GENERIC NAMES OF BUTTERFLIES 445 



TISIPHONE Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (4) : 60. Type-species by selection by 

 Scudder (1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. ArtsSci., Boston 10 : 284) : Oreas zelinde Hiibner, [1808], 

 Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : pi. [92]. 



This generic name has had an unfortunate history but fortunately the errors of the past have 

 been corrected and the correct use of the name is now well-established. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Oreas zelinde Hiibner is currently treated 

 subjectively on taxonomic grounds as being the same as that represented by the older- 

 established nominal species Papilio abeona Donovan, 1805, {Epitome nat. Hist. Ins. New 

 Holland : pi. 22, fig. 1 et explic). 



The first attempt to select a type-species for this genus was made by Butler in February 

 1868 (Ent. mon. Mag. 4 : 194), the species he selected being Tisiphone hercyna Hiibner, [1821] 

 {Samml. exot. Schmett. 2 : pi. [86]). That selection was invalid, because Tisiphone hercyna was 

 not included in the genus Tisiphone when it was established in the Verzeichniss ; indeed, as 

 will be seen from the dates cited above the name Tisiphone hercyna was not published until 

 two years after the publication of the generic name Tisiphone. In spite of this, the name 

 Tisiphone was for long treated in the above manner, and it was not until [1904] (in YVystman's 

 facsimile ed. of Hiibner Samml. exot. Schmett. 3, Additional Notes : 57) that the genus to which 

 it had been so long misapplied was provided with a nomenclatorially available name by Kirby 

 who introduced for it the name Manataria. 



The next attempt to select a type-species for Tisiphone was made once more by Butler a 

 few months later in July 1868 (Cat diurn. Lep. Satyridae Brit. Mus. : 71). Here Butler in 

 the main text relating to Tisiphone, printed at the head of page 71, repe ited that the type of 

 this was Tisiphone hercyna, but, presumably when this work was passing through the press, he 

 realized that that species was ineligible for selection as type-species and added a footnote that 

 the type-species of this genus was " the abeona of Donovan ", i.e. Papilio abeona Donovan, 

 1905. This selection also was invalid, as this nominal species was not cited by Hiibner when 

 he established this genus, though, as already noted, he did place in Tisiphone the nominal 

 species Oreas zelinde Hiibner. Already by Butler's time the fart that these nominal species 

 represented the same taxon was generally understood from the taxonomic point of view. It 

 may reasonably be concluded that Butler himself held this view and that it was only the 

 priority of the specific name abeona Donovan over the name zelinde Hiibner that prompted 

 him to use the name published by Donovan rather than that published by Hiibner. 

 That he should have done this was unfortunate, for it had the effect of depriving his action 

 of the right of being regarded as being a valid type-selection. 



The type-species of this genus was first validly selected under the Code by Scudder in 1875. 

 Two points on Scudder's action call for brief comment. First, Scudder avoided taking up a 

 taxonomic position in regard to the type-species of the genera which he listed, finding it more 

 convenient to rely upon the view taken in 1871 in Kirby'sSyw. diurn. Cat. Lep. What he did 

 therefore, when listing the originally included species of any given genus, was to use for those 

 species the name adopted by Kirby, at the same time citing in brackets — parentheses — the 

 name used by the original author of the genus for the taxon concerned. In the present case 

 Kirby adopted ( : 76) the name abeona for the species here in question, citing zelinde as a junior 

 subjective synonym ; Scudder when derding with Tisiphone, cited this taxon as " abeona 

 (zelinde) " under the procedure described above and distinguished abeona as being the type- 

 species. By the special procedure prescribed by Article 69 (a) (iv) such action is to be accepted 

 as a valid selection of the originally included nominal species — in this case Oreas zelinde Hiibner 

 — as the type-species. Further, under Section (a) (iii) of the same Article Scudder's action is 

 not invalidated by the fact that he conceived himself to be recording — and adopting — Butler's 

 type-selection (of Papilio abeona Donovan) and did not look upon himself as then making a 

 type-selection of his own. 



It may be noted for purposes of record that Fruhstorfer, in Seitz, (Grossschmett. Erde 9 : 304) 

 did not use the name Tisiphone for this genus, which he correctly stated was the name properly 

 applicable to it, explaining that he did this because the name Tisiphone had already been used 



