GENERIC NAMES OF BUTTERFLIES 349 



PEGADA Moore, [1892], Lep. ind. 1 (10) : 224 nota. Type-species by original designation : 

 Mycalesis oculatissima Poujade, 1885, Bull. Soc. ent. Fr. 1885 : xxiv. 



PELEUS Swainson, [1831], Zool. Illustr. (2) 2 (16) : pi. 75 Type-species by original desig- 

 nation : Papilio peleits Linnaeus, 1763, Amoen. acad. 6 : 409. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Papilio peleus Linnaeus is currently identified 

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

 lished nominal species Papilio priassus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 487). 



The name Peleus Swainson is invalid, both because it is a junior homonym of Peleus 

 Rafinesque, 1815 (Analyse Nature : 99) and because it is a junior objective synonym of 

 Entheus Hiibner, [1819]. 



PELIA Doubleday, [9th July 1849], Gen. diurn. Lep. (1) : 229, pi. 30, fig. 3. Type-species by 

 monotypy : Papilio lamis Cramer, [1779], Uitl. Kapellen 3 (20) : 77, pi. 238, fig. E. 



The name Pelia Doubleday is invalid, as it is a junior homonym of Pelia Bell, 1836 (Proc. 

 zool. Soc. Lond. 3 (35) : 170). It has been replaced by the name Peria Kirby, 1871. 



PELION Kirby, 1858, List Brit. Rhop. [not seen ; page no., if any, not known]. Type-species 

 by monotypy : Papilio linea [Denis & Schiffermuller], 1775, Ankiindung [sic] eines syst. 

 Werkes Schrnett. Wiener Gegend : 160. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Papilio linea [Denis & Schiffermuller] is 

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

 by the older-established nominal species Papilio sylveslris Poda, 1761 [Ins. Mus. graec. : 79). 

 No copy is known of the pamphlet — as it appears to have been — in which the name Pelion 

 Kirby was published. This pamphlet was marked as having been " seen " in Horn & 

 Schenkling's Index Lift, entom. (2) : 634, but the late Dr. Walther Horn informed me (in lilt., 

 2nd October 1933) that this entry in the Index was due to a mistake, Kirby's pamphlet not in 

 fact having been seen by the compilers of the Index. Dr. Horn added that there was no 

 copy of this pamphlet in any of the great libraries in Berlin. At the same time he kindly 

 promised to try to find out if a copy existed in any of the smaller cities in Germany. The 

 investigations so undertaken proved however to be fruitless. In the same letter Dr. Horn 

 explained that the information relating to this pamphlet given in the Index compiled by 

 Schenkling and himself was based on particulars obtained from Taschenberg. It is worth 

 noting that the meagre entry relating to this pamphlet contains two scraps of information 

 only found there. These are (i) that the pamphlet was an octave of five pages and (ii) that it 

 was published at Brighton. This second point suggests the possibility that this List was 

 compiled by Kirby, who in 1858 was only fourteen years of age, and printed locally for some 

 special purpose, connected possibly with the school which he was then attending or perhaps 

 for some competition in which he was a candidate. In any case the fact that this List was 

 printed at a seaside town, far from scientific libraries is probably the chief reason for the fact 

 that no copy can now be traced. Further, the fact that no copy was deposited in the copy- 

 right library at the British Museum creates the presumption that the List was printed privately 

 for some special purpose. 



For the information that Papilio linea [Denis & Schiffermuller] was included in this genus 

 and was the only nominal species so included we are indebted to Scudder (1875, Proc. amer 

 Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 243). This is of particular interest owing to the fact that, if the 

 List was intended — as its supposed title suggests — to cover the whole of the British butterfly 

 fauna, it is hardly possible to believe that the two other closely allied species (Papilio acteon 

 Rottemburg, 1775 ; Papilio lineola Ochsenheimer, 1808) still currently treated as being 

 congeneric with Papilio linea would have been placed in some different genus by the youthful 

 Kirby over a hundred years ago. On the other hand, the omission of these two species from 

 the genus Pelion is immediately explicable if the List set out merely to enumerate the species 

 found in the neighbourhood of Brighton (where it was printed), for Papilio linea is the only 

 one of the three species concerned found anywhere in the County of Sussex. This con- 

 sideration greatly strengthens the theory already outlined that the List was privately printed 

 for some special purpose. 



