262 FRANCIS HEMMING 



the firmly-established, though incorrect usage of the names Liptena and Pentila, until, as it 

 was hoped, an opportunity might present itself for securing the validation of that usage. 

 This opportunity arose when the Commission began to use its Plenary Powers for preventing 

 confusion at the species-name level as well as at the genus-name level, for dealing with which 

 those powers had hitherto in practice been reserved. In 1957 M. H. Stempffer (Paris) and I 

 judged that the time was ripe for approaching the Commission in this case. In the application 

 which we then submitted we asked that the Commission should use its Plenary Powers to 

 secure the valid application of the names Liptena Westwood and Pentila Westwood by 

 designating Liptena undularis Hewitson to be the type-species of the first of these genera 

 and Tingra tropicalis Boisduval to be the type-species of the second. At the same time we 

 asked for the suppression under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Tingra Boisduval, 

 this being necessary to prevent the name Pentila, defined as we then proposed, from falling 

 as a junior objective synonym of Tingra Boisduval. These and the associated proposals then 

 submitted were approved by the Commission, the decision so taken being promulgated in the 

 Commission's Opinion 566 published in 1959 (Opin. int. Comm. zool. Nom. 20 : 377-390). 

 In the foregoing Opinion the name Liptena Westwood, defined, as indicated above, was 

 placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 1365. 



LIPTENARA Bethune-Baker, 1915, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (8) 16 : 186. Type-species by 

 original designation : Liptenara batesi Bethune-Baker, 1915, ibid. (8) 16 : 187. 



LISTERIA de Niceville, 1894, /. asiat. Soc. Bengal, Pt II, 63 (No. 1) : 35. Type-species by 

 original designation : Listeria dudgeonii de Niceville, 1894, ibid. Pt II, 63 (No. 1) : 36, pi. 4, 



fig. 36*- 



The name Listeria de Niceville is invalid, as it is a junior homonym of Listeria Robineau- 

 Desvoidy, 1863 (Hist. nat. Dipt. Paris 2 : 600). It has been replaced by the name Pamela 

 Hemming, 1935. 



LITHODRYAS Cockerell, 1909, Bull. amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 26 : 79. Type-species through 

 Section (i) (replacement names) of Article 67 : Lithopsyche styx Scudder, 1889, Ann. Rep. 

 U.S. geol. Survey 8 : 454, pi. 52, figs 11, 16, 17. 



The name Lithodryas Cockerell was introduced as a replacement for Lithopsyche Scudder, 

 1889, which is invalid under the Law of Homonymy. Scudder stated that Lithopsyche was a 

 Nymphalid fossil genus near to Hypanartia Hiibner. The type-species was obtained from the 

 Tertiary deposits of Florissant. 



LITHOPSYCHE Scudder, 1889, Ann. Rep. U.S. geol. Survey 8 (1) : 452. Type-species by 

 monotypy : Lithopsyche styx Scudder, 1889, ibid. 8 (1) : 454, pi. 52, figs n, 16, 17. 



The name Lithopsyche Scudder is invalid as it is a junior homonym of Lithopsyche Butler 

 1889 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1889 (3) : 294). As already noted, it has been replaced by the 

 name Lithodryas Cockerell, 1909. 



LITINGA Moore, [1898], Lep. ind. 3 (32) : 146 ; ibid. 3 (33) : 173. Type-species by original 

 designation : Limenitis cottini Oberthur, 1884, Etud. ent. 9:17, pi. 2, fig. 5 <J. 



LOBOCLA Moore, 1884, /. asiat. Soc. Bengal, Pt II, 53 (No. 1) : 51. Type-species by original 

 designation : Plesioneura liliana Atkinson, 1871, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1871 : 216, pi. 12, 

 fig. 2. 



LOESA Moore, 1880, Trans, ent. Soc. Lond. 1880 (4) : 177. Type-species by monotypy : 

 Mycalesis oroatis Hewitson, [1864], III. exot. Butts. 3 : [90], pi. [45], figs. 38, 39. 



LOGANIA Distant, 1884, Rhop. malay. : 197, 208. Type-species by monotypy : Logania 

 malayica Distant, 1884, ibid. : 208, pi. 22, fig. 21 ?. 



Distant had been in correspondence with Moore on the subject of this genus prior to its 

 establishment in the Rhop. malay. and had informed him of his intention to give it the name 

 Logania. This name was published by both authors almost simultaneously in 1884. Luckily, 

 its publication by Distant has priority — though by only a very slender margin — over its 



