GENERIC NAMES OF BUTTERFLIES 261 



LINTORATA Moore, 1883, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1883 : 229. Type-species by monotypy : 

 Lintorata menadensis Moore, 1883, ibid. 1883 : 229. 



LIPAPHNAEUS Aurivillius, 1916, Zool. Ark. 10 (No. 14) : 4. Type-species by original 

 designation : Aphnaeus spindasoides Aurivillius, 1916, ibid. 10 (No. 14) : 2. 



Aurivillius ([1924], in Seitz, Grossschmett. Erde 13 : 415) remarked that a further examina- 

 tion of the venation of the type-species of this genus showed that it belonged to the Aphnaeus- 

 group, as he had then supposed. 



At the same time Aurivillius stated that he no longer considered that the taxon repre- 

 sented by the nominal species Aphnaeus spindasoides described by himself in 191 6 was 

 specifically distinct ; he considered it now to be a subspecies of the taxon represented by the 

 older-established nominal species Zeritis aderna Plotz, 1880 (Stett. ent. Ztg 12 : 203). 



LIPHYRA Westwood, [1864], Trans, ent. Soc. Lond. (3) 2, Proc. (year 1864) : 31. Type- 

 species by monotypy : Liphyra brassolis Westwood, [1864], ibid. (3) 2, Proc. (year 1864) : 

 3i 



LIPTENA Westwood, [1851], in Doubleday, Gen. diurn. Lep. (2) : pi. 77, figs 5, 6. Type- 

 species by designation by the Commission under the Plenary Powers in Opinion 566 : Liptena 

 undularis Hewitson, [1866], ///. exot. Butts 3 : [120], pi. [60], fig. 7. 



From the beginning of the XXth century and indeed for many years earlier the name 

 Liptena Westwood and also the name Pentila Westwood were in general use for genera which 

 under the Code had no claim to bear these names ; the name Liptena was used for a group of 

 between sixty and seventy species, of which one was Liptena undularis Hewitson, the name 

 Pentila Westwood for ,1 group of between forty and fifty species, of which one was Tingra 

 tropicalis Boisduval, 1847. Both these usages were entirely incorrect. Under the Code the 

 name Liptena applied not to the large group for which it was commonly used but to the 

 quite different group (of about thirty species) universally known by the name Telipna 

 Aurivillius, 1895, the type-species of which (Liptena acraea Westwood, [1851]) by selection 

 by Scudder in 1875 (Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 208) was under the Code the 

 true type-species of Liptena Westwood. If the Code had been correctly applied in the fore- 

 going manner, the name Telipna would have become a junior objective synonym of Liptena, 

 while for the large group of species hitherto known as Liptena, it would have been necessary 

 to bring into use the long-discarded name Parapontia Rober, [1892]. At the genus-name 

 level the problem associated with the name Liptena is distinct from that of the name Pentila, 

 but these names are connected with one another at the family-group name level — each being 

 the name of a family-group taxon — with the result that a shift in the interpretation of these 

 genera would have involved changes at the family-group-name level (either subfamily or 

 tribe, according to the taxonomic view taken as to the status to be assigned to the taxa 

 concerned). Under the Code the type-species (by monotypy) of the genus Pentila was 

 Pentila zymna Westwood, [185 il. This species is currently treated subjectively as con- 

 generic with Megalopalpus simplex Rober, 1886, the type-species of the genus Megalopalpus 

 Rober, 1886. Accordingly, under the Code the name Megalopalpus Rober was a junior 

 subjective synonym of Pentila Westwood. The application of the name Pentila in the 

 foregoing sense, as required by the Code would have led to the utmost confusion, for not 

 only would it have involved the use of the name Pentila in an entirely novel sense, but it 

 would have required that that name should be used for a genus (i.e. that hitherto known as 

 Megalopalpus) which was not a member of the Lipteninae but which was referable to a far- 

 removed subfamily of the Lycaenidae, the subfamily Miletinae. As for the large group of 

 species hitherto placed in the genus Pentila, they should under the Code have been placed 

 in the genus Tingra Boisduval, 1847 (type-species by monotypy : Tingra tropicalis Boisduval, 

 1847), a nominal genus which, though older than Pentila Westwood, had been completely 

 ignored by all authors subsequent to Boisduval himself. 



Fortunately, the devastating changes indicated above were never put into effect, lepidop- 

 terists, though realizing that they were required under the Code, deeming it better to maintain 



