176 FRANCIS HEMMING 



EULEPIS Scudder, 1875, Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Set., Boston 10 : 170. Type-species by 

 original designation : Papilio athamas Drury, [1773], III. nat. Hist. 1 : index et 5, pi. 2, 

 ng. 4 (2 figs). 



The name Eulepis as applied by Scudder to the well-known Charaxid Nymphalid, was 

 formerly widely used. That this should have occurred was due entirely to an extraordinary 

 mistake made by Scudder when discussing the genus Eulepis Billberg, 1820, established by its 

 original author as a (quite unnecessary) replacement for Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807, one 

 of the oldest and best-known genera in the family Riodinidae. The circumstances which gave 

 rise to this mistake have been discussed in part in the note on the generic name Eriboea 

 Hiibner, [1819], which became implicated in this case through a further error made in 1909 

 by Rober, when attempting to provide a remedy for Scudder's original mistake. The facts 

 in their immediate bearing on the name Eulepis as used by Scudder are set out below. 



Billberg, as has already been explained, established the nominal genus Eulepis as a replace- 

 ment for the genus Nymphidium Fabricius, and in consequence it takes automatically (under 

 Section (i) (replacement names) of Article 67) as its type-species the species which is the type- 

 species so replaced, that is, Papilio caricae Linnaeus, 1758. Overlooking the replacement 

 character of Eulepis, Scudder observed that the only specific name cited by Billberg as that of 

 an included species consisted of the word " athamas ". This was no more than a manuscript 

 name and therefore ineligible for selection as the type-species. Overlooking again the fact 

 that for the above reason the specific name athamas, as cited by Billberg, possessed no status in 

 nomenclature and ignoring the fact that Billberg placed the genus Eulepis among the Lycae- 

 nids (with which at that time the Riodinids were commonly united), Scudder concluded that 

 the name athamas, as used by Billberg, applied to the Charaxid Nymphalid Papilio athamas 

 Drury, which he thereupon stated was the type-species of Eulepis by monotypy. 



It was in these circumstance that the Charaxid genus Eulepis came into existence. Scudder 

 unequivocally accepted this as a properly established genus. It cannot be ignored on account 

 of the mistakes which led to its establishment, for, as has been explained in the note on the 

 name Eriboea Hiibner, [1819], it has played an important part in the literature. It must 

 however be attributed to Scudder and be treated as having been first published in 1875. 

 Following upon the correction of Scudder's mistake, the nominal species Papilio athamas 

 Drury, which is considered subjectively on taxonomic grounds to be congeneric with Papilio 

 pyrrhus Linnaeus, 1758, is the type-species of the genus Polyura Billberg, 1820. Accordingly, 

 the name Eulepis Scudder is currently treated as a junior subjective synonym of Polyura 

 Billberg, 1820. 



The name Eulepis Scudder, 1875, is invalid, as being a junior homonym of Eulepis Billberg, 

 1820. 



EULIPHYRA Holland, 1890, Psyche 5 : 423. Type-species by selection by Hemming (1964, 

 Annot. lep. (3) : 132) : Euliphyra mirifica Holland, 1890, ibid. 5 : 423. 



EVLIPHYRODES Romieux, 1937, Mitt, schweiz. ent. Ges. 17 (3) : 120-123. Type-species by 

 original designation : Euliphyrodes katangana Romieux, 1937, ibid. 17 (3) : 123. 



EUMAEA Geyer, [1834], in Hiibner, Samml. exot. Schmett. 3 : pi. [18]. Type-species by 

 monotypy : Eumaea debora Geyer, [1834], lw Hiibner, ibid. 3 : pi. [18]. 



Geyer, like his predecessor Hiibner and many other early authors, gave no indication as to 

 whether the generic names that he used were new names or, in the case of similar names, 

 emendations of older names. In the present instance, the name used by Geyer — Eumaea — 

 might very well have been from Geyer's point of view an emendation of the earlier name 

 Eumaeus Hiibner, [18 19], having regard especially to the fact that even today the taxon 

 represented by the nominal species Eumaea debora Geyer is subjectively regarded on taxonomic 

 grounds as being congeneric with Rusticus minijas Hiibner, [1809], the type-species of the 

 genus Eumaeus Hiibner, [1819]. However, it cannot be claimed that Geyer provided any 

 clear evidence that his Eumaea was intended to be an emendation and accordingly under 

 Article 32 (a) (ii) of the Code it cannot be treated as an emendation; nor does Geyer's 



