GENERIC NAMES OF IUTTERFLIES 95 



This genus, following the type-selection made by Plotz in 1879 (Stett. ent. Ztg 40 : 179), 

 was based on an erroneously determined type-species. The type-species selected by Plotz 

 was the third of the species placed by Hiibner in the present genus and was there styled by 

 him " Carchardodtts malvae Schiff. ". Denis & Schiffermuller did not publish the specific 

 name malvae as a new name, all that they did being to make use of that name as published 

 in the combination Papilio malvae by Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 485). Unfortun- 

 ately, Denis & Schiffermuller (1775, Ankiind. eines syst. Werke Schmett. Wiener Gegend : 159, 

 No. A 1) misidentified the nominal species Papilio malvae Linnaeus, applying the specific 

 name malvae Linnaeus to the species, then still unnamed, to which fiye years later Esper gave 

 the name Papilio alceae. This erroneous identification was accepted by many authors for 

 upwards of sixty years. Ever since the middle of the XlXth century the species here in 

 question has however been consistently called by its correct specific name alceae Esper. In 

 the same period the generic name Carcharodus has been applied to this species consistently, 

 except by a few authors who at one time used in its place the name Spilothynts Duponchel, 1835, 

 a junior objective synonym. 



The interpretation of the genus Carcharodus described above corresponds exactly with tin- 

 intention of Hiibner when he established this nominal genus. Following the introduction of 

 the International Code in 1901 it became necessary to assume that the author of any given 

 genus correctly identified the species cited by him as belonging to it This meant in the 

 present case that the species to be accepted as the type-spet ies of Carcharodus was the true 

 Papilio malvae Linnaeus and not Papilio alceae Esper, to which Hiibner had erroneously 

 attributed the specific name malvae Linnaeus. The change in practice which tins would have 

 caused would have been highly confusing : the name Carcharodus Hiibner would have become 

 a subjective synonym of Pyrgus Hiibner, [1819], the nominal species (Papilio alveolus Hiibner) 

 being currently treated subjectively on taxonomic grounds as representing the same taxon as 

 that represented by the nominal species Papilio malvae Linnaeus; at the same time the nominal 

 species Papilio alceae, confused by Hiibner with Papilio malvae, would have been left without a 

 generic name objectively applicable to it. These changes were not accepted by any specialist 

 in the Lepidoptera, Papilio alceae continuing, though technically incorrectly, to be treated as 

 the type-species of Carcharodus Hiibner. It was in the hope of putting an end to this very 

 unsatisfactory situation that in 1935 I submitted an application to the Commission, asking 

 that the Plenary Powers should be used to designate Papilio alceae Esper as the type-species of 

 Carcharodus, thus both giving effect to the intention of Hiibner at the time when he established 

 this genus, and also validating the long-established usage of this generic name. 



The foregoing application was approved by the Commission at its Session held at Lisbon in 

 September 1935 but for various reasons, including the difficulties caused by the outbreak of 

 war in Europe in 1939, it was not until 1947 that the Commission's decision was promulgated 

 in its Opinion 181 (1947, Opin. int. Comm. zool. Nom. 2 : 589-621). This case was com- 

 pleted by the Commission in 1954 C oc - ***■ 6 : 35-40) by the Ruling given in its Opinion 

 270, in which the name Carcharodus Hiibner, [1819] (type-species : Papilio alceae Esper, 

 [1780]) was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 686, the 

 specific name alceae Esper, [1780], as published in the combination Papilio alceae, being at 

 the same placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 88. 



CARIA Hiibner, [1823], Zutr. z. Samml. exot. Schmett. 2 : 14. Type-species by monotypy : 

 Caria colubris Hiibner, [1823], ibid. 2 : 14, pi. [44], figs 251, 252. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Caria colubris is currently treated subjectively 

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

 species Hesperia plutargus Fabricius, 1793 (Ent. syst. 3 (1) : 329). 



CARIOMOTHIS Stichel, 1910, Berl. ent. Z. 55 (1/2) : 54. Type-species by original designa- 

 tion : Papilio erythromelas Sepp (J.), [1848], Surinaam. Vlinders : 65, pi. 29. 



CARRHENES Godman & Salvin, [1895], in Biol, centr.-amer., Lep. Rhop. 2 : 388. Type- 

 species by selection by Lindsey (1925, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 18 : 81): Leucochitonea fusce- 

 scens Mabille, 1891, Bull. C.R. ent. Soc. Belg. 35 : lxii. 



