GENERIC NAMES OF BUTTERFLIES 271 



Indeed, such indications as there are point in the opposite direction. These include (i) the 

 use of the spelling Lymnas in place of Boisduval's spelling Limnas — a change in spelling which 

 is not an emendation and is most unlikely to have been made if Boisduval's book had been 

 available for study but which is readily understandable if it is assumed that Blanchard only 

 knew of Limnas as a manuscript name — (ii) the fact that Blanchard cited for this genus 

 species quite different from the sole species placed in Limnas by Boisduval and made no refer- 

 ence to the species cited by Boisduval, and (iii) the fact that Blanchard designated a type- 

 species for this genus, which he would not have been likely to do if he had been aware that 

 Boisduval had established the genus Limnas on the basis of a single species — a species which 

 was not the one which Blanchard designated as the type-species of his Lymnas. While 

 absolute certainty is not possible on the information available, it seems probable on the whole 

 that, although Blanchard knew of Boisduval's manuscript name Limnas, he had not himself 

 seen Boisduval's Species gfoie'ral of 1836, and therefore that the name Lymnas should be 

 accepted as an independently published name ranking from Blanchard's work of 1840. 

 Fortunately, any doubts on this score are of no practical importance, for even if it be granted 

 that Lymnas Blanchard is a properly established name, it is not required according to modern 

 taxonomic ideas, for its type-species, Papilio electron Fabricius is currently treated sub- 

 jectively as being congeneric with Papilio melander Stoll, [1780] (as interpreted by its lectotype 

 figured by Stoll as fig. B on his plate 136), which is the type-species of the older-established 

 nominal genus Melanis Hiibner, [1819]. 



LYNMAS Scudder, 1875, Proc. amer. acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 207 (an Incorrect Subsequent 

 Spelling of Lymnas Blanchard, 1840). 



LYROPTERA l'lotz, 1881, Stett. ent. Ztg 42 : 500. Type-species by monotypy : Papilio 

 proteus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 484). 



The name Lyroptera was published by l'lotz in a synonymy of the name Eudamus Swainson, 

 1831, where it was cited as " Lyroptera Hpf.", though in fact it had never been published by 

 Hopffer or any other author. If publication in this way had conferred the status of avail- 

 ability upon this name, Papilio proteus Linnaeus, the type-species of Eudamus Swainson, 

 would have been the type-species of Lyroptera Plotz, but under a provision inserted in the 

 revised Code of 1961 (Article 11(d)) a name published in a synonymy is not thereby made 

 available for purposes of nomenclature. The name Lyroptera l'lotz is therefore invalid. It 

 falls in the synonymy of Urbanus Hiibner, [1807], of which also Papilio proteus Linnaeus 

 is the type-species. 



LYROPTERYX Westwood, [1851], in Doubleday, Gen. Mum. Lep. (2) : 433 nota, pi. 72, 

 fig. 1. Type-species by selection by Scudder (1875, Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 

 10 : 210) : Lyropteryx apollonia Westwood, [1851], in Doubleday, ibid. (2) : 433 nota, 

 pi. 72, fig. 1. 



Westwood on plate 72 cited only Lyropteryx apollonia but in the text he added a second 

 species to this genus. It is now known (Hemming, 1941, /. Soc. Bibl. nat. Hist. 1 : 435) that 

 plate 72 and page 433 were published on the same day (10th October 1851). Accordingly, 

 there were two originally included species for this genus. Of these, Lyropteryx apollonia 

 which was both described and figured by Westwood was (as already noted) selected as the 

 type-species by Scudder in 1875. 



LYSANDRA Hemming, 1933, Entomologist 66 : 277. Type-species through Section (i) 

 (replacement names) of Article 67 : Papilio coridon Poda, 1761, Ins. Mus. graec. : 77. 



When at the beginning of the present century Tutt set out to prepare his work, the Natural 

 History of British Butterflies, he invited Thomas Algernon Chapman to make a comprehensive 

 study of the morphology of the European species till then commonly grouped in a most 

 incongruous manner in the single genus Lycaena Fabricius. After completing this survey, 

 which he extended to cover also a large number of extra-European species, Chapman came to 

 the conclusion that there was a considerable number of groups clearly separable from one 

 another by the form of the male genitalia, which deserved separating as distinct genera ; one 



