86 FRANCIS HEMMING 



the type-species (by selection by Scudder (1875)) of Idmais Boisduval, is automatically the 

 type-species also of Calais Boisduval. 



Quite apart from the fact that Calais Boisduval is an objective svnonym of Idmais Boisduval 

 that name would have been objectively invalid for two other reasons : (a) It is invalid under 

 the Law of Homonymy, being a junior homonym of Calais Rafinesque, 1815 {Analyse de la 

 Nature : 99); (b) under a provision introduced into the revised Code (Article 11 (d)) a name 

 published in a synonymy — as was the name Calais Boisduval — does not thereby acquire the 

 status of availability. 



CALEPHELIS Grote & Robinson, 1869, Trans, amer. ent. Soc. 2 : 310. Type-species proposed 

 to be designated by the Commission under the plenary powers under Article 70 (a) : Erycina 

 virginiensis Gray, 1832, in Griffith's Cuvier's Anim. Kingd. 15 : 58, fig. 1.* 



Grote & Robinson established the taxon Calephelis as a subgenus of Charts Hiibner, [1819]. 

 They placed two nominal species in it, but did not designate a type-species; they did however 

 state that the included species which they cited as " C. caenius [sic] " was " typical " of this 

 genus. That species, with its specific name correctly spelled as " caeneus ", was selected as 

 the type-species by Kirby two years later ([1871], in Zool. Rec. 7 (year 1870) : 391). 



At this point it must be noted that the full reference given by Grote & Robinson for the 

 above species was " Papilio caenius Linn. Syst. Nat. II, p. 796, n. 273 ". The following is the 

 correct version of the above reference : — Papilio caeneus Linnaeus, 1767. Syst. Nat. (ed. 

 12) 1 (2) : 796, no. 273. The above name is one of two homonyms published in the same 

 volume, the other one being Papilio caeneus Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 766 

 no. in. The name here in question is an Unjustified Emendation of Papilio ceneus Linnaeus, 

 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 487, no. 181). Realising that by an oversight he had applied 

 the binomen Papilio caeneus to two entirely different species in the same volume, Linnaeus at 

 the end of the same volume introduced the replacement name Papilio cereus for the name 

 Papilio caeneus, as introduced by him on page 796, thereby, as First Reviser, according 

 precedence to the name Papilio caeneus as published on page 766 ; the full reference for this 

 replacement name is Papilio cereus Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : Errata [an 

 unnumbered page at the end of the volume]. The name Papilio ceneus Linnaeus, 1758 

 (emended to Papilio caeneus in 1767 (: 766) applies to an Indo-Oriental species currently 

 placed in the genus Delias Hiibner, [18 19]. The name Papilio cereus Linnaeus, 1767 (a 

 replacement name for Papilio caeneus Linnaeus, 1767, as published on page 796) applies to 

 a Neotropical species currently placed in the genus Emesis Fabricius, 1807. 



The description and incidental remarks in Grote & Robinson's paper show at once that their 

 Calephelis is a genus based upon a misidentified type-species. For it is immediately apparent 

 the taxon to which they applied the specific name caenius (= a misspelling of caeneus Linn- 

 aeus) was not the Neotropical Riodinid to which that name properly applies but an entirely 

 different member of the same family occurring in North America. It is perfectly clear 

 what was the species misidentified by them as " caenius ", for in the synonymy of that species 

 they cited the name of the nominal species Erycina virginiensis Guerin and that of Nymphidia 

 pumila Boisduval. The latter of those two was then, as now, was treated on taxonomic 

 grounds as representing the same taxon as that named virginiensis by Guerin. Further, these 

 authors underlined the fact that it was this Nearctic species with which they were dealing by 

 stating that " Our specimens were collected in Georgia by Mr. J as Ridings, and agree well 

 with Boisduval's descriptions and figures [of Nymphidia pumila'] cited above ". 



The subsequent history of the name Calephelis is similar to that of many other names given 

 to genera based upon misidentified type-species, that is, the name has been widely used in the 

 sense intended by its authors, namely for Erycina virginiensis, though by some authors the 

 provisions of the Code have been strictly applied, the name Calephelis being discarded and a 

 new name being provided for this genus. The authors who took this latter view were Barnes 

 & Lindsey when in 1922 (Ann. amer. ent. Soc. 15 : 93) they established the nominal genus 



* This proposal was approved by the Commission, whose decision was published in 1966, Opinion 

 775. — N. D. Riley. 



