GENERIC NAMES OF BUTTERFLIES 251 



the name Lemonias Hoffmannsegg, 1818, which on this basis was an available name. My 

 object in selecting Papilio epulns Cramer as the type-species was to provide an available name 

 for that species, which had for some considerable time been incorrectly assigned to the genus 

 Hamearis Hiibner, [1819], through a misconception as to the type-species of that genus. 

 This hope was disappointed when it became necessary to reject Lemonias Hoffsmannsegg, 1818, 

 as a junior homonym of Lemonias Hiibner, [1807]. At that point the introduction of a generic 

 name for Papilio epulus became inevitable, and I then established the nominal genus Andre 

 Hemming for this purpose. 



LENTO Evans, 1955, Cat. amer. Hesp. lint. Mtts. 4 : 46, 54. Type-species by original 

 designation : Pamphila lento Mabille, 1878, Petites Nouvelles ent. 2 : 242. 



LEODONTA Butler, 1870, Cistula ent. 1 : 34, 40. Type-species by original designation : 

 Euterpe dysoni Doubleday, 1847, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 19 : 385. 



LEONA Evans, 1937, Cat. Afric. Hesp. Brit. Mus. : 7, 153. Type-species by original designa- 

 tion : Hesperia leonora Plotz, 1879, Stett. ent. Ztg 40 : 355. 



LEONTE Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (4) : 52. Type-species by tautonomy 

 (Article 68(d)) : Potamis leonte Hiibner, [1807], Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : pi. [79]. 



In the synonymy of Leonte achilleja (an uncalled-for replacement of Papilio achilles Linnaeus, 

 1758) Hiibner cited the name of the nominal species Potamis leonte established by himself in 

 1807. Under the provision of the Code cited above, this species becomes automatically the 

 type-species of the genus Leonte Hiibner by tautonymy. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Potamis leonte Hiibner is today as in I liibner's 

 time — considered on taxonomic grounds as the same as that represented by the older- 

 established nominal species Papilio achilles Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 463). 



LEPELLA Evans, 1 < > 3 7 , Cat, Afric. Hesp. Brit. Mus. : 4, 76. Tvpc-spccies by original designa- 

 tion : Hesperia lepeletieri 'correction of lepeletier] Latreille, [1824], Ency. mith. 9 (Ins.) (2) : 



777- 



When, as in the case of the t vpe-species of this genus, a specific name based upon the surname 

 of a modern personage is formed in a non-Latinized form, it is under the provisions of Article 

 31(a) (automatic correction) to be corrected by the addition of the Latin termination in the 

 genitive case. 



LEPHELISCA Barnes & Lindsey, 1922, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 15 : 93. Type-species by 

 original designation : Erycina virginiensis Guerin-Meneville, 1844, Iconographie Ins. : 489, 

 pi. 81, fig. 1. 



Prior to the publication of the name Lephelisca, the nominal species designated by Barnes 

 & Lindsey as the type-species of this genus was commonly treated erroneously as the type- 

 species of the genus Calephelis Grote & Robinson, 1869, a genus based upon an erroneously 

 determined type-species. In a recently submitted application dos Passos has asked (1963, 

 Bull. zool. Nom. 20 : 313-320) the Commission to deal with the name Calephelis under 

 Article 70(a) by designating Erycina virginiensis as the type-species of that genus, thereby 

 giving effect to the original intention of Grote & Robinson and at the same time validating 

 the majority practice of taxonomists. In accordance with the provisions of Article 80 the 

 names Calephelis and Lephelisca are treated provisionally as though the foregoing application 

 has already been approved by the Commission. Accordingly, although at present an avail- 

 able name, Lephelisca is here treated as a junior objective synonym of Calephelis Grote & 

 Robinson. The foregoing is no more than a brief summary of the present case, which is 

 described in full in the note given under the name Calephelis. 



There has been some discussion as to the authorship to be attributed to, and the date of 

 publication of, the name Erycina virginiensis, but, as will be seen from the note referred to 

 above, (1) that name was first published by Gray in 1832 (in Griffith's Cuvier's Anim. Kingd. 

 15 : pi. 58, fig. 1) and (2), as published by Guerin in the Iconographie Ins., there is no evidence 

 that it was published within the meaning of the Code before September 1844. 



