142 FRANCIS HEMMING 



DA VIDINA Oberthur, 1879, Etud. ent. 4 : 19. Type-species by monotypy : Davidina armandi 



Oberthur, 1879, ibid. 4 : 19, 108, pi. 2, fig. 1. 



DEBIS Doubleday, [1849], Gen. diurn. Lep. (2) : pi. 61, fig. 3. Type-species by monotypy : 

 Debis samio Doubleday, [1849], ibid. (2) : pi. 61, fig. 3. 



Two years after the publication of the above plate in August 1849 Westwood in his continua- 

 tion of Doubleday 's book published in March 1851 ( : 358) the text relating to the genus Debis 

 in which he designated Papilio europa Fabricius as type-species ; this was, of course, invalid, 

 the type-species having been determined automatically by monotypy when Doubleday's 

 plate 61, containing Debis samio only, was published in August 1849. 



DECINEA Evans, 1955, Cat. amer. Hesp. Brit. Mus. 4 : 266, 286. Type-species by original 

 designation : Hesperia decinea Hewitson, 1876, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (4) 18 : 452. 



DEJEANIA Oberthur, 1896, Etud. ent. 20 : 40. Type-species by monotypy : Dejeania bicolor 

 Oberthur, 1896, ibid. 20 : 40, pi. 9, fig. 163 (J. 



This name is invalid, as it is a junior homonym of two older names. These are : (a) 

 Dejeania Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 {Mini. Acad. Roy. Sci. Inst. Fr. 2 : 33) ; (b) Dejeania 

 [Blanchard], 1850 {Cat. Coll. ent. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris, Coleopt. 1 : 96). {Dejeania Oberthur 

 has been replaced by the name Barca de Niceville, 1902). 



DELCHINA Swinhoe, 1885, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1885 : 146 (an Incorrect Subsequent Spelling 



of Dalchina Moore, [1881]). 

 DELIAS Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (6) : 91. Type-species by selection by Butler 

 (1870, Cistula ent. 1 : 40) : Papilio egialea Cramer, [1777], Uitl. Kapellen 2 (16) : 141, pi. 

 189, figs D, E $ ; [1779], ibid. 3 (22) : 115, 258, figs E, F. 



When introducing the nominal genus Delias, Hiibner took the view that Cramer had 

 confused two species under the name Papilio egialea ; he thereupon established two new 

 nominal species, the first of which he called Delias tyche and the second, Delias apriate. 

 D. tyche was based on the female figured on Cramer's plate 189, while D. apriate was based on 

 the male figured on Cramer's plate 258. Butler (1870) selected Papilio egialea Cramer as the 

 type-species of Delias, but at that time this selection appeared to be of doubtful validity, if 

 not to be actually invalid. This was because, first, it seemed doubtful whether Papilio 

 egialea could properly be looked upon as ranking as one of the originally included species of 

 the genus since Hiibner had not accepted it as a taxonomically valid species, citing its name 

 only in synonymy, and, second, because Hiibner had rejected that name altogether, having 

 established new nominal species upon the two parts (i.e. Cramer's pi. 189 and the same author's 

 pi. 258 respectively) on which Cramer's Papilio egialea was based. When I considered this 

 matter in 1934 {Gen. Names hoi. Butts 1 : 124) I took the view that Butler's selection of 

 Papilio egialea Cramer should be regarded as acceptable, as Hiibner had included that name 

 when introducing the genus Delias, but that, as Hiibner had not accepted Papilio egialea 

 Cramer as a taxonomically good species, the type-species ought to be cited under the name 

 which Hiibner had employed when citing Papilio egialea as a synonym. Of the two nominal 

 species based by Hiibner on parts (i.e. on syntypes of Papilio egialea), I then selected as the 

 type-species of Delias the nominal species Delias tyche, the first of the two nominal species 

 established by Hiibner (i.e. the nominal species based on the female figured on Cramer's 

 plate 189). 



Since the action described above, the Paris Congress of 1948 gave a ruling that a nominal 

 species cited in the synonymy of a species placed in a new genus is itself to rank as an originally 

 included species, and this provision has now been incorporated in the revised Code published 

 in 1961 (Article 69(a) (i)). Under this provision Butler's selection of Papilio egialea Cramer as 

 type-species becomes completely acceptable and that nominal species becomes the unquestion- 

 ed type-species. 



From the taxonomic point of view it is of interest to note that it is now considered — 

 contrary to the view expressed by Hiibner — that the female figured on Cramer's pi. 189 (the 

 type of D. tyche Hiibner) and the male figured on his plate 258 (the type of D. apriate Hiibner) 



