GENERIC NAMES OF BUTTERFLIES 103 



type-species has been designated or selected for that genus at time of its replacement, which- 

 ever of the nominal species originally included in the replaced genus may later be selected as 

 type-species of the rejected genus or designated or selected as the type-species of the replace- 

 ment genus. 



At the time of the establishment of the replacement genus Catuna no type-species had been 

 selected for Jaera, the replaced genus and no species had been designated or selected as the 

 type-species of its replacement Euomma. Further, in introducing the replacement genus 

 Catuna in 1871, Kirby did not designate a type-species for it. In order to determine what is 

 the type-species of Catuna and therefore also of Euomma and Jaera, it is necessary to search 

 the literature subsequent to 1871, to find who was the first author validly to select a type- 

 species for any of these genera — and therefore for all of them — bearing in mind however that, 

 in order that such a selection may be a valid selection, the species selected must be one of the 

 nominal species placed by Hiibner in his genus Jaera. 



The first author to select a type-species for any of these nominal genera was Kirby in [1873] 

 (Zool. Rec. 8 (year 1871) : 360), who selected Euomma angustatum Felder (C.) & Felder (R.), 

 [1867] (Reise Fregatte " Novara " , Lep. Rhop. (3) : 425) to be the type-species both of Euomma 

 Felder (C.) & Felder (R.), [1867] and also of Jaera Hiibner, [1819]. If Euomma had been an 

 independently established nominal genus, Kirby's selection of Euomma angustatum would 

 have been valid for that genus, for it was one of the species included at the time when that 

 genus was established, but, as shown above, this was established not as a new genus but as a 

 replacement for the rejected Jaera Hiibner and its type-species must in consequence be one of 

 the species orginally included by Hiibner in Jaera. However, Euomma angustatum was 

 unfortunately not one of the three species originally included by Hiibner in the genus Jaera 

 and therefore the selection made by Kirby is invalid. Thereafter for many years however 

 this genus was treated in the general sense proposed by Kirby. It was clearly undesirable 

 however that this indeterminate situation should be allowed to persist indefinitely, and 

 accordingly in 1943 {Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (B) 12 : 28) I selected Papilio crithea Drury (the 

 third of Hiibner's original species) to be the type-species of Jaera Hiibner, thereby automatical- 

 ly selecting that species to be the type-species also of the replacement genus Catuna Kirby 

 and of its nomenclatorially invalid predecessor Euomma Felder & Felder. Luckily, from the 

 taxonomic point of view Papilio crithea is closely related to Euomma angustatum, Kirby's 

 pseudotype, and accordingly its selection as type-species ensured continuity of practice, while 

 at the same time providing Catuna with a validly selected type-species. 



CAUDATI Koch, i860, Stett. ent. Ztg 21 : 230. Type-species by selection by Hemming 

 (1935, Entomologist 68 : 40) : Papilio turnits Linnaeus, 1771, Mantissa Ins. 2 : 536. 



This name is invalid under Article 1 1 (f) by reason of having been published in the nominative 

 plural instead of in the nominative singular. 



Quite apart from the foregoing consideration, this name would have been invalid because 

 by the deliberate choice made in 1935 of Papilio turnus as type-species it became a junior 

 objective synonym of Jasoniades Hiibner, [1819] (Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (6) : 83). 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Papilio turnus is currently treated subjective- 

 ly on taxonomic grounds as representing a form of the taxon represented by the older- 

 established nominal species Papilio glaucus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 460). 



CECROPS Hiibner, 1818, Zatr. z. Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : 30. Type-species by monotypy : 

 Cecrops zarex Hiibner, 1818, ibid. 1 : 30, pi. [32], figs 183, 184. 



This name is invalid, because it is a junior homonym of Cecrops Leach, 1816 (Ency. Brit. 

 Suppl. to 4th-6th eds 1 (2) : 405). 



CECROPTERUS Herrich-Schaeffer, 1869, CorrespBl. zool.-min. Ver. Regensburg 23 : 131. 

 Type-species through Section (i) (replacement names) of Article 67 : Cecrops zarex Hiibner, 

 1818, Zutr. z. Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : 30, pi. [32], figs 183, 184. 



This name was introduced by Herrich-Schaeffer as a replacement for Cecrops Hiibner, 181 8, 

 which, as shown above, is invalid under the Law of Homonymy. 



