398 FRANCIS HEMMING 



mission in rejecting the Tentamen for nomenclatorial purposes by the Ruling given in its 

 Opinion 97. The action so taken was completed, so far as the present name is concerned, by 

 the Commission in 1954 when by its Opinion 278 it placed Rusticits Hiibner of the Tentamen 

 on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 85. 



If the name Ritsticus Htibner of the Tentamen had been a duly available name, it would 

 have been invalid as a junior objective synonym of Plebejus Kluk, 1802. 



RUSTICUS Hiibner, [1807], Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : pis [102], [104]. Type-species by 

 selection by Hemming (1934, Entomologist 67 : 156) : Papilio gnidus Fabricius, 1787, Man- 

 tissa Ins. 2 : 64. 



The rejection by the Commission of Hubner's Tentamen and the consequent rejection of the 

 new names introduced in it made it necessary to re-examine the literature in order to deter- 

 mine by whom, when and where the names in question were first subsequently published. 

 In the case of the name Rusticus, it was found that it was first subsequently published by 

 Hiibner on the legends of nine plates in volume 1 of his work the Sammlung exotischer Schmet- 

 terlinge. At the time when the relative dates of publication of these plates were not known 

 and it was necessary in consequence to treat them all as having been published on the same 

 date, I selected (1933, Entomologist 66 : 199) as the type-species of Rusticus the nominal 

 species Rusticus calanus Hiibner, depicted on Hubner's plate [100] of the Sammlung. With 

 the acquisition of additional information it was found that pi. [100] figuring the above 

 species was published in 1809 but that two of the plates figuring species referred to Rusticus 

 in the Sammlung had been published in 1807. This discovery, showed that Rusticus calanus 

 (figured on pi. [100]) was not one of the originally included species of this genus and therefore 

 that its selection (1933) as type-species was invalid. In order to correct the position, I 

 thereupon (1934) selected Papilio gnidus Fabricius, shown on pi. [104], the second of the two 

 plates published in 1807 to be the type-species of this genus. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Papilio gnidus Fabricius is currently treated 

 subjectively on taxonomic grounds as being congeneric with the taxon represented by the 

 nominal species Papilio cupido Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 482), the type-species 

 of Helicopis Fabricius, 1807. This at once brought up a doubt as to the relative precedence 

 to be accorded to the generic names Rusticus Hiibner and Helicopis Fabricius, both — as was 

 now seen — having been published in the same year (1807) on unknown dates. The name 

 Helicopis is a very well-known name, whereas Rusticus, as applied in this sense was virtually 

 unknown. Accordingly, in 1935 a request was submitted to the Commission for a Ruling 

 securing that precedence should be given to Helicopis Fabricius over Rusticus Hiibner. 

 This request was granted by a Ruling given under the Plenary Powers in the Commission's 

 Opinion 137 published in 1942. In 1954 the Commission completed and clarified the action 

 taken in this case by a Ruling given in its Direction 4, in which it expressly ruled that Rusticus 

 Hiibner (of the Sammlung) was to be treated as having been suppressed under the Plenary 

 Powers for the purposes of the Law of Priority in Opinion 137, but not for those of the Law of 

 Homonymy. At the same time the name Rusticus Hiibner, [1807], so suppressed, was 

 placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 213. 



SABALASSA Moore, 1883, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1883 : 217. Type-species by monotypy : 

 Hestia electra Semper, 1878, Verh. Ver. Naturw. Unterh. (HeimatForsch.) Hamburg 3 : 106. 



SABANIA Moore, [1898], Lep. ind. 3 (32) : 146. Type-species by original designation ; 

 Athyma speciosa Staudinger, 1889, Iris 2 (1) : 70. 



When establishing this nominal genus, Moore designated a type-species but did not provide 

 a generic diagnosis. This deficiency was made good by Moore later in the same year ([1898], 

 loc. cit. 3 (37) : 208). 



This generic name was formerly considered to be invalid, as being a junior homonym of 



