270 FRANCIS HEMMING 



However, under the provisions relating to replacement names since inserted in the Code 

 (Article 67 (i)) a replacement genus automatically takes as its type-species the nominal species 

 which is the type-species of the older nominal genus bearing the name to be replaced. 

 Accordingly, notwithstanding the designation of Heliconia cleobaea Godart as the type-species 

 of the replacement genus Lycorella, the type-species of that genus is automatically under the 

 Code the nominal species Lycorea atergatis Doubleday, the type-species of the genus Lycorea 

 Doubleday, the genus for which the name Lycorella was published as a replacement. 



LYCUS Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (5) : 74. Type-species by selection by Scudder 

 (1875, Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 210) : Papilio rubi Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. 

 (ed. 10) 1 : 483. 



The name Lycus Hiibner is invalid, as it is a junior homonym of Lycus Fabricius, 1787 

 {Mantissa Ins. 1 : 163). The type-species of this genus is the type-species also of the slightly 

 later genus Callophrys Billberg, 1820. 



LYELA Swinhoe, 1908, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (8) 1 : 60. Type-species by original designation : 

 Lyela macmahoni Swinhoe, 1908, ibid. (8) 1 : 60. 



The taxon represented by Lyela macmahoni Swinhoe is currently treated subjectively on 

 taxonomic grounds as being a subspecies of the taxon represented by the older-established 

 nominal species Erebia myops Staudinger, 1881 Stett. ent. Ztg 42 : 296). 



LYMANOPODA Westwood, [1851], in Doubleday, Gen. diurn. Lep. (2) : pi. 67, figs 6, 7. 

 Type-species by monotypy : Lymanopoda samius Westwood, [1851], in Doubleday, ibid. 

 (2) : pi. 67, figs 6 6», 7?. 



Doubleday's plate 67 was published on 15th May 1851, but the text (: 401) relating to 

 Lymanopoda was not published until 5th July of that year. On the plate Westwood placed 

 only Lymnanopoda samius in the genus Lymanopoda and that species is therefore the type- 

 species by monotypy. In the text published in the same year Westwood added two further 

 species to this genus, but did not designate a type-species. It may be noted that, even if the 

 text had been published at the same time as plate 67, the nominal species Lymanopoda samius 

 would still have been the type-species of this genus, it having been so selected by Scudder 

 in 1875 {Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 210). 



As explained in the note on Sarromia Westwood, [1851], Lymanopoda has precedence over 

 its subjective synonym Sarromia by a First Reviser choice made by Westwood {loc. cit. (2) : 

 402). 



LYMNAS Blanchard, 1840, Hist. nat. Ins. 3 : 464. Type-species by original designation : 

 Hesperia electron Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst. 3 (1) : 321. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Hesperia electron Fabricius is currently 

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

 established nominal species Papilio iarbas Fabricius, 1787 {Mantissa Ins. 2 : 83). 



Blanchard attributed the name Lymnas to Boisduval and it cannot be doubted that, in 

 using this name, he had in mind the name Limnas Boisduval, [1836], for quite apart from the 

 great similarity of the names Lymnas and Limnas and the fact that the first was attributed 

 to Boisduval by its author and the second was published by Boisduval, it must be noted that 

 Hesperia electron Fabricius and Limnas pixe Boisduval, the respective type-species of these 

 genera, are closely allied to one another and are indeed even today considered to be con- 

 generic with one another. In most cases these indications would be sufficient to justify the 

 conclusion that Lymnas Blanchard was no more than an Incorrect Subsequent Spelling of 

 Limnas Boisduval, [1836]. In the present instance however it would be unwise to draw any 

 such conclusion. First — and this is very important — Boisduval, above all his contem- 

 poraries, was notorious for the way in which he put into an irregular circulation manuscript 

 names of his own devising, many of which were first published by other authors — often with 

 an attribution to Boisduval — at various later dates. In the present case Boisduval had 

 published the name Limnas four years before the publication of Blanchard's book. There is 

 no evidence however to show that Blanchard had himself seen Boisduval's Species geniral. 



