GENERIC NAMES OF BUTTERFLIES 241 



KIBRETTA Sharpe, [1908], in Zool. Rec. 43 (year 1906) (Ins.) : 314, (an Incorrect Subsequent 

 Spelling of Kibreeta Moore, [1906]). 



KINETA Lindsey, 1925, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 18 : 90. Type-species through Section (1) 

 (replacement names) of Article 67 : Itys iadera de Niceville, 1895, /. Bombay not. Hist. Soc. 

 9 (4) : 379, pi- Q. "g- 52 o"- 



KIRINIA Moore, [1893], Lep. ind. 2 (13) : 14. Type-species by original designation : Lasiom- 

 mata epimenides Menetries, 1850, in Schrenck, Reise Forschungen Amur-Lande 2 (No. 1) : 

 39. pl- 3. figs 8 6", 9 ?• 



KIRONGA Moore, ! 1898], Lep. ind. 3 (32) : 146 ; ibid. 3 (34) : 209. Type-species by original 

 designation : Athyma ranga Moore, 1857, in Horsfield & Moon-, Cat. lep. Ins. Mus. East 

 India Coy (1) : 175, pl. 5, fig. 6 <£. 



The name Kironga Moore was published on the same date (and in the same work) as the 

 name Parathymia Moore, and in 1 onsequem e the relative precedence to be accorded to these 

 names depends on the choice oi the Firsl Reviser. This was made by myself in 1964 (Annot. 

 lep. (3) : 80), when I accorded precedence to the name Kironga Moore below the name Para- 

 thymia Moore. 



KIRONTISA Moon-, [1897], Lep. ind. 3 (27) : 49 ; ibid. 3 (29) : 100. Type-species by 

 original designation : Adolias telchinia Menetries, [857, Enum. Corp. Anim. Mus. imp. 

 At ad. Sci. petrop. (1) : [20, pl. 9, fig. 3. 



KIRROD ESA Moore, [1892], Lep. ind. 1 (10) : 237 note. Type-species by original designation : 

 Debis sicelis Hewitson, [862 . Ill 4. Butts 3 : 7; 71 . pl $7], fig- 3. 



Pari 10 of Moore's Lep ind . conl lining the name Kirrodesa, was received in the British 



Museum on 2nd Maj 1 892, whereas Part 11, containing the new name I'lacilla (: 253) (type- 

 species : Lethe christophi Leech, 1801), was not received until 25th August of that year. 

 This information established the priority of the name A over the name Placilla, a 



point which is of practical importance because according to current taxonomic ideas the 

 species, which are the respective type-spe< ies of these nominal genera, are congeneric with one 

 another. 



KLOTSJUS Hemming, 1964, Annot. Irp. (4) : 148. rype-species l>y original designation: 

 Mancipium menippe Hiibner, [1818], Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [147]. 



The taxon represented by this nominal genus was characterized by Klots in 1933 (Ent. 

 amer. (n.s.) 12 : 179) under the name Rhodocera Boisduval cV. Leconte, [1830], there treated 

 as representing a subgenus of Anteos Hiibner, [1819]. Klots gave as the type-species of 

 Rhodocera so characterized the nominal species Mancipium menippe Hiibner. Klots did not 

 state the grounds on which he interpreted R a in this way, but — as transpired later in 



correspondence -he was there following Scudder (1875, Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 

 10 : 263) in treating the above nominal species as having been validly selected as the type- 

 species of Rhodocera by Butler in 1870 (Cist. ent. 1 : 35). In fact however what Butler did on 

 that occasion was to select as the type-species the nominal species Colias leachiana Godart, 

 [1819] (Ency. mith. 9 (Ins.) (1) : 91). The apparent discrepancy between Butler's action and 

 Scudder's statement that that author had selected Mancipium menippe Hiibner as type-species 

 is due to the fact that here, as elsewhere in his work on generic names, Scudder accepted on 

 taxonomic matters the views expressed in 1871 (Syn. Cat. diurn. Lep.) by Kirby who in this 

 instance had treated (: 483) the foregoing nominal species as representing the same taxonomic 

 unit. This identification has been adopted by subsequent workers, and accordingly, if 

 Butler's type-selection had been otherwise been valid, the interpretation of Rhodocera adopted 

 by Klots, though incorrect nomenclatorially, would nevertheless have been in harmony with 

 Butler's intentions. But for a quite different reason — and one not appreciated by Scudder — 

 Butler's type-selection for Rhodocera was invalid. This arose from the fact that many years 

 earlier an entirely different species had been validly selected as the type-species by a different 

 author. This was Blanchard who in 1840 (Hist. nat. Ins. 3 : 341) had so selected Papilio 



