GENERIC NAMES OF BUTTERFLIES 135 



that it would be impossible to trace any generic characters for them ". In another paper 



published later in the same year (Mem. Amer. Ass. Adv. Sci. 1 : 89) Scudder set out in detail 



the grounds oil which he had by this time come to the conclusion that neither of these species 



was a butterfly. 

 CYLLOPSIS Felder (R.), 1869, Yerh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 19 : 474. Type-species by monotypy : 



Cyllopsis hedemanni Felder (R), 1869, ibid. 19 : 474. 

 CYMAENES Scudder, 1872, 4th Ann. Rep. Peabody Acad. Sci. 1871 : 82. Type-species by 



original designation : Cobalus tripunctus Herrich-Schaeffcr, 1865, CorrespBl. zool.-min. 



Ver. Regensburg 19 : 53. 



CYMATOGRAMMA Doubleday, [1849], Gen. diurn. Lep. (2) : pi. 49, fig- 4- Type-species by 

 monotypy : Cymatogramma echemus Doubleday, [1849], ibid. (2) : pi. 49, fig. 4. 



In the text published in 1850 (ibid. (2) : 316), written by Westwood after Doubleday's 

 d( 1 th, the above was again the only species plai ed in the genus Cymatogramma. 



CYMOTHOE Hubner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (3) : 39. Type-species by selection by 

 Hemming (1943, Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (13) 12 : 27) : Papilio althea Cramer, [1776], 

 1'itl. Kapellen 1 (8) : 141, pi. 89, figs E, F. 



Si wilder (1H75, Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 152) abstained from selecting a 

 type-species for this genus because he considered it to be invalid as a junior homonym of 

 Cymothoa Fabricius, 1 7<> 3 (Ent. syst. 2 : 503), a genus of Crustacea. What should be taken as 

 constituting a state of homonymy between two generi* names was a matter of debate long 

 after Scudder's time, not being finally settled until 1953 when the Copenhagen Congress 

 decided that a single-letter difference in spelling w taken as preventing any two 



generic names from being treated as homonyms of one another ; this decision now appears 

 in the revised Code as Article 50(a). A.t this point it is necessary however to refer to the alleged 

 name Cymothoe Rafinesque, 1814 (Precis Dicouv. Somiol. : 26), a variant of Cymothoa Fab- 

 ricius, 1793. Under the Code Cymothoe Rafinesque, ii a deliberate emendation, would have 

 status in nomenclature and would invalidate Cymothoe I liibner under the Law of Homonymy, 

 but, if it was only an Incorrect Subsequenl Spelling .if the Fabrician name Cymothoa, it would 

 possess no such status and would not adversely affect the name Cymothoe Hubner. This 

 question has been examined m detail by Berger (1952, Lambillionea 52 : 65-67) who after 

 setting out his reasons, concluded that the spelling used by Rafinesque was " un pur ' lapsus 

 calami ' de Cymothoa Fab." From Berger's investigation it may be concluded that the 

 spelling " Cymothoe " used by Rafinesque in 1814 was, in the words of the Code only an 

 Incorrect Subsequent Spelling of the name Cymothoa Fabricius and, as such, possesses no 

 status in nomenclature and accordingly does not invalidate the later name Cymothoe Hubner. 

 As doubts have sometimes been expressed as to tin- identity of the taxon described and 

 figured by Cramer as Papilio althea, Mr. N. D. Riley and I have examined the original drawings 

 from which Cramer's plates were prepared (which are now preserved in the library of the 

 British Museum (Natural History)) and have come to the conclusion that the specimen 

 figured by Cramer (fig. E (upperside), F (underside) on plate 89) represents a female of the 

 taxon represented by the older-established nominal species Papilio caenis Drury, [1773] 

 (///. not. Hist. 2 : index et 33, pi. 19, figs 1,2). 



CYNANDRA Schatz, [1887], in Staudinger & Schatz, Exot. Schmett. Bd. 1, Th. 2 (3) : pi. 25. 

 Type-species by monotypy : Papilio afer Drury, [1782], III. nat. Hist. 3 : index et 49, 

 pi. 36, figs 1, 2. 



Lieferung 3 of the above volume, containing the above generic name, was published five 

 months after Schatz's death ; it may however certainly be attributed to Schatz, for Rober, 

 w : ho completed Schatz's book, had not had time at that date take any personal part in the 

 task. The text relating to the name Cynandra (: 154, 161) which formed part of Lieferung 4, 

 did not appear however until October 1888 (that is, not until sixteen months after Schatz's 

 death) was certainly the work of Rober. In it he included only Papilio afer in the genus 

 Cynandra. 



