284 FRANCIS HEMMING 



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

 the older-established nominal species Erycina tutana Godart, [1824] (Ency. meth. 9 (2) : 577). 



MELANTHES Mabille, 1903, in Wytsman's Gen. Ins. 17 (A) : 47. Type-species by selection 

 by Lindsey (1921, Univ. I owa Studies , Studiesnat. Hist. 9 (No. 4) :4s) : Nisoniades brunnea 

 Herrich-Schaeffer, 1864, CorrespBl. zool.-min. Ver. Regensburg. 18 : 172. 



MELATANIS Mabille, 1876, Bull. Soc. zool. Fr. 1 : 199 (an incorrect Subsequent Spelling of 

 Melanitis Fabricius, 1807). 



MELEAGERIA Sagarra, 1925, Bull. Inst, catal. Hist. nat. (2) 5 : 271. Type-species by 

 monotypy : Papilio meleager Esper, [1777], Die Schmett. 1 (8) : pi. 45; id., [1779], 1 (9) : 



375- 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Papilio meleager Esper is currently treated 

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

 established nominal species Papilio daphnis [Denis & Schiffermuller], 1775 (Ankiindung [sic] 

 syst. Werkes Schmett. Wiener Gegend : 182). Formerly, it was a matter of doubt whether the 

 name Papilio daphnis [Denis & Schiffermuller] was an available name because there is another 

 name consisting of the same combination also published in 1775. This is the name Papilio 

 daphnis Cramer, [1775] {Uitl. Kapellen 1 (5) : 89, pi. 57, figs E, F), a name bestowed upon a 

 species of an entirely different family (the family Nymphalidae). Doubts on this subject 

 were however set at rest in 1958 (Opin. int. Comm. zool. Nom. 19 : 1-44) when in its Opinion 

 516 the Commission gave directions under its Plenary Powers as to the relative prece- 

 dence to be accorded to names in certain books published in 1775, the Commission ruling, inter 

 alia, that precedence should be accorded to names in the Ankiindung of Denis & Schiffermuller 

 over names in the portion of Cramer's Uitl. Kapellen published in the same year. Thus, the 

 name Papilio daphnis [Denis & Schiffermuller] is now seen to have precedence over the 

 (Nymphalid) name Papilio daphnis Cramer. Accordingly, the specific name daphnis [Denis 

 & Schiffermuller] is an available name and, being the oldest such name subjectively applicable 

 to the present (Lycaenid) species, is therefore its valid name. Luckily, as I have pointed out 

 (Hemming, i960, Annot. lep. (2) : 54-56), this does not mean that the well-known species- 

 group name meleager Esper will disappear in synonymy, for at the subspecies-level the taxon 

 represented by meleager Esper is markedly distinct from the nominate subspecies daphnis. 



MELETE Swainson, [1831], Zool. Illustr. (2) 2 : pi. 79. Type-species by original designation : 

 Pieris limnoria Godart, [1819], Ency. meth. 9 (Ins.) (1) : 144. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Pieris limnoria Godart is currently treated 

 subjectively on taxonomic grounds as being a subspecies of the taxon represented by the 

 nominal species Papilio lycimnia Cramer, [1777] (Uitl. Kapellen 2 (9) : 13, pi. 105, figs E, F). 



MELIBAEA Saunders, [1859], Trans, ent. Soc. Lond. (n.s.) 5 : 96. Type-species by selection by 

 Hemming (1964, Annot. lep. (4) : 129) : Erycina julia Saunders, [Feb. 1850], Trans, ent. Soc. 

 Lond. [1] 5 (9) : 225 (pro parte), pi. 21, figs 1, ia, 2, 2a (as defined by the specimen figured as 

 figure 1 on plate 21, selected by Hemming (1964, Annot. lep. (3) : 101) to represent the lecto- 

 type of this species). 



Kirby in 1871 (Syn. Cat. diurn. Lep. : 303) drew attention to the fact that, while the figures 

 on Saunders's plate 21 represented specimens of that author's new species Erycina julia, the 

 text contained a description of a different species, Papilio aulestes Cramer, [1779]. This 

 appears to have been due, in part, to the fact that previously Doubleday had applied to the 

 Cramerian species the name Erycina julia in manuscript and had even published that name in 

 this sense as a nomen nudum in 1847 (List Spec. lep. Ins. Brit. Mus. 2:3). Stichel in 1930 (in 

 Strand's Lep. Cat. 40 : 323, 328) reached the same conclusion as Kirby, except that he 

 considered that at least part of Saunders's text referred to the true Erycina julia, while the 

 remainder was concerned with Papilio aulestes. The interpretation of Erycina julia was placed 

 on a firm basis by the choice of the lectotype referred to above. 



The name Melibaea Saunders is invalid, as it is a junior homonym of Melibaea Forbes, 1838 



