334 FRANCIS HEMMING 



Hubner did not give his reasons when, as frequently happened, he published a replacement 

 name, and it is necessary therefore in each case to guess what those reasons were. In the 

 present case it may certainly be concluded that his reason for rejecting the name Papilio 

 areas Cramer was that he was aware that it was a junior homonym of the name Papilio areas 

 Drury, [1773] (///• nat. Hist. 1 : index et 38). In spite of having been quite correctly 

 replaced by Hubner [Pandemos arcassa), the invalid name areas remained in use for a long 

 time, being used, for example by Westwood as late as [1851] {in Doubleday, Gen. dinrn. Lep. 

 (2) : 440). Writing of Pandemos on that occasion, Westwood observed that " the typical 

 species " was areas. It appears however that Westwood here used the adjective " typical " 

 in a taxonomic sense and that he was not employing it in a nomenclatorial sense to denote 

 its selection by himself to be the type-species of the genus. In 1875 however Scudder 

 definitely selected Pandemos arcassa to be the type-species, and, as that is (as shown above) 

 nothing more than a replacement for Papilio areas Cramer, the action so taken by Scudder 

 is exactly the same as that which would have resulted if Westwood's action in 1851 had 

 constituted a valid type-selection. 



The taxon represented by Pandemos arcassa Hubner (and therefore also by the nominal 

 species bearing the rejected name Papilio areas Cramer) is currently treated subjectively on 

 taxonomic grounds as being the same as that represented by another Cramerian nominal 

 species, namely Papilio pasiphae Cramer, [1775] (Uitl. Kapellen 1 (7) : 127, pi. 80, fig. E), 

 and it is therefore by the specific name pasiphae Cramer that the species here in question is 

 currently known. 



PANDIMA Moore, [1893], Lep. ind. 2 (14) : 58. Type-species by original designation : 

 Satyrus nareda Kollar, [1844], in Hugel's Kashmir 4 (2) : 451. 



Moore briefly characterized this genus in a key and designated its type-species in Part 14 

 on the page cited above ; he gave a fuller diagnosis at the head of his treatment of this genus 

 in the following Part (15) : 86 published in the same year in the same volume. 



PANDITA Moore, 1857, in Horsfield & Moore, Cat. lep. Ins. Mus. East India Coy (1) : 181. 

 Type-species by monotypv : Pandita sinope Moore, 1857, in Horsfield & Moore, ibid. 

 (1) : 182-183. 



PANDORA Doubleday, [1848], Gen. diurn. Lep. (2) : pi. 43, fig. 5. Type-species by mono- 

 typy : Pandora prola Doubleday, [1848], ibid. (2) : pi. 43, fig. 5 [text ((2) : 300), written by 

 Westwood after Doubleday's death, published in 1850]. 



The name Pandora Doubleday is invalid under the Law of Homonymy, the word "Pandora" 

 having been used as the name for different genera by no less than seven earlier authors. 

 The names concerned are : (i) Pandora Bruguiere, 1797 (Ency. meth. Tabl. Vers : pi. 250) ; 

 (ii) Pandora Lamarck, 1799 (Mem. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1799 : 88) ; (iii) Pandora Megerle, 

 181 1 (Ges. Natur. Freund. Berlin. Mag. 5 (1) : 59) ; (iv) Pandora Eschscholtz, 1829 (Syst. 

 Acalephen : 39) ; (v) Pandora Haliday, 1833 (Ent. Mag. 1 (2) : 169) ; (vi) Pandora Oken, 1835 

 (Allgem. Naturg. 5 (1) : 312) ; (vii) Pandora Chevrolet, 1843 (Diet. univ. Hist. nat. 3 : 656), 

 The name Pandora Doubleday has been replaced by the name Panacea Godman & Salvin, 

 [1883]. 



PANDORIANA Warren, 1942, Entomologist 75 : 245-246. Type-species by original desig- 

 nation : Papilio maja Cramer, [1775], Uitl. Kapellen 1 (1) : 39, pi. 25, figs B, C. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Papilio maja Cramer is currently treated 

 subjectively on taxonomic grounds as being a subspecies of the same taxon as that repre- 

 sented by the nominal species Papilio pandora [Denis & Schiffermuller], 1775 (Ankiindung 

 [sic] eines syst. Werkes Schmett. Wiener Gegend : 176). As the species-group names maja 

 and pandora were both published in 1775, there was no means of determining which should be 

 treated as the elder of these two names until in 1958 the Commission in its Opinion 516 settled 

 the relative precedence to be accorded to names published in 1775 in a number of works, 

 including the Ankiindung of Denis & Schiffermuller and the portions of Cramer's Uitl. 

 Kapellen published in that year. Under the Ruling so given precedence was given to names 



