GENERIC NAMES OF BUTTERFLIES 219 



time he had become aware of the mistake which he had made when he used this name for the 

 Nymphalid genus named Eurema by Doubleday in 1844 and had concluded that the name 

 Heurema was available for use, as shown above for a Pierid. Herrich-Schaeffer (as has already 

 been shown) was aware of the existence of the name Heurema published by Agassiz in 1846 as 

 an emendation of the name of the Pierid genus Eurema Hiibner; if it had not been for the 

 fact that on the present occasion Herrich-Schaeffer treated the name Heurema as a name of 

 his own, it would have been reasonable to conclude that it was the Heurema of Agassiz which 

 he was here employing, for the genus Terias Swainson, 1821, in which the sole species cited by 

 Herrich-Schaeffer was placed by its original author (Snellen van Vollenhoven), is closely allied 

 to Eurema Hiibner. In the circumstances, however it is necessary to follow Herrich-Schaeffer 

 and to treat the name Heurema, as here employed, as the name of a new genus introduced by 

 that author. 



The identity of the taxon represented by the nominal species Terias impura Snellen van 

 Vollenhoven has been the subject of some discussion. Rober ([1909], in Seitz, Grossschmett. 

 Erde 5 : 80) identified Terias impura with Pieris elvina Godart, [1819] (Ency. mith. 9 (Ins.) 

 (1) : 138). On the other hand, Klots in 1933 (Ent. amer., Brooklyn (n.s.) 12 : 152, 186) 

 considered that Terias impura Vollenhoven was a distinct species, which he placed in the 

 genus Terias Swainson, of which he treated Heurema Herrich-Schaeffer as a junior synonym. 

 The material in the Godman & Salvin collection in the British Museum shows that Terias 

 impura Vollenhoven is no more than a rather pale form of Pieris elvina Godart; the type- 

 locality " Timor " given in the original description must have been due to some mistake, for 

 the material must have been obtained somewhere in South America. This examination thus 

 confirms the conclusion originally reached by Rober. 



The name Heurema Herrich-Schaeffer is invalid, as it is a junior homonym of Heurema 

 Agassiz, 1846. For the reasons explained above, this invalid name falls subjectively into the 

 synonymy of the name Leucidia Doubleday, [1847]. 



HEWITSONIA Kirby, 1871, Syn. Cat. diurn. Lep. : 426. Type-species through Section (i) 

 (replacement names) of Article 67 : Corydon boisduvalii Hewitson, [1869], Cat. diurn. Lep. 

 Lycaenidae 1 (text), Suppl. : [1]; 2 (plates), Suppl. : suppl. pi. 1, figs. 1, 2. 



The name Hewitsonia Kirby was introduced to replace the name Corydon Hewitson, [1869], 

 which is invalid under the Paw of Homonymy. 



HEWITSONIA Evans, 1926, J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 31 : 50. Type-species by original 

 designation : Eudamus aenesius Hewitson, 1876, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (4) 18 : 352. 



The name Hewitsonia Evans is invalid, as being a junior homonym of Hewitsonia Kirby, 

 1871 (Syn. Cat. diurn. Lep. : 426). 



Particulars of the status currently assigned to the name Eudamus aenesius Hewitson are 

 given below in the note on the name Hewitsoniella Shepard, 1931, the name published as a 

 replacement for Hewitsonia Evans. 



HEWITSONIELLA Shepard, 1931, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 24 (1) : 175. Type-species through 

 Section (i) (replacement names) of Article 67 : Eudamus aenesius Hewitson, 1876, Ann. Mag. 

 nat. Hist. (4) 18 : 352. 



The name Hewitsoniella was introduced by Shepard as a replacement for Hewitsonia Evans, 

 1926, which (as shown above) is invalid under the Law of Homonymy. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Eudamus aenesius Hewitson is currently 

 treated subjectively on taxonomic grounds as representing the same taxon as that represented 

 by Eudamus migonitis Hewitson, 1876 (loc. cit. (4) 18 : 352). The relative precedence to be 

 accorded to these names, which were published on the same date — actually on the same page of 

 the same volume — depends upon the choice made by the First Reviser. There is very little 

 literature regarding either of the nominal species here in question; for example, Seitz ([1927], 

 Grossschmett. Erde 9 : 1061) stated that Eudamus aenesius was unknown to him in nature and 

 made no mention of Eudamus migonitis at all. Eight years later Shepard (1935, in Strand's 

 Lep. Cat. 69 : 94) gave only the original reference for the first of these species and, like Seitz, 



