : Melanitis penanga Westwood, [1851], in Doubleday, Gen. diurn. Lep. (2) : 

 405, nota. 



BRUASA Evans, 1937, Cat. Afr. Hesp. Brit. Mus. : pi. 7 (an Incorrect Original Spelling of 

 Brusa Evans, 1937, ibid. : 8,173). 



This is clearly a case where the spelling intended by the author was the spelling given in the 

 text (i.e. Brusa), the spelling on the legend to the relevant plate (i.e. Bruasa), which is not 

 Evans's own writing, being due to inadvertence on the part of the printer. The First Reviser 

 in this case is the Editor of the Insecta Section of the Zoological Record 74 (year 1937) (: 310 

 Ins.) (published in 1938), who cited both spellings, and accepted the spelling Brusa, treating 

 the spelling Bruasa as an Incorrect Original Spelling. No doubt this First Reviser choice 

 reflects the intention of Evans, who was a careful worker and who was well aware of the fact 

 that many years earlier Moore had applied the name Bruasa to a Satyrid, Evans having 

 himself cited the name Bruasa Moore as a junior subjective synonym of Elymnias Hiibner in 

 his work The Identification of Indian Butterflies (ed. 2) : 96) published in 1932, that is, only five 

 years before he introduced the present name for an Hesperiid genus. 



