246 FRANCIS HEMMING 



it on the first page (: 25) of Part 50 ; it was on the second of these pages that the above 

 species was designated as the type-species. Luckily, these two Parts were published in the 

 same year (1901). 



LARINOPODA Butler, 1871, Trans, ent. Soc. Lond. 1871 : 172. Type-species by monotypy : 

 Larinopoda lycaenoides Butler, 1871, ibid. 1871 : 173, pi. 7, figs 2, 3, 4, 5. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Larinopoda lycaenoides is currently treated 

 subjectively on taxonomic grounds as being the same as that represented by the older- 

 established nominal species Liptena lircaea Hewitson, [1866] (///. exot. Butts 3 : [120], pi. 

 [60], figs 10, 11J. 



LASAEA Glaeser, 1887, Cat. etymol. Coleopt. Lepidopt. : 297 (an Unjustified Emendation of 

 Lasaia Bates, [1868]). 



LASAIA Bates, [1868], J. linn. Soc. Lond., Zool. 9 : 397. Type-species by selection by Stichel 

 (1911), in Wytsman's Gen. Ins. 112 (A) : 184, 185 : Papilio meris Stoll, [1781], in Cramer, 

 Uitl. Kapellen 4 (31) : 146, pi. 366, figs B, C. 



Part 7 of Volume 9 of the Zoology Section of the Linnean Society's Journal, in which the 

 name Lasia Bates appeared, was published, as I have been obligingly informed by the 

 authorities of the Society, on 18th February 1868. 



LASIOMMATA Westwood, 1841, in Humphreys & Westwood, Brit. Butt. Transformations 

 [ed. 1] : 65. Type-species by selection by Scudder (1875, Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 

 10 : 202) : Papilio megera Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 771. 



LASIOPHILA Felder (C.) & Felder (R.), 1859, Wien. ent. Monats. 3 : 325. Type-species 

 by selection by Scudder (1875, Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 202, 203) : Lasio- 

 phila cirta Felder (C.) & Felder (R.), 1859, ibid. 3 : 326, pi. 6, fig. 1. 



Cajetan & Rudolph Felder, after giving a generic diagnosis, remarked that the species of 

 this genus resembled in habitus and colouring the members of the zapatoza-group of the genus 

 Pronophila ; they placed two species in this genus but did not designate either as the type- 

 species. Basing himself upon a (careless) misreading of the observation by the Felders 

 specified above, Butler on no less than three occasions (Oct. 1867, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (3) 

 20 : 268 ; February 1868, Ent. mon. Mag. 4 : 196 ; July 1868, Cat. diurn. Lep. Satyridae 

 Brit. Mus. : 181) selected Pronophila zapatoza Westwood, [1851] [in Doubleday, Gen. diurn. 

 Lep. (2) : 358 nota) as type-species of Lasiophila. This action was, of course, invalid, for (as 

 shown above) this was not one of the originally included species of this genus. The first — 

 and therefore valid — selection of an included species was that of Lasiophila cirta made by 

 Scudder in 1875. 



LASIPPA Moore, [1898], Lep. ind. 3 (32) : 146. Type-species by original designation : 

 Papilio heliodore Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa Ins. 2 : 52. 



Moore designated a type-species for this genus in the passage cited above but he did not 

 provide a generic diagnosis. This omission was made good by Moore in the following year 

 ([1899], loc. cit. 4 (39) : 39). 



LATIORINA Tutt, [April, 1909], Nat. Hist. Brit. Butts 3 : 155. Type-species by designation 

 by the Commission under its Plenary Powers by the Ruling given in Opinion 173 (1946, 

 Opin. int. Comm. zool. Nom. 2 : 483-494) : Papilio glandon Prunner, 1798, Lepidopt. pedemont. 

 : 7 6. 



This is a genus based upon a misidentified type-species and remained in this unsatisfactory 

 situation until the position was rectified by the Commission under its Plenary Powers in the 

 Opinion cited above. 



The case of the name Latiorina Tutt is inseparable from that of the name Agriades Hiibner, 

 which it resembles in all essential respects ; the problems arising in connection with these 

 names were submitted to the Commission in a single joint application, and the decisions of the 

 Commission in regard to both these names were promulgated in the same Opinion. The 



