GENERIC NAMES OF BUTTERFLIES 



43 1 



TAXILA Doubleday, 1847, List Spec. lep. Ins. Brit. Mus. 2 : 2. Type-species by selection by 

 Scudder (1875, Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 276) : Emesis drupadi Horsfield 

 [1828], Descr. Cat. lep. Ins. Mus. East India Coy (1) : explic. pi. 2, figs 3, 3a. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Emesis drupadi Horsfield is currently treated 

 subjectively on taxonomic grounds as a subspecies of the taxon represented by the older 

 established nominal species Papilio haquinus Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst. 3 (1) : 55). 



TAYGETIS Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (4) : 55. Type-species by selection by 

 Butler (1868, Ent. num. Mag. 4 : 194) : Papilio virgilia Cramer, [1776], Uitl. Kapellen 1 (8) : 

 150, pi. 96, fig. C. 



Westwood in 1851 {in Doubleday, Gen. diurn. Lep. (2) : 356), in connection with this genus, 

 said o( Papilio mermeria Cramer, another of Hiibner's originally included species, that it " may 

 be considered as a good type of the genus " but this statement falls short of a selection of the 

 above species as " the " type-species and accordingly fails t<> qualify as a valid type-selection. 



TECUPA Swinhoe, 1917, Ami. Mag. not. Hist. (S) 20 : 410. Type-species by original desig- 

 nation : Tecupa curiosa Swinhoe, 1917, ibid. (8) 20 : 411. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Tecupa curiosa Swinhoe is curently treated 

 subjectively on taxonomic grounds as a subspecies of the taxon represented by the older- 

 established nominal species Apostictopterus fiiligino^us Leech, [Jan. 1894], (Butts China Japan 

 Corea (2) (text-pt 6) : 631, figure published in June 1894, ibid, (plate-pt 5) : pi. 38, fig 8 3"). 



TEINOPALPUS Hope, 1843, Trans, linn. Soc. Lond. 19 (2) : 13. Type-species by selection 

 by Scudder (1875, Proc. amer. Acad Arts Sci , Boston 10 : 276) : Teinopalpus imperialis 

 Hope, 1843, loc. cit. 19 (2) : 131, pi. 11, figs 1,2 



Hope regarded this genus as containing two nominal species both then described as new ; 

 the first was the above species, the second, Teinopalpus parryae (loc. cit. 19 (2) : 131, pi. n, 

 figs 3, 4 $). In 1846 (Gen. diurn. Lep. (1) : 2) Doubleday pointed out that these names 

 represent the different sexes of the same species, imperialis being based on the male and 

 parryae upon the female. These names, having been published on the same date in the 

 same work, depend for their relative precedence on the choice of the First Reviser ; this 

 choice was made in the above work by Doubleday when he gave precedence to the name 

 imperialis Hope over the name parryae Hope. 



Scudder erroneously supposed that Teinopalpus imperialis was the sole originally included 

 nominal species of Teinopalpus and therefore the type-species by monotypy. This misconcep- 

 tion of Scudder's does not however detract from the effectiveness of his action. 



TEINOPROSOPUS Felder (C.) & Felder (R.), 1864, Verli. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien. 14 : 289. Type- 

 species through Section (i) (replacement names) of Article 67 : Teinopalpus imperialis Hope, 

 1843, Trans, linn. Soc. Lond. 19 (2) : 131, pi. n, figs 1, 2. 



This name was introduced by the Felders as a replacement of the name Teinopalpus Hope 

 which they rejected on the ground that the word of which it was composed was of an in- 

 admissible mongrel origin. Under the Code (Article 18 (a)) a name cannot be rejected on 

 account of inappropriateness ; in consequence the replacement name Teinoprosopus is invalid, 

 becoming a junior objective synonym of Teinopalpus Hope. 



TEINORHINUS Watson, 1893, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1893 : 71, 78. Type-species by original 

 designation : Teinorhinus watsoni Holland, 1892, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) 10 : 292. 



This case resembles that of the name Osmodes ; in each case Watson communicated to 

 Holland a manuscript generic name of his and that name was published by Holland before being 

 published by Watson. In the case of Osmodes this misunderstanding had only the effect of 

 giving priority to Holland over Watson. The present case is more complicated, because the 

 name in question was published in different spellings, Holland in 1892 using the spelling 

 " Teniorhinus ", Watson in 1893, the spelling " Teinorhinus ". In each case the type-species 

 was Teinorhinus watsoni, in the case of Holland's version by monotypy in, that of Watson by 

 original designation. [Watson attributed the specific name watsoni to Holland but this does 



