GENERIC NAMES OF BUTTERFLIES 265 



LUCILLELLA Strand, 1932, Folia zool. hydrobiol. 4 (1) : 147. Type-species through Section (i) 

 (replacement names) of Article 67 : Lucilla camissa Hewitson, 1870, Equatorial Lep. 

 Buckley (4) : 55. 



The name Lucillella Strand was introduced as a replacement for Lucilla Hewitson, which 

 (as shown above) is invalid under the Law of Homonymy. 



LUCINIA Hiibner, [1823], Samml. exot. Schmett. 2 : pi. [35]. Type-species by monotypy : 

 Lucinia sida Hiibner, [1823], ibid. 2 : pi. [35]. 



LUDENS Evans, 1955, Cat. amer. Hesp. Brit. Mus. 4 : 84, 102. Type-species by original 

 designation : Cobalus ludens Mabille, 1891, Ann. Soc. enl. Belg. 35, Bull. C.R. : lxxxiii. 



LUEDORFIA Lang, 1884, Rhop. Europ. : 21 (an Incorrect Subsequent Spelling of Luehdorfia 

 Criiger, 1878). 



LUEHDORFIA Criiger, 1878, Verh. Ver. naturw. Unterhalt. Hamburg 3 : 128. Type-species 

 by monotypy : Luehdorfia eximia Criiger, 1878, ibid. 3 : 128. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Luehdorfia eximia Criiger is currently treated 

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

 lished nominal species Thais puziloi Erschoff, 1872 (Hor. Soc. ent. ross. 8 : 315). 



This generic name was published in the form Liihdorfia, but that method of spelling is not 

 permissible under Article 32(c)(1) and in accordance with the provisions of that Article is 

 here corrected to Luehdorfia. 



LUTHRODES Druce, 1895, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1895 (3) : 576. Type-species by original 

 designation : Polyommatus cleotas Guenn-M6neville, [1831], in Duperry, Voy. autour 

 Monde " Coquille ", Zool. 2 (Pt 2) (Div. 1) : 2, pi. Ins. 18, fig. 4 ; id., [1838], ibid., Zool. 2 

 (Pt 2) (Div. 1) : 277 [also as Argus poete]. 



LYBATHEA Edwards, 1874, Bulls N. Amer. 2 (1) : pi. Lybathea 1 (an Incorrect Subsequent 

 Spelling of Libythea Fabricius, 1807). 



LYCAEIDES Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (5) : 69. Type-species by designation 

 by the Commission under its Plenary Powers by the Ruling given in Opinion 169 : Papilio 

 argyrognomon Bergstrasser, [1779], Nomencl. Beschr. Ins. Grafschaft Hanau-Munzenburg 

 2 : 76, pi. 46, figs 1,2 $, a nominal species to be interpreted under a direction given by the 

 Commission in its Opinion 269 by reference to the photograph of the male genitalia figured 

 by Chapman in 1917 (in Oberthur, Etud. Lipidopt. comp. 14 : pi. VIII, fig. 23). 



This is probably the most complicated case of a nominal genus based upon a misidentified 

 type-species to be found anywhere in the butterflies. For not only did the author of this 

 generic name misidentify with one well-known species, which for the moment may here be 

 called Species " A", the species with which he was dealing (here for the moment called Species 

 " B "), but, in addition, those specialists who recognized this misidentification, themselves 

 applied to Species " B ", a name which it was later discovered applied to a taxon which it 

 was then agreed was specifically distinct from Species " B ". This previously unrecognized 

 species, which may here be termed Species " C ", is structurally very distinct from Species 

 " B " which it often closely resembles. The original mistake by Hubner was brought to the 

 attention of the Commission by myself in 1935 and was rectified by the Commission by the 

 Ruling given under the Plenary Powers in Opinion 169 promulgated in 1945 (Opin. int. 

 Comm. zool. Nom. 2 : 431-442). It was hoped at the time that this decision would not 

 only place the determination of the type-species of the genus Lycaeides Hubner on a firm 

 foundation but also that it would provide Species " B " with a name unquestionably applic- 

 able to it. These hopes were dashed by the discovery that the taxon represented by the 

 nominal species designated in Opinion 169 as the type-species of Lycaeides was not, as had 

 always been supposed, Species " B ", but the then-only-recently-recognized species, Species 

 " C ". After considerable discussion among specialists it was finally decided to ask the 

 Commission to give rulings determining the names to be used for each of the three species 

 discussed above, the interpretation of those names to be stabilized by reference to previously 



