188 FRANCIS HEMMING 



EURYTELA Boisduval, 1833, Nouv. Ann. Mus. Hist, nat., Paris 2 (2) : 202 (separate a.s Faune 

 ent. Madagascar Bourbon Maurice Lip. : 54). Type-species by selection by Scudder (1875, 

 Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 175) : Papilio dryope Cramer, [1775], Uitl. 

 Kapellen 1 (7) : 125, pi. 78, figs E, F. 



Prior to Scudder's selection of the above species as type-species, Blanchard in 1850 (Hist, 

 nat. Ins. 3 : 444) selected Papilio hiarba Fabricius, 1793, but that selection was invalid, as 

 that species was not one of those included in the genus Boisduval in 1833. 



EURYTIDES Hiibner, [1821], Samml. exot. Schmett. 2 : pi. [92]. Type-species by monotypy: 

 Eurytides iphitas Hiibner, [1821], ibid. 2 : pi. [92]. 



Hiibner included two plates of species assigned by him to the genus Eurytides in vol. 2 of the 

 Samml. exot. Schmett. These are the plates now known as pis [91] and [92]. Of these, pi. 

 [91] depicted a new nominal species Eurytides dolicaon Hiibner; pi. [92] (as shown above) 

 represented another new nominal species Eurytides iphitas. The relative dates of publication 

 of the various portions of Hiibner's Samml. exot. Schmett. were not known when the position of 

 the name Eurytides was considered by Scudder in 1875 (Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 

 10 : 175) and in consequence that author had no option but to treat the two plates discussed 

 above as having been published on the same date as one another. On this basis Scudder 

 selected Eurytides dolicaon Hiibner (figured on pi. [91]) as the type-species of this genus. The 

 discovery of Hiibner's surviving manuscripts however made it possible firmly to establish the 

 dates of issue of the plates of Hiibner's Sammlung (Hemming, 1937, Hiibner 1 : 327-437). Of 

 the plates here in question this evidence showed (loc. cit. : 408) that pi. [91] (E. dolicaon) was 

 published in 1823 and that pi. [92] (E. iphitas) in 1821. It was thus established that the 

 plate depicting Eurytides iphitas was published two years before that depicting Eurytides 

 dolicaon. Accordingly, as shown above, Eurytides iphitas Hiibner is the type-species of this 

 genus by monotypy. (It may be noted that the two species discussed above are closely 

 allied to one another and according to current taxonomic ideas are certainly congeneric.) 



EUSCHEMON Doubleday, 1846, in Stokes, Discoveries Australia 1 : 513. Type-species by 

 monotypy : Hesperia rafflesia MacLeay, [1827], in King, Narr. Surv. Australia 2 : 463. 



EUSCHOEMON Mabille, 1903, in Wytsman's Gen. Ins. 17 (a) : 36 (an Incorrect Subsequent 

 Spelling of Euschemon Doubleday, 1846). 



EUSELASIA Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (2) : 24. Type-species by selection by 

 Scudder (1875, Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 175) : Euselasia gelaena Hiibner, 

 [1819], ibid. (2) : 24. 



The name Euselasia galaena Hiibner is a replacement name for Papilio gelon Stoll, [1787] 

 (Aanhangs. Werk Uitl. Kapellen Pieter Cramer : 23, pi. 5, fig. 2). The name Papilio gelon 

 Stoll is a nomenclatorially available name, and there was no justification for its replacement 

 by Hiibner by the name Euselasia gelaena, which is therefore invalid as a junior objective 

 synonym. 



EUTERPE Swainson, 1831, Zool. Illustr. (2) 2 (16) : pi. 74. Type-species by monotypy : 

 Euterpe terea Swainson, 1831, ibid. (2) 2 (16) : pi. 74. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Euterpe terea Swainson is identified subjective- 

 ly on taxonomic grounds with that represented by the older-established nominal species 

 Papilio tereas Godart, [1819] (Ency. meth. 9 (Ins.) (1) : 38). Indeed, it can hardly be doubted 

 that the spelling " terea " used by Swainson is a variant, either intentional or accidental, of 

 the spelling " tereas " used by Godart. 



EUTHALIA Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (3) : 41. Type-species by selection by 

 Scudder (1875, Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 176) : Papilio lubentina Cramer, 

 [1777], Uitl. Kapellen 2 (13) : 92, pi. 155, figs C, D. 



In the early nineteen-thirties there were differences of opinion among specialists on the 

 question whether Papilio lubentina Cramer, the type-species of the present genus should on 

 taxonomic grounds be treated as being congeneric with Symphaedra alcandra Hiibner, [1819], 



