4 i2 FRANCIS HEMMING 



SIMOETHUS Boisduval, 1832, in d'Urville, Voy. " Astrolabe ", Faune ent. 1 (Lepid.) : 72 (an 

 Unjustified Emendation of Symetha Horsfield, [1829]). 



SIMPLICIA Verity, 1953, Le Farfalle diurn. a" Italia 5 : 194. Type-species by original desig- 

 nation : Papilio epiphron Knoch, 1783, Beitr. Insektengesch. 3 : 131, pi. 6, fig. 7 $. 



The name Simplicia Verity is invalid, as it is a junior homonym of Simplicia Guenee, 1854 

 (Hist. nat. Ins., Spec. gen. Lepid. 8 : 51), a name given to a genus of moths. 



SINARISTA Weymer, 1909, Ent. Z. 23 (37) : 164. Type-species by monotypy : Sinarista 

 adoptiva Weymer, 1909, ibid. 23 (37) : 164. 



SINCANA Moore, [1896], Lep. ind. 3 (25) : 13. Type-species by original designation : 

 Apatura fulva Leech, 1891, Entomologist 24, Suppl. : 30. 



It is currently considered subjectively on taxonomic grounds that the nominal species 

 Apatura fulva Leech represents the male of the taxon, to the female of which Leech on the 

 same occasion gave the name Apatura subcaerulea (loc. tit. 24, Suppl. : 29-30). As these 

 specific names were published on the same date and in the same paper, the relative precedence 

 to be accorded to them depends on the choice of the First Reviser. The first author to estab- 

 lish the foregoing synonymy was Oberthur (1906, Etud. Lepid. comp. 2 : 19-20), but neither he 

 nor his immediate successors made a definite First Reviser choice as between these names. 

 The first author to do so was Fruhstorfer when in 1909 (Ent. Z. 23 : 40), acting as First 

 Reviser, he gave precedence to the name Apatura fulva Leech over the name Apatura sub- 

 caerulea Leech, sinking the name subcaerulea Leech as a junior subjective synonym of fulva 

 Leech. 



A similar First Reviser problem arises at the genus-name level, for the name Sincana 

 Moore was published on the same date and in the same work as Dravira Moore ([1896], Lep. 

 ind. 3 (25) : 14), the type-species of which is Potamis ulupi Doherty, which is currently 

 treated subjectively on taxonomic grounds as representing the same taxon as that represented 

 by the nominal species Apatura fulva Leech, the type-species of Sincana Moore. In these 

 circumstances, the relative precedence to be accorded to these generic names depends there- 

 fore on the choice of the First Reviser. Owing probably to the fact that the taxon represented 

 by the nominal species Potamis ulupi Doherty has been widely treated as belonging to the genus 

 Apatura Fabricius, for example Evans, though he accepted Dravira Moore as the name for a 

 taxonomically valid subgenus of Apatura, did not mention Sincana and his action therefore 

 does not constitute a First Reviser's choice in favour of Dravira. In 1964 (Annot. lep. (3) : 79) 

 I made such a choice, sinking Sincana Moore as a junior subjective synonym of Dravira Moore. 



SINCHULA Moore, [1892], Lep. ind. 1 (12) : 275. Type-species by original designation : 

 Debis sidonis Hewitson [1863], ///. exot. Butts 3 : [77], pi. [39], fig. 16. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Debis sidonis Hewitson is considered to be 

 closely allied to the nominal species Neope callipteris Butler, 1877 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (4) 

 19 : 92), the type-species of the genus Harima Moore. As these generic names were published 

 on the same date in the same work, the relative precedence to be accorded to them depends on 

 the choice of the First Reviser. This choice was made in 1964 (Annot. lep. (3) : 78) when I 

 gave precedence to the name Sinchula Moore over the name Harima Moore, sinking Harima as 

 a junior subjective synonym. 



SINIA Forster, 1940, Mitt, munchn. ent. Ges. 30 (3) : 875, 876. Type-species by original 

 designation : Glaucopsyche (Sinia) leechi Forster, 1940, ibid. 30(3) : 875.pl. 22, figs 6 <$ 

 7 $ (ups.), pi. 23, figs 6 5*, 7$ (unds. of specimens figured under the same numbers of pi. 22). 



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

 itis ciocolatina Poujade, 1885, Ann. Soc. ent. Fr. (6) 5, Bull. : ccvii. 



When establishing this nominal genus, Poujade designated a type-species, but did not give 

 a generic diagnosis. This omission he made good in the immediately following Part of his 

 work ([1898], loc. tit. 3 (33) : 172). 



