GENERIC NAMES OF BUTTERFLIES 293 



MIMAMBRIX Riley, 1923, Entomologist 56 : 37. Type-species by original designation : 

 Mimambrix woolletti Riley, 1923, ibid. 56 : 37. 



M1MARGYRA Reuss, 1922, Arch. Naturgesch. 87 (1921) (A) 11 : 221. Type-species by 

 original designation : Papilio hyperbius Linnaeus, 1763, Amoen. acad. 6 : 408. 



The name Papilio niphe was given by Linnaeus in 1767 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 785) to 

 what is undoubtedly the same taxon, the Latin diagnosis then provided being identical with 

 that given for Papilio hyperbius in 1 763, except for two trifling verbal changes (the substitution 

 of the word ' ' albida ' ' for the word ' ' alba "in the second phrase ; the substitution of the words 

 " ocellis quinque " for the words " quinque ocellatis " at the end of the final phrase). There 

 can be no doubt that from Linnaeus's point of view the name Papilio niphe was a replacement 

 name for his Papilio hyperbius of 1763 : it may certainly be concluded also that his reason 

 for this action was to preserve the name Papilio hyperbius published by him a year later 

 (1764, Mus.Lud. Ulr. : 257), while making available a new specific name (niphe) for the present 

 Nymphalid species. Although for all practical purposes the name Papilio niphe Linnaeus 

 1763, is a replacement name for Papilio hyperbius Linnaeus, 1763, Linnaeus in 1767 made no 

 express statement to this effect. Accordingly, the nominal species bearing these names must 

 be regarded for nomenclatorial purposes as separate units independently established. The 

 relevance of this matter to the present case resides in the fact that, while, as shown above, the 

 present genus (Mimargyra) has Papilio hyperbius Linnaeus, 1763, as its type-species, the 

 older genus Argyreus Sopoli, 1777, has as its type-species the nominal species Papilio niphe 

 Linnaeus, 1767. Thus, if the foregoing nominal species had been objectively identical with 

 one another the name Mimargyra Reuss would have been invalid as a junior objective syno- 

 nym of Argyreus Scopoli. On the assumption here adopted (namely that the above nominal 

 species were established as separate units brought into existence independently of one another) , 

 the two nominal genera discussed above have different nominal species as their respective 

 type-species, and accordingly the Mimargyra Reuss is an available name. 



MIMAS de Niceville, 1895, /. Bombay nal. Hist. Soc. 9 (4) : 391. Type-species by original 



designation : Ismene miltias Kirsch, 1877, Mitt. zool. anthrop .-ethnograph. Mus. Dresden 1 : 



128, pi. 7, fig. 6. 



The name Mimas de Niceville is invalid, as it is a junior homonym (a) of Mimas Hiibner, 



[1819] (Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (9) : 142), and (b) of Mimas Megerle, 1820 (in Meigen, Syst. 



Beschr. Zweifl. Ins. 2 : 174). 

 MIMATHYMA Moore, [1896], Lep. ind. 3 (25) : 8. Type-species by original designation : 



Athyma chevana Moore, [1866], Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1865 (3) : 763, pi. 41, fig. 1. 



MIMBYASA Evans, 191 2, /. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 21 : 972. Type-species by selection by 

 Swinhoe (1913, in Moore, Lep. ind. 10 (123) : 346) : Papilio janaka Moore, 1857, in Horsfield 

 & Moore, Cat. lep. Ins. Mus. East India Coy (1) : 97. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Papilio janaka Moore is currently treated 

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

 older-established nominal species Papilio bootes Westwood, March 1842, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist 

 9 : 36 [republished by Moore as new in July 1842, Arcana ent. 1 (8) : 123, pi. 31, 2 unnumbered 

 figs]. 



MIMENE Joicey & Talbot, 1917, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (8) 20 : 225. Type-species through 

 Section (i) (replacement names) of Article 67 : Ismene miltias Kirsch, 1877, Mitt. zool. 

 anthr op. -enthno graph. Mus. Dresden 1 : 128, pi. 7, fig. 6. 



The name Mimene Joicey & Talbot was introduced as a replacement for the name Mimas 

 de Niceville, 1895, which is invalid under the Law of Homonymy. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species which is the type-species of the present genus 

 is currently treated subjectively on taxonomic grounds — for example, by Evans, 1949, Cat. 

 Hesp. Europ. Asia Austral. : 430 — as being congeneric with Biaka albidiscus Joicey & Talbot, 

 1917, the type-species of the genus Biaka Joicey & Talbot, 1917. The generic names Mimene 

 & Biaka are thus on the foregoing basis subjective synonyms of one another, and, as these 



