GENERIC NAMES OF BUTTERFLIES 427 



cited, though with a mark of interrogation, figs A & B on Cramer's pi. 6 (i.e. the figures of the 

 syntypes of Papilio jairns Cramer), together with his own figures on pi. [84] of volume 1 of the 

 Samml. exot. Schmett. For his second nominal species, Tenaris nysa, Hiibner cited only the 

 three figs (A, B, & C) given by Cramer on his pi. 185 on the second occasion on which he dealt 

 with what he still called by the name Papilio joints. It is not easy to understand the basis 

 of the grouping adopted by Hiibner, for the two sets of syntypes of his Tenaris jaira consisted 

 respectively of the palest and darkest forms (Cramer's and pi. 6 Hiibner's own plate) of the 

 species named Papilio jairits by Cramer on the basis of his plate 6, while Hiibner's Tenaris 

 nysa based on Cramer's figures on his plate 185, is also a dark form but one much less dark 

 than the specimen which Hiibner had figured and which (as shown above) he included in his 

 Tenaris jaira in the Verzeichniss. It is currently considered that all the forms shown on the 

 plates discussed above are referable to a single species, namely Papilio jairus Cramer. It is 

 further considered that the taxon represented by the foregoing nominal species is the same 

 as that represented by the older-established nominal species Papilio urania Linnaeus, 1758 

 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 466). From the diagnosis given by Linnaeus it is clear that the form 

 represented by Linnaeus' specimen (in Queen Ludovico Ulrica's collection) was the pale one 

 shown on Cramer's plate 6. 



Scudder (1875, Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 274), made a type selection which, 

 though comprehensible viewed from the taxonomic point of view, was invalid nomenclatorially. 

 In the paper in question Scudder adopted (or species the synonymies established by Kirby in 

 1871 in his Syn. Cat. diurn. Lep. and accordingly in the present case he adopted the specific 

 name urania Linnaeus, to which he sank the names of the two species recognized by Hiibner 

 (jaira and nysa) as synonyms ; on this basis Scudder designated mania Linnaeus as the type- 

 species of Taenaris. This action is invalid, for the name urania Linnaeus was not cited at all 

 by Hiibner in connection with the name Taenaris. Nor can the fact that, when he designated 

 the non-included species urania Linnaeus as type-species, he cited as synonyms of urania 

 Linnaeus the names of the nominal species that were actually placed in this genus by Hiibner 

 he held to have validated Scudder's action, for under Article 69 (a) (iv) a type-selection made 

 in this way through synonymizing an included nominal species with a non-included species 

 (such as urania Linnaeus) is valid only if the author making the type-selection synonymizes 

 in this way one but not more than one of the included nominal species, for, as has been seen, 

 Scudder cited as synonyms of urania the names of two — that is, of both — Hiibner's included 

 nominal species. Scudder's action was however adopted by later authors who accepted 

 Papilio urania Linnaeus as the type-species of Taenaris, and that genus is still interpreted in 

 this sense to the present day. Nevertheless, from a nomenclatorial point of view this genus 

 remained without a validly fixed type-species, until the species cited at the head of the present 

 note was selected by myself. 



When I came to consider which of Hiibner's nominal species was the most suitable for selec- 

 tion as type-species, I decided against that author's nominal species Tenaris jaira, for (as 

 already noted) Hiibner included under it the reference to Cramer's plate 6 with a note of 

 interrogation — thus rendering the specimens represented by the figures on that plate ineligible 

 for selection to represent the lectotype, while the specimen shown on Hiibner's own plate (the 

 only other figure which he cited) represented a very melanic form and was therefore unsuitable 

 for selection to represent the lectotype. I therefore decided in favour of selecting as the type- 

 species of the genus Taenaris the second of the two nominal species cited by Hiibner as be- 

 longing to this genus, namely Tenaris nysa. The three figures given by Cramer on his plate 

 185, on which this nominal species was based, showed considerable differences as between 

 one another, and I therefore decided to select the specimen represented by one of these figures 

 to represent the lectotype of that species, before selecting the species itself to be the type- 

 species of the genus Taenaris. For this purpose I selected the specimen represented by fig. A 

 on Cramer's plate 185. 



TAGATA Moore, 1883, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1883 : 281. Type-species by monotypy : 

 Euploea abjecta 1866, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1866 : 299. 



