GENERIC NAMES OF BUTTERFLIES 449 



TRIPHYSA Zeller, 1850, Stett. ent. Ztg 11 : 311. Type-species through Section (i) (re- 

 placement names) of Article 67 : Papilio tircis Stoll, [1782], in Cramer, Uitl. Kapellen 

 4 (32) : 166, pi. 373, figs D, E. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Papilio tircis Stoll is currently treated sub- 

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

 nominal species Papilio phryne Pallas, 1771 [Reise versch. Proc. Russisch. Reiclis 1 : 470). 



Zeller introduced the name Triphysa as a replacement for the name Phryne Herrich- 

 Schaeffer, 1844. Zeller did not explain why he considered that the name Phryne Herrich- 

 Schaeffer required to be replaced, but, having regard to the view strongly held throughout 

 most of the XlXth century that tautonomy between a generic name and the specific name of 

 an included species was not permissible, it may reasonably be concluded that the reason why 

 Zeller considered that the generic name Phryne Herrich-Schaeffer was invalid was that (as 

 shown above) the type-species (Papilio tircis) was subjectively 'identified with a species 

 (Papilio phryne) having a specific name consisting of the same word. No provision on these 

 lines was included in the Code adopted by the Berlin Congress in 1901 ; indeed the reverse 

 view was taken by that Congress in Article 30(d) and this appears in the current Code as 

 Article 68(d). While the foregoing argument outlined above does not — or would not — 

 constitute a valid reason for rejecting the name Phryne Herrich-Schaeffer and replacing 

 it with the name Triphysa, there was however a reason unknown to Zeller for rejecting the 

 name Phryne Herrich-Schaeffer, namely that that name is a junior homonym of the older 

 name Phryne Meigen, 1800 (Nouv. Class. Mouches a deux Ailes : 16). In these circumstances 

 Phryne Herrich-Schaeffer is invalid as a junior homonym of Phryne Meigen, and its replace- 

 ment name Triphysa Zeller is an available name. At this point it is necessary to take note 

 that in the early years of the present century I [endel brought forward Meigen's Nouv. Class. 

 from the oblivion in which it had lain lor a hundred years and that this action of his sparked 

 off a controversy which was to divide dipterists for half a century. Finally, some years ago 

 Dr. C. W. Sabrosky proposed to the Commission that an end should be put to argument on 

 this subject by the suppression of Meigen's names of 1800 under the Plenary Powers. In 

 the subsequent discussion I suggested as Secretary to the Commission (a post then occupied 

 by myself) that, if Dr. Sabrosky's proposal were to be approved by the Commission, steps 

 should be taken to preserve for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy those of the Meigen 

 names proposed for suppression which were senior homonyms of generic names elsewhere 

 in the animal kingdom which had on that account been rejected and replaced — the purpose 

 of this suggestion being to prevent the rejection of the replacement names concerned, which 

 would otherwise follow upon the suppression of the older Meigen homonyms. These pro- 

 posals were approved in principle by the Commission, which however ultimately decided to 

 secure the desired end by a different method, that is, while rejecting in its entirety Meigen's 

 Nouvelle Classification and consequently all the new names introduced in it, to suppress also 

 those names elsewhere in the animal kingdom which were junior homonyms of Meigen- 1800 

 names, and as such, had been replaced by other names. This procedure served to protect 

 the position of the replacement names in question and thus made it possible for the Nouvelle 

 Classifications to be dealt with in the manner desired by dipterists without causing objection- 

 able name-changing in other groups. The Commission's decision was embodied in its Opinion 

 678 published in October 1963 (Bull. zool. Nom. 20 : 339-342), in which the name Phryne 

 Herrich-Schaeffer, 1844, was suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for 

 those of the Law of Homonymy. This action completely safeguarded the position of the 

 name Triphysa Zeller, which remained the oldest available name for the genus in question. 



TRISTELEUTA Sharp, [1913], in Zool. Rec. 49 (year 1912) (Ins.) : 307 (an Incorrect Subsequent 

 Spelling of Triteleuta Strand, 1912). 



TRITANASSA Forbes, 1945, Ent. amer. (n.s.) 24 : 171. Type-species by original desig- 

 nation : Eresia drusilla Felder (C.) & Felder (R.), 1861, Wien. ent. Monats. 5 : 103. 



TRITELEUTA Strand, 191 2, Faun. exot. 2 (11) : 44. Type-species by original designation : 

 Antirrhaea tomasia Butler, 1875, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (4) 15 : 222. 



