GENERIC NAMES OF BUTTERFLIES 259 



LIMNAS Boisduval, [1836], (Roret's Suite a Buffon), Hist. nat. Ins., Spec. gen. Lepid. 1 : 

 pi. 20 [= pi. 4C], fig. 1. Type-species by monotypy : Limnas pixe Boisduval, [1836], ibid. 

 1 : pi. 20 [= pi. 4C], fig. 1. 



The name Limnas Boisduval is invalid as a junior homonym of Limnas Hiibner, [1806] (of 

 the Samml. exot. Schmett.), a name which, though suppressed by the Commission under the 

 Plenary Powers for the purposes of the Law of Priority, was (as explained in the note given 

 above on that name) kept alive for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy. 



LIMOCHORES Scudder, 1872, 4//; Ann. Rep. Peabody Acad. Sci. 1871 : 80. Type-species by 

 original designation : Hesperia manataaqua Scudder, 1863, Proc. Essex Inst. 3 : 175. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Hesperia manataaqua Scudder is currently 

 treated subjectively on taxonomic grounds (based upon the figure of the holotype in Jones's 

 Icones) as being the same as that represented by the older-established nominal species Hesperia 

 origenes Fabricius, 1793 (Ent. syst. 3 (1) : 328). 



LIMONETES Billberg, 1820, Enum. Ins. Mus. Billb. : 78 (an Incorrect Subsequent Spelling 

 of Limenitis Fabricius, 1807). 



LIMONITIS Dalman, 1816, K. svenska VetenskAkad. Handl., Stockholm 1816 (Xo. 1) : 55 

 (an Incorrect Subsequent Spelling of Limenitis Fabricius, 1807). 



LINCOYA Kirby, 1871, Syn. Cat. diurn. Lep. : 649. Type-species through Section (i) (replace- 

 ment names) of Article 67 : Cybdelis pharsalia Hewitson, [1852], ///. exot. Butts 1 : [64], 

 pi. [32], figs 14, 15. 



The name Lincoya was introduced as a replacement for Antigonis Felder (C), which 

 Scudder (1875, Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 114) following Kirby, believed to be 

 invalid under the Law of Homonymy. In this view these authors were in error, for there 

 is no generic name older than that of Felder (1861) consisting of the word " Antigonis ", the 

 similar but not identical names of earlier date cited by Kirby and later by Scudder being all 

 excluded from consideration by the " One-Letter-Difference " Rule now embodied in Article 

 57(d) of the Code. The name Lincoya Kirby is therefore invalid as a junior objective synonym 

 of Antigonis Felder, 1861. 



LINDRA Evans, 1955, Cat. amer. Hesp. Brit. Mus. 4 : 399, 429. Type-species by original 

 designation : Carystus simulina Druce, 1876, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1876 : 248, pi. 18, 

 fig. 8. 



LINGAMIUS Bryk, 1935, Das Thierreich 65 : 538-540. Type-species by original designation: 

 Parnassius hardwickii Gray, 1831, Zool. Miscell. (Gray) (1) : 32. 



As pointed out by myself in 1934 (Stylops 3 : 144) the name Lingamius was introduced 

 by Bryk in an extremely unsatisfactory manner. The name Lingamius was used by Bryk 

 twice in 1932, first in January (Parnassiana 2 (1) : 1) and second in March (ibid. 2 (2) : 20), 

 being applied on the first of these occasions to Parnassius hardwickii Gray, 1831, and on the 

 second, to Parnassius cephalus Grum.-Grshimai'lo, 1892. On neither of these occasions did 

 Bryk provide a generic diagnosis or designate a type-species. Both of these requirements 

 constitute an essential condition for availability under Article 13(b) in the case of a generic 

 name published after 1930. Accordingly, neither of the above usages constitutes a valid 

 publication of the name Lingamius . The next occasion on which this name was used, again 

 by Bryk, was in December 1934 (loc. cit. 3 (3) : 43). On this occasion Bryk did designate a 

 type-species (Parnassius hardwickii Gray) but failed to provide a generic diagnosis. On this 

 latter account this usage of name Lingamius fails under the provision of the Code cited above 

 to constitute a valid publication of this name. 



The first occasion on which the name Lingamius appeared in print with both a generic 

 diagnosis and a designated type-species was in 1935 when it was so used by Bryk in Leiferung 

 65 of the publication Das Thierreich. Bryk did not treat the name Lingamius, as here pub- 

 lished, as a new name, obstinately referring this name to the earlier usages discussed above, 

 although he was aware (from correspondence with myself — that under the decision by the 



