364 FRANCIS HEMMING 



The name Pistoria was introduced as a replacement for the name Mambara Bethune- 

 Baker, 1908, which is invalid under the Law of Homonymy. 



PITHAURIA Moore, [1879], Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1878 (3) : 689. Type-species by mono- 

 typy : Ismene murdava Moore, [1866], Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1865 (3) : 784. 



PITHA URIOPSIS Wood-Mason & de Niceville, 1886, /. asiat. Soc. Bengal, Pt II, 55 (4) : 387. 

 Type-species by Lindsey (1925, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 18 : 97) : Pithauriopsis aitchisoni 

 Wood-Mason & de Niceville, 1886, loc. cit., Pt. II, 55 (4) : 387, pi. 15, fig. 4 $. 



Wood-Mason & de Niceville included in this genus two species, Pithauriopsis aitchisoni 

 Wood-Mason & de Niceville and another. Lindsey, overlooking the second species, believed 

 that Pithauriopsis aitchisoni was the sole included species and on this basis stated erroneously 

 that it was the type-species by monotypy. In accordance with a principle since incorporated 

 in the Code as Article 69(a) (iii) Shepard in 1931 {Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 24 : 175) observed 

 correctly that Lindsey 's (1925) action constituted a valid type-fixation, notwithstanding the 

 fact that it was based upon erroneous premises. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Pithauriopsis aitchisoni Wood-Mason & 

 de Niceville is currently treated subjectively on taxonomic grounds as being the same as that 

 represented by the older-established nominal species Hesperia marsena Hewitson, 1866 

 [Trans, ent. Soc. Lond. (3) 2 : 498). 



PITHECOPS Horsfield, [1828], Descr. Cat. lep. Ins. Mus. East India Coy (1) : 66. Type- 

 species proposed to be designated by the Commission under its Plenary Powers : Pithecops 

 hylax Horsfield, [1828], ibid. (1) : pi. 1, fig. 2 (a taxon (a) bearing a name proposed to be 

 validated by the Commission under the above Powers and (b) having, by similar designation, 

 as the representative of its holotype the specimen figured by Horsfield as fig. 2 on plate 1 in 

 the work cited above). 



The genus Pithecops Horsfield was established on the basis of a misidentified type-species 

 in circumstances which are very unusual in the sense that Horsfield 's mistake, which has 

 been followed by all subsequent authors and is still currently followed, only came to light in 

 1940. The circumstances attending this case are set out below. 



As established by Horsfield, the genus Pithecops contained one nominal species, Papilio 

 hylax Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 526), which he described and figured ( : 66, pi. 1, fig. 2) and, 

 as pointed out by myself in 1934 (Gen. Names hoi. Butts 1 : 105-106), four other species 

 mentioned incidentally as belonging to this genus. Scudder in 1875 (Proc. amer. Acad. Arts 

 Sci., Boston 10 : 252) overlooked these latter species and erroneously considered that Papilio 

 hylax Fabricius was the sole included species and therefore the type-species by monotypy. 

 This misconception on his part does not however invalidate his action in stating that Papilio 

 hylax is the type-species of this genus. 



Between the publication by Fabricius of the name Papilio hylax and the appearance of 

 Horsfield's book in 1828 that name was used by only two authors ; these were, first, Donovan 

 (1800, Ins. India : pi. 46, fig. 2) who published a crude figure which is unrecognizable, and 

 second, Godart ([1824], Ency. melh. 9 (Ins.) (2) : 701), who also came to the conclusion that, 

 as described by Fabricius, this species was unrecognizable. The next author to use the 

 specific name hylax was Horsfield who gave an excellent figure of the well-known species 

 found from Sikkim to Burma, figured most recently by Evans in 1932 (Ident. Ind. Butts : 

 pi. 27, fig. 16/2). This interpretation of Papilio hylax was followed by every subsequent 

 writer until in 1940 (Entomologist 73 : 276) it was shown by Corbet to be absolutely incorrect. 

 In writing his note on this subject Corbet was assisted in having had access to a specimen in 

 the Copenhagen Museum labelled " hylax " in what the authorities of that Museum believed 

 to be the handwriting of Fabricius. This syntype was shown by Corbet to be a specimen 

 of Lycaena gaika Trimen, 1862 (Trans, ent. Soc. Lond. (3) 1 : 403), a species which by original 

 designation is the type-species of the genus Zizula Chapman, 1910 (Trans, ent. Soc. Lond. 

 1910 : 483). Corbet concluded his paper by noting that the oldest available name for the 

 taxon clearly described and figured by Horsfield under the misapplied name hylax Fabricius 



