96 FRANCIS HEMMING 



CARTEA Kirby, 1871, Syn. Cat. diurn. Lep. : 308. Type-species through Section (i) (replace- 

 ment names) of Article 67 : Limnas vitula Hewitson, [1852], ///. exot. Butts 1 : [118], pi. 

 [59], ng. 5. 



Kirby introduced the name Cartea as a replacement for Orestias Felder (C.) & Felder (R.), 

 1862, which is invalid, as being a junior homonym of Orestias Valenciennes, 1839. 



CARTEROCEPHALUS Lederer, 1852, Verh. zool.-bot. Ver. Wien 2 : 26. Type-species by 

 selection by Scudder (1875, Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 134) : Papilio paniscus 

 Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 531. 



This generic name has an unfortunate history, both as to the way in which it was introduced 

 and as to the way in which its type-species was subsequently selected. Lederer cited three 

 nominal species as belonging to this genus, the first of these being Papilio paniscus Fabricius. 

 At the time when Lederer published the name Carter ocephalus, the nominal species Papilio 

 paniscus and its allies were commonly placed in the genus Steropes Boisduval as employed by 

 that author in 1836 (Roret's Suite a Buffon), Hist. nat. Ins., spec. gen. 1 : pi. 13, fig. 7 {Steropes 

 paniscus). This usage was incorrect because the foregoing was not the first work in which 

 Boisduval used the name Steropes; he had in fact already used it in 1832 [in d'Urville, Voy. 

 " Astrolabe ", Faune ent. 1 (Lep.) : 167). It was because Lederer realized that Boisduval's 

 later usage (in 1836) of the name Steropes was untenable that, as he explained in a supple- 

 mentary note on page 49, he decided to introduce the name Carter ocephalus for Papilio paniscus 

 and its allies which he perceived were without a generic name applicable to them. 



Scudder in 1875 (Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 134) treated the generic name 

 Carlerocephalus with rather less than his usual acumen. First, while noting Lederer's remark 

 that this name was introduced to take the place of Steropes Boisduval and duly recording the 

 usages of this name by Boisduval in 1832 in d'Urville's Voy. " Astrolabe " and in 1836 in 

 Roret's Suite a Buffon, he concluded that the name Carlerocephalus had been published by 

 Lederer as nom. nov. pro Steropes Boisduval of the " Astrolabe ". He clearly realized 

 however that this treatment was inconsistent both with Lederer's definition of Carter ocephalus 

 and also with the species included by Lederer in his genus, though these were themselves 

 consistent with that definition. He sought to get over this difficulty — quite illogically, on the 

 premises which he adopted — by deliberately ignoring the logical consequences of the adoption 

 of those premises and treating the species cited by Lederer as the sole included species of the 

 genus Carterocephalus. Next, he referred to the action by Snellen in 1867 (V Under s van 

 Nederland : 83) implying that he had given " palaemon (paniscus) " as the type-species of 

 this genus. In fact, however, Snellen did not do more than cite Papilio paniscus as an included 

 species. Scudder's acceptance of what he (incorrectly) believed Snellen had done amounts to 

 a selection of the above species as the type-species by Scudder himself. Further, in his con- 

 cluding note at the foot of the page Scudder stated that " the name [Carterocephalus] must fall 

 before Pamphila, virtually limited in 1832 to this group ". Reference to Scudder's treatment 

 of the name Pamphila (on page 236) shows that in the passage quoted above he there treated 

 Papilio paniscus as the type-species of the genus Pamphila. If despite the action described 

 above, it were to be argued that Scudder had failed to make an acceptable type-selection, the 

 nominal species would still be Papilio paniscus through the explicit selection by myself in 1934 

 (Gen. Names hoi. Butts 1 : 166). Long before then however that species had in practice 

 been accepted as the type-species, but the type-selections made before 1934 were all technic- 

 ally defective owing to the fact that the authors making those selections (e.g. Barnes & 

 McDunnough, 1916, Contrib. nat. Hist. Lepid. North America 3 (1) : 124) were not fully 

 acquainted with the facts. 



As has already been explained above, it is currently considered subjectively on taxonomic 

 grounds that the taxon represented by the nominal species Papilio paniscus Fabricius is 

 conspecific with the taxon represented by the nominal species Papilio palaemon Pallas, 1771 

 (Reise durch verschieden. Prov. Russisch. Reichs 1 : 471). At the subspecies level, however, it 

 is considered that paniscus Fabricius, the type-locality of which is Leipzig, is distinct from the 

 nominate palaemon Pallas, the type-locality of which is Southern Russia, the taxon named by 



