236 FRANCIS HEMMING 



tion on this subject is provided in a note published by Bates in 1868 (/. linn. Soc. Lond. 

 Zool. 9 : 430), in which he recorded that the name Ithomeis was published in September 1862 

 and Ithomiopsis in December of that year. The name Ithomeis Bates has therefore clear 

 priority over the name Ithomiopsis Felder & Felder. 



ITHOMIA Hiibner, 1816, Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (1) : 9. Type-species by selection by 

 Butler & Druce (1872, Cistula ent. 1 : 95 nota) : Ithomia drymo Hiibner, 18 16, ibid. (1) : 9. 

 Like all other new species-names published in the Verzeichniss, the name Ithomia drymo 

 is based solely upon bibliographical references. In this case the reference cited by Hiibner 

 was : " Diaphane Cram. 315 D.E. ", i.e. to plate 375 (figs D & E) published in 1780 by Stoll 

 in Part 27 of his continuation (volume 4) of Cramer's Uitl. Kapellen. In the text (: 53) Stoll 

 stated that these figures represented the upperside and underside of the female of the species 

 of which the male had been described and figured under the same name — Papilio diaphana — 

 by Cramer in 1779 {Uitl. Kapellen 3 (20) : 66, pi. 231, fig. C). The name Papilio diaphana 

 Cramer ranks for priority as from 1779. There are two older nominal species bearing the 

 name Papilio diaphanus, the first of these being Papilio diaphanus Drury, [1773] (///. nat. 

 Hist. 2 : index et 13). Since the words " diaphana " and " diaphanas " are no more than 

 gender variants of a singleword.it follows thatthe name Papilio diaphana Cramer is a homonym 

 of the name Papilio diaphanus Drury and being the later published of these two names is 

 invalid under the Law of Homonymy. The oldest available name for the type-species of the 

 present genus is the replacement name Ithomia drymo Hiibner, 1816. 



ITHOMIOLA Felder (C.) & Felder (R.), [1865], Reise Fregatte " Novara ", Lep. Rhop. (2) : 311. 

 Type-species by monotypy : Ithomiola floralis Felder (C.) & Felder (R.), [1865], ibid., 

 Lep. Rhop. (2) : 311. 



ITHOMIOPSIS Felder (C.) & Felder (R.), [Dec. 1862], Wien. ent. Monals. 6 : 411. Type- 

 species by selection by Hemming (1964, Annot. lep. (4) : 128) : Ithomiopsis corena Felder 

 (C.) & Felder (R.), 1862, ibid. 6 : 412. 



The name Ithomiopsis Felder & Felder is commonly treated as a subjective synonym of 

 Ithomeis Bates. Both these names were published in 1862, but as will be seen from the note 

 on the name Ithomeis, that name has priority over the name Ithomiopsis. 



ITON de Niceville, 1895, /. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 9 (4) : 399. Type-species by original 

 designation : Hesperia semamora Moore, [1866], Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1865 (3) : 791. 



IT UNA Doubleday, [1847], Gen. diurn. Lep. (1) : pi. 17, fig. 1. Type-species by monotypy : 

 Ituna phenarete Doubleday, [1847], ibid. (1) : pi. 17, fig. 1. 



The above species, being the only one cited on plate 17 as belonging to Ituna Doubleday, is 

 automatically the type-species by monotypy. This plate was published on 9th July 1847 and 

 thus preceded the relevant text which was not published until 4th October 1847 by nearly 

 three months. In the text (loc. cit. (1) : 114) Doubleday added two other species to this genus. 



ITYLOS Draudt, [1921], in Seitz, Grossschmett. Erde 5 : 821. Type-species by selection by 

 Hemming (1929, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10) 3 : 240) : Cupido speciosa Staudinger, [1894], 

 Iris 7 : 77-78, pi. 2, fig. 8. 



In 1945 {Psyche 52 : 38) Nabokov drew attention to the fact that, when establishing this 

 nominal genus, in which he placed nine nominal species, Draudt had observed that two of 

 these — titicaca Weymer {Lycaena titicaca Weymer 1890) and speciosa Staudinger — belonged 

 to a somewhat different group from the others; on this basis Nabokov sought to argue that 

 these two species had been only doubtfully referred to the genus by its author and therefore 

 that neither was eligible to be selected as the type-species. Nabokov thereupon selected 

 Cupido moza Staudinger, [1894] (loc. cit. 7 : 79-80, pi. 2, fig. 5) as the type-species of this 

 genus. It is true, as Nabokov remarked, that Draudt divided into two groups the species 

 which he placed in this genus, but he certainly did not say anything which would warrant 

 the view that of the nine included nominal species Draudt regarded seven as belonging to the 

 genus Itylos strictly interpreted, the other two species to a different group only doubtfully 



