GENERIC NAMES OF BUTTERFLIES 391 



with a brief description and the citation of two bibliographical references. The question of 

 the interpretation of the Linnaean data was examined by Evans in 1940 (J. X.Y. ent. Soc. 

 48 : 405-411), who pointed out (1) that the actual description given by Linnaeus might 

 apply either to the American " bixae " or to the African " bixae ", those species being 

 superficially indistinguishable, (2) considered that the insect figured by Merian on plate 44 

 in the first of the references cited by Linnaeus should be regarded as being the American 

 " bixae ", in view especially of the American locality (Surinam) given by Merian, and (3) 

 observed that the Petiver specimen cited in the second of the references given by Linnaeus 

 represented an entirely different species, namely Papilio tityrus Fabricius, 1775, a species 

 currently placed in the genus Epargyreus Hiibner, [1819]. On this basis Evans concluded 

 that it was the American " bixae " and not the African " bixae " to which the name Papilio 

 bixae Linnaeus, 1758, was properly applicable. At the same time he cited the figures of the 

 male genitalia of Pyrrhopyga [sic] latifasciata Butler, 1873 (Cist. ent. 1 : 176) published by 

 Bell in 1931 (/. A T . Y. ent. Soc. 39 : 485) as being identical with those of Papilio bixae, as 

 identified by himself, the taxa bearing these names being, in his opinion, conspecific with one 

 another. Evans's solution of the " bixae " problem clearly fitted the known facts better 

 than any other and was the best calculated to promote nomenclatorial stability. Never- 

 theless, the situation could not be regarded as being fully protected, so long as the nominal 

 species Papilio bixae Linnaeus remained a nominal species based upon syntypes belonging to 

 at least two different species. Accordingly, in [964 [Annot. lep. (3) : no) I selected the 

 specimen figured by Merian on her plate 44 (the figure relied upon by Evans for his identifica- 

 tion) to be the lectotype of Papilio bixae Linnaeus. 



When in 195 1 (Cat. amer. Hesp. Brit. Mits. 1 : 8—9) Evans considered the Pyrrhopyge- 

 group as a whole, he re-affirmed his earlier view that the taxa represented by the name 

 bixae Linnaeus and latifasciata Butler were conspecific with one another. Further, he 

 treated both these taxa as subspecies of the taxon represented by the nominal species Papilio 

 phidias Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 485). This close association of bixae Linnaeus 

 with phidias Linnaeus may be open to question on taxonomic grounds, for, as Evans himself 

 admitted, these taxa differ from one .mother in the form of the male genitalia. This action 

 by Evans (: 7) is however of importance from a nomenclatorial point of view, for, as the 

 specific names bixae Linnaeus and phidias Linnaeus were published on the same date in the 

 same work, Evans's action constitutes a First Reviser choice, according precedence to the 

 specific name phidias Linnaeus over the name bixae Linnaeus. 



It may be useful to note that the African species long known as " bixae " Linnaeus remained 

 without a name of its own until in 1940 (/. N.Y. ent. Soc. 48 : 411) Evans gave it the name 

 Coeliades bixana, basing it upon the description and figures which he had given of it in 1937 

 (Cat. Afr. Hesp. Brit. Mas. : 1 1, pi. 8, fig. C (bixae) (3 figs of q* genit.)) w r hen he still believed 

 that it was the species to which Linnaeus had given the specific name bixae, Evans then 

 calling this species Coeliades bixae (Linnaeus). Finally, it must be observed that the so- 

 called African " bixae " is not currently treated as belonging to the genus Pywhopyge Hiibner, 

 [1819]. Indeed, the subfamily Pyrrhopyginae, of which Pyrrhopyge is the type-genus, is now 

 considered to be exclusively Neotropical in its distribution. The genus Coeliades Hiibner, 

 1818, to which the African " bixae " , i.e. bixana Evans, is currently referred, is now placed 

 in a small separate subfamily, the Coeliadinae, to which only seven genera are currently 

 referred, two of these (including Coeliades) being confined to Tropical Africa, the remainder 

 having their headquarters in the Indo-Oriental Region with (except in one case) extensions 

 into the Palaearctic Region. 



PYRRHOPYGOPSIS Godman, [1901], in Godman & Salvin, Biol, centr.-amer. Lep.-Rhop. 

 2 : 634. Type-species by original designation : Pyrrhopyga [sic] socrates Menetri6s, 

 1855, Ennm. Corp. Anim. Mus. imp. Acad. Sci. Petrop., Class. Ins. 1 : 96, pi. 4, fig. 8. 



PYRRHOSIDIA Scudder, 1874, Mem. Boston Soc. nat. Hist 2 : 346 nota. Type-species by 

 original designation : Hesperia mystic Edwards, 1863, Proc. ent. Soc. Philad. 2 : 15, pi. 1, 

 figs 3 6\ 4 ?• 



