GENERIC NAMES OF BUTTERFLIES 185 



suppress at the same the Illigerian names which preoccupied the Fabrician names. Indeed, 

 it was felt that there would be a positive advantage in being able to attribute the name Eurybia 

 to Illiger, if only because if adopted from this early date the risk of it being found not to be the 

 first publication of the name — a contingency which had already led to the supercession of 

 several of the later names, each of which had, for a time been considered to be the oldest 

 version of the name Eurybia — would be avoided. 



To sum up, the name Eurybia [Illiger], 1807, is a nomenclatorially available name and in 

 consequence invalidates under the Law of Homonymy all later generic names consisting of the 

 same word. The rejection of the name Eurybia of all later authors in favour of the name 

 Eurybia does not involve any change in the taxonomic application of this name. 



EURYBIA Latreille, 1809, Gen. Crust. Ins. 4 : 198. Type-species by selection by Crotch 

 1872, Cistula ent. 1 : 67 : Papilio salome Cramer, [1775], Uitl. Kapellen 1 (1) : 18, pi. 12, 

 figs G, H. 



In introducing this nominal genus, Latreille observed that it had been proposed by Illiger, 

 but he did not appear to be aware that it had already been published by that author. There 

 seems to be no doubt that Latreille looked upon himself as publishing this name for the first 

 time and as published, it is treated as such. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Papilio salome Cramer is currently treated 

 subjectively on taxonomic grounds as the same as that represented by the nominal species 

 Papilio nicaeus Kabricius, 1775 Syst. Ent. : 482. The name Papilio nicaeus Fabricius takes 

 precedence over the name Papilio salome Cramer published in the same year under the ruling 

 that the Syst. Ent. is to be given precedence over the parts of Cramer's Uitl. Kapellen given by 

 the Commission in its Opinion 516 published in 1958 (Opin. int. Comm. zool. Nom. 19 : 1-44). 



The name Eurybia Latreille is invalid, as being a junior homonym of Eurybia [Illiger], 1807. 



EURYBIA Oken, 1815, Lehrbuch Naturgesch. 3 (Zool.) (1) : 733. Type-species be selection by 

 Hamming (1943, Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (B) 12 : 30) : Papilio salome Cramer, [1775], Uitl. 

 Kapellen 1 (1) : 18, pi. 12, figs G, H. 



The name Eurybia Oken is invalid : — (a) because the Lehrbuch of Oken, in which it was 

 published, was rejected for nomenclatorial purposes by the Commission in its Opinion 417 

 published in 1956 (Opin. int. Comm. zool. Nom. 14 : 1-41) ; and (b) because it is a junior 

 homonym of Eurybia [Illiger], 1807. Moreover, its type-species is the same species as that of 

 Eurybia Latreille, 1809, to which, if it had been available it would have fallen as a junior 

 objective synonym. 



EURYBIA Hoffmannsegg, 1818, in Wiedemann, Zool. Mag. 1 (2) : 100. Type-species by selec- 

 tion by Scudder (1875, Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Set., Boston 10 : 174 : Papilio nicaeus 

 Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 482. 



Scudder, when selecting the above species as type-species, erroneously attributed the paper 

 in Wiedemann's Zool. Mag. to Illiger instead of to Hoffmannsegg. (He was not aware of 

 Illiger's paper of 1807.) 



The generic name Eurybia Hoffmannsegg is invalid as it is a junior homonym of Eurybia 

 [Illiger], 1807. 



EURYBIA Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (2) : 17. Type-species by selection by 

 Scudder (1875), Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 174 : Papilio nicaeus Fabricius, 

 1775, Syst. Ent. : 482. 



Like the name discussed immediately above, the name Eurybia Hiibner is invalid as being 

 a junior homonym of Eurybia [Illiger], 1807. 



EURYCUS Boisduval, [1836], (Roret's Suite a Buffon), Hist. nat. Ins., Consid. gen., 1 (Lepid.) : 

 391, 392. Type-species through Section (i) (replacement names) of Article 67 : Cressida 

 heliconides Swainson, 1832, Zool. Illustr. (2) 3 (21) : pi. 94. 



Boisduval introduced the name Eurycus as a replacement for Cressida Swainson, 1832, 

 which he rejected on the ground of tautonymy with the specific name of the nominal species 



