2 9 2 FRANCIS HEMMING 



MILANION Godman & Salvin, [1895], Biol, centr.-amer., Lep. Rhop. 2 : 403. Type-species by 

 original designation : Papilio hemes Cramer, [1777], Uitl. Kapellen 2 (9) : 11, pi. 103, fig. F. 



MILENA Evans, 1912, /. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 21 : 1005. Type-species by monotypy : 

 Parnara plebeia de Niceville, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1887 : 466, pi. 40, fig. 2 o*- 



M1LETOGRAPHA Rober, [1892], in Schatz, in Staudinger & Schatz, Exot. Schmett. Bd 1 

 (Th. 2) (6) : 277. Type-species by monotypy : Miletus drumila Moore, [1866], Proc. Zool. 

 Soc. Lond. 1865 (3) : 777, pi. 41, fig. 12. 



Rober stated that Miletus drumila Moore was the sole species of this genus, at the same time 

 explaining that this was the same species as that which earlier in the same work Staudinger had 

 described and figured as a new species under the name Miletus insignis ([1887], in Staudinger 

 & Schatz, loc. cit. Bd 1 (Th. 1): pi. 94; id., [1888], ibid. Bd 1 (Th. 1) : 269). Under Article 

 68 (c) of the present revised Code a genus established with a single nominal species is to be 

 treated as having its type-species determined by monotypy, irrespective of any cited synonyms, 

 and it is under this provision that Miletus drumila Moore is the type-species of this genus by 

 monotypy. (The two nominal species discussed above are still regarded as representing the 

 same taxon.) 



MILETUS Hiibner, [18 19], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (5) : 71. Type-species by selection by 

 Westwood ([1852], in Doubleday, Gen. diurn. Lep. (2) : 502) : Papilio symethus Cramer, 

 [1777], Uitl. Kapellen 2 (13) : 84, pi. 149, figs B, C. 



The name Miletus Hiibner has had an unfortunate history, so far as concerns the determina- 

 tion of its type-species. The trouble began in 1875 {Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 

 219) when Scudder selected Papilio polycletus Linnaeus, 1758 (: 485) as the type-species of 

 Miletus. The effect of this type-selection, if accepted, would have been to make Miletus 

 Hiibner a senior objective synonym of the name Hypochrysops Felder (C.) & Felder (R.), i860. 

 The majority of specialists refused to make the disturbing change involved in substituting the 

 name Miletus for the name Hypochrysops, those who took this line including Druce (1891, 

 Trans, ent. Soc. Lond. 1891 : 171) and Griinbert ([1931], in Seitz, Grosschmett. Erde 9 : 837- 

 849). On the other hand, some authors, such as Waterhouse (1903, Proc. linn. Soc. N.S.W. 

 28 : 158, 175), went over to the use of the name Miletus in place of the name Hypochrysops. 

 Practice in this matter had not become uniform when the whole situation was transformed by 

 the discovery that Scudder's type-selection of 1875 had been anticipated by the selection by 

 Westwood in 1852 of an entirely different species, namely Papilio symethus Cramer to be the 

 type-species of this genus. This discovery put an end to the previous controversy by providing 

 the name Hypochrysops with an unassailable position. On the other hand, the fact that 

 Papilio symethus was now seen to be the type-species of this genus meant that the name 

 Miletus became a senior objective synonym of Gerydus Boisduval, [1836], itself a well-known 

 name. The required change in the use of the name Miletus was effected with relatively little 

 difficulty and is now fully established. 



MILTOMIGES Mabille, 1903, in Wytsman's Gen. Ins. 17 (A) : 72. Type-species by mono- 

 typy : Cobalus cinnamomea Herrich-Schaeffer, 1869, CorrespBl. zool.-min. Ver. Regens- 

 burg. 23 : 203 [re-paged separate as Prodromus . [3] : 83]. 



MIMABRIX [anon.], in Zool. Rec. 60 (year 1923) Ins.: 227 (an Incorrect Subsequent Spelling 

 of Mimambrix Filey, 1923). 



MIMACRAEA Butler, 1872, Lep. exot. : 104. Type-species by original designation : Mima- 

 craea darwinia Butler, 1872, ibid. : 104, pi. 38, fig. 8. 



MIMADELIAS Moore, [1894], Lep. ind. 2 (18) : 144. Type-species by subsequent selection by 

 Moore ([1894], loc. cit. 2 (19) : 165-166) : Elymnias vasudeva Moore, 1857, in Horsfield & 

 Moore, Cat. lep. Ins. Mus. East India Coy (1) : 238. 



When establishing this genus in Part 18 of the Lep. ind., Moore gave a brief generic diagno- 

 sis, without citing any included species. This deficiency he made good in Part 19, where he 

 designated (: 166) the above species as type-species. 



