i 7 4 FRANCIS HEMMING 



EUEIDES Hiibner, 1816, Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (1) : 11. Type-species by selection by 

 Scudder (1875, Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 169) : Nereis dianasa Hiibner, 

 [1806], Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : pi. [8]. 



EUERCIINA Seitz, [1917], Grossschmett. Erde 5 : 666 (an Incorrect Subsequent Spelling of 

 Euerycina Saunders, 1859). 



EUERYCINA Saunders, 1859, Trans, ent. Soc. Lond. (2) 5 : 97. Type-species by monotypy : 

 Erycina calpharnia Saunders, 1850, Trans, ent. Soc. Lond. 5 (9) : 221. 



The name Euerycina Saunders is invalid, as it is a junior objective synonym of Rodinia 

 West wood, [1851]. 



EUGLYPHUS Billberg, 1820, Enum. Ins. Mus. Billb. : 80. Type-species by monotypy : 

 Papilio chiron Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 452. 



Prior to 1958 there existed no means of determining the relative precedence to be accorded 

 to certain books and papers on the Lepidoptera published on unknown dates in the year 1775. 

 These works included the Syst. Ent. of Fabricius and a paper by von Rottemburg published in 

 volume 6 of the serial publication Der Naturforscher. This difficulty affected the name to be 

 used for the type-species of the present genus, namely Papilio chiron Fabricius, owing to the 

 fact that that binomen was bestowed by von Rottemburg in the serial cited above upon an 

 entirely different species. In 1958 however this matter was settled by the promulgation by 

 the Commission of its Opinion 516 (Opin. int. Comm. zool. Nom. 19 : 1-44), in which it 

 ruled under its Plenary Powers, inter alia, that the Syst. Ent. of Fabricius was to be given 

 precedence over the paper by von Rottemburg in the serial Der Naturforscher. Accordingly, 

 the name Papilio chiron Fabricius, 1775, takes precedence before the name Papilio chiron 

 Rottemburg, 1775, and, as the oldest available name for the type-species of Euglyphus Bill- 

 berg, is the valid name for that species. 



EUGONIA Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (3) : 36. Type-species by selection by 

 Grote (1873, Canad. Ent. 5 : 144) : Papilio angelica Stoll, [1782] in Cramer, Uitl. Kapellen 4 

 (33) : 204, pi. 388, figs G, H. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Papilio angelica Stoll is currently treated 

 subjectively on taxonomic grounds as being the same as that represented by the older-estab- 

 lished nominal species Papilio c-anreum Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 477. 



It must be noted at this point that the nominal species Papilio c-aureum Linnaeus is the 

 type species of the genus Polygonia Hiibner, [1819]. The names Engonia Hiibner and Poly- 

 gonia Hiibner are thus subjective synonyms of one another, and, as they were published on 

 the same date and in the same work — these names actually appearing on the same page — the 

 relative precedence to be accorded to them depends on the choice of the First Reviser. Up 

 to the year 1934 Grote's type-selection of Papilio angelica in 1873 for the genus Engonia was 

 completely overlooked and the genus was treated as having a quite different species, Papilio 

 polychloros Linnaeus, as its type-species, authors following in this matter the invalid selection 

 of that species made by Scudder in 1875 (Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 170). 

 These two species had never been treated as being congeneric with one another by any author 

 who accepted either the genus Eugonia or the genus Polygonia. In consequence, no First 

 Reviser choice was made as between these names; nor was there any cause for such a choice 

 until in 1934 (Gen. Names hoi. Butts 1 : 71)1 drew attention to the fact that in consequence of 

 Grote's selection of Papilio angelica Stoll as the type-species of Eugonia Hiibner it had 

 become necessary to determine the relative precedence to be accorded to the names Eugonia 

 and Polygonia. I thereupon acted on the so-called principle of page and line precedence and 

 accordingly adopted the name Polygonia Hiibner, sinking the name Eugonia Hiibner as a 

 synonym of Polygonia. The correct course would have been simply to make an express First 

 Reviser choice as between these names, but as the action then taken complies in all respects 

 with that required of a First Reviser, it ranks as such under the Code. The position is there- 



