436 FRANCIS HEMMING 



TEXOLA Higgins, [1959], Lepid. News 12 (5/6) : 161. Type-species by original designation : 

 Eresia elada Hewitson, [1868], III. exot. Butts 4 : [33], pi. [19], figs 54, 55. 



THADUCA Scudder, 1882, Nomencl. zool., univ. Index : 315 (an Unjustified Emendation of 

 Thaduka Moore, [1879]). 



THADUKA Moore, [April, 1879], Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1878 (4) : 836. Type-species by 

 monotypy : Thaduka multicaudata Moore, [1879], ibid. 1878 (4) : 836, pi. 52, fig. 7. 



THAIS Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 283. Type-species by monotypy : 

 Papilio hypsipyle Fabricius, 1777, Gen. Ins. : 265. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Papilio hypsipyle Fabricius is currently 

 treated subjectively on taxonomic grounds as being the same as that represented by the 

 nominal species Papilio polyxena [Denis & Schiffermuller], 1775 [Ankilndung eines syst. 

 Werkes Schmett. Wiener Gegend : 162). The taxon concerned has had a most unfortunate 

 nomenclatorial history. For the greater part of the period since 1775 it has been known by 

 the specific name polyxena [Denis & Schiffermuller] but it was not until 1958 that the position 

 of that name as the oldest available specific name for it was finally established by action 

 taken by the Commission. A full account of the nomenclatorial vicissitudes of this taxon 

 was published by myself in i960 (Annot. lep. (2) : 63-65). It is necessary here only to note 

 the twofold action by the Commission in this case : (1) In the late nineteen-thirties it came to 

 light in a passage published by Esper in 1780 that on some unknown previous date Pallas 

 had published a description of this species under the name Papilio aristolochiae. In spite 

 of the most careful search (which was joined in by the late Dr. C. D. Sherborn) it proved 

 impossible to trace in the works of Pallas the detailed description of his Papilio aristolochiae. 

 Nevertheless, there remained the possibility that at some later date the passage in Pallas 

 which then eluded discovery might come to light. If, as was probable, that name was pub- 

 lished before 1775 the most serious results would have ensued ; for not only would that long- 

 forgotten name have become the oldest available name for the present Zerynthiid species, 

 but in addition — and far more serious — the name Papilio aristolochiae Fabricius, 1775, 

 habitually used for a very well-known Oriental Papilionid, would have become invalid under 

 the Law of Homonymy. To obviate this risk the Commission in 1954 (Opin. int. Comm. zool. 

 Nom. 5 : 355-366) approved in its Opinion 265 a request that the specific name aristolochiae, 

 as used by Pallas in the combination Papilio aristolochiae on any date prior to the publication 

 of the same binomen by Fabricius in 1775 should be suppressed. At the same time the 

 specific name aristolochiae Pallas was placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 

 Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 22. (2) The other doubt as to the availability of 

 the name Papilio polyxena [Denis & Schiffermuller] arose from the fact that in the same 

 year as that in which that name was published the same binomen was published by 

 Cramer ([1775] {Uitl. Kapellen 1 (5) : 85, pi. 54, figs A, B), and there existed no means for 

 determining the relative dates of publication of the works in which these names were 

 published. This difficulty was overcome by the action of the Commission in 1958 (loc. 

 cit. 19 : 1-44) when in its Opinion 516 used its Plenary Powers to determine the relative 

 precedence to be accorded to the two works cited above and to certain other works 

 published in 1775. In that Opinion it granted, inter alia, precedence to the Ankilndung of 

 Denis & Schiffermuller over the portions of Cramer's Uitl. Kapellen published in the same 

 year. Thus at last, the name Papilio polyxena [Denis & Schiffermuller], 1775, was firmly 

 established as an available name. As the oldest such name subjectively applicable to the 

 present taxon, it thereupon became its taxonomically valid name. 



The name Thais Fabricius is invalid, as it is a junior homonym of the name Thais [Roding], 

 1798 (Mus. Bolten. 2 : 54). (See also the note on the name Zerynthia Ochsenheimer, 1816.) 



THAITES Scudder, 1875, Mem. amer. Ass. Adv. Sci. 1 : 57. Type-species by monotypy : 

 Thaites ruminiana Scudder, 1875, ibid. 1 : 57. 



This name was attributed by Scudder to Heer in manuscript on the above occasion, but in 

 1882 (Nomencl. zool., Suppl. List : 330) he correctly attributed it to himself. Prior to being 



