GENERIC NAMES OF BUTTERFLIES 151 



The name Drupadia Distant is invalid, first, as a junior homonym of Drnpadia Moore, and, 

 second, as a junior objective synonym of that name. 



DRURYA Rippon, [1890-1898], Icon. Ornithopt. 1 : iv (an Incorrect Subsequent Spelling of 

 Druryia Aurivillius, 1881). 



DRURYIA Aurivillius, 1881, Ent. Tidskr. 2 : 44. Type-species by original designation : 

 Papilio antimachus Drury, [1782], III. nal. Hist. 3 : index et 1, pi. 1. 



DRUSILLA Swainson, 1820, Zool. Illustr. (1) 1 : pi. 11. Type-species by orginal designation : 

 Papilio jairus Cramer, [1775], Uitl. Kapellen 1 (1) : 9, pi. 6, figs A, B. 



The name Drusilla Swainson is invalid, as it is a junior homonym of Drnsilla Samouelle, 

 June 1819 [Entom. Compend. : 177). 



DRUSILLOPSIS Oberthur, 1894, Etud. ent. 19 : 16. Type-species by monotypy : Drusillopsis 

 dohertyi Oberthur, 1894, ibid. 19 : 16, pi, 2, figs 3, 3a. 



In the same volume Oberthur established a genus under the name Hamadryopsis (loc. cit. 

 19 : 17) with a single included species Hamadryopsis drusillodes (loc. cit. : 17) which is there- 

 fore the type-species of that genus by monotypy. Fruhstorfer in 1908 (Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. 

 Wien 58 (6/7) : 217) subjectively identified on taxonomic grounds the taxon represented by 

 the nominal species Hamadryopsis drusillodes Oberthur with the taxon represented by the 

 nominal species Drusillopsis dohertyi Oberthur. As these names were published on the same 

 date and in the same work, the relative precedence to be accorded to these names depends on 

 the choice made by the First Reviser. This choice was made by Fruhstorfer in the paper 

 cited above when he adopted the specific name dohertyi Oberthur, sinking the name drusil- 

 lodes Oberthur as a junior synonym. 



The relative precedence to be accorded to the generic names Drusillopsis Oberthur and 

 Hamadryopsis Oberthur stands in a position exactly similar to that of the specific names 

 dohertyi Oberthur and drusillodes Oberthur discussed above, these generic names having been 

 published in the same work and on the same date. Fruhstorfer however did not make a 

 First Reviser choice as between these names when (as described above) he made such a choice 

 as between the specific names of the respective type-species of these genera, for the reason that 

 he considered (though erroneously) that both these generic names were invalid, not having 

 been provided with a diagnosis by their author (Oberthur). As however both these generic 

 names are available names, a First Reviser choice is necessary, in order to determine the 

 relative precedence to be accorded to them. The required First Reviser choice was made by 

 myself in 1964 (Annot. lep. (3) : 77) when I chose the generic name Drusillopsis Oberthur, 

 1894, to take precedence over the name Hamadryopsis Oberthur, 1894. 



DRUSILLOPSIS Fruhstorfer, 1908, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 58 (6/7) : 217. Type-species by 

 monotypy : Drusillopsis dohertyi Oberthur, 1894. 



As has been explained in the discussion of the name Drusillopsis Oberthur, 1894, Fruh- 

 storfer rejected that name on the ground that it had been published without a generic diagno- 

 sis. Wishing however to use that name as the generic name for the nominal species Drusil- 

 lopsis dohertyi Oberthur, he thereupon provided the genus with a diagnosis and republished 

 the name as his own. When three years later ([191 1], in Seitz, Grossschmett. Erde 9 : 359). 

 Fruhstorfer again dealt with the name Drusillopsis, he re-affirmed the view which he had 

 expressed in 1908, by expressly citing himself as the author of this name. 



The name Drusillopsis Fruhstorfer is invalid, both as a junior homonym of, and as a junior 

 objective synonym of Drusillopsis Oberthur, 1894. 



DRYADULA Michener, 1942, Amer. Mus. Novit. No. 1197 : 4. Type-species by original 

 designation : Papilio phaetusa Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 478. 



DRYAS Hiibner, [1806], Tentamen : [1]. Type-species by monotypy : Papilio paphia Lin- 

 naeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 481. 



The name Dryas of Hubner's Tentamen is invalid, because the Tentamen has been rejected 

 for nomenclatorial purposes by the Commission by the ruling given in its Opinion 97 (1926, 



