GENERIC NAMES OF BUTTERFLIES 465 



a case in which this procedure by the author introducing a replacement name led a later 

 author to state that the type-species of the replacement genus was the nominal species the 

 name of which had been subjectively accepted by the author of the replacement genus as a 

 senior synonym of that born by the type-species of the genus bearing the rejected name. 

 This was the mistake made by Scudder in 1875 (Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci\, Boston 10 : 291) 

 when he selected as the type-species of Zerynthia Ochsenheimer the nominal species Papilio 

 polyxena [Denis & Schirfermiillcr] which (as explained above) had been cited by Ochsenheimer 

 as belonging to that genus but which was not the nominal species which was the type-species 

 of Thais Fabricius, for which Zerynthia was established by Ochsenheimer as a replacement. 

 The authority of Scudder's work was such that he was largely followed by later authors. 



The question of what was the oldest available name subjectively applicable to the type- 

 species of the present genus was long a matter of dispute and was pot finally settled until, as 

 explained in the note given under the generic name Thais Fabricius, in 1958 a ruling was 

 given by the Commission in its Opinion 616 which had the effect of making Papilio polyxena 

 [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775, the oldest such name. 



ZERYNTHIA Hiibner, [1825], Samml. exot. Schmett. 2 : pi. [60]. Type-species by monotypy : 

 Zerynthia ogina Hiibner, [1825], ibid. 2 : pi. [60], figs 1, 2. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Zerynthia ogina Hiibner is currently treated 

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

 established nominal species Morpho ogina Godart, [1824] (Ency. mSth. 9 (Ins.) 2) : 445. 



The present generic name provides another example of a name published by an earlier 

 author being appropriated by Hiibner and used by him as a new name of his own. It is 

 invalid as being a junior homonym of Zerynthia Ochsenheimer, 1816. 



ZERYTHIS Blanchard, 1840, Hist. nat. Ins. 3 : 463 (an Incorrect Subsequent Spelling of 

 Leritis Boisduval, [1836]). 



ZERYTHIS Lucas, 1849, Explor. Algir. (Artie. Ill) : pi. Lep. 1. Type-species by monotypy : 

 Zerythis syphax [sic] Lucas, 1849, ibid. (Artie. Ill) : pi. Lep. 1, fig. 8. 



In the text of Lucas's work (: 362) the above species was placed in the genus Cigaritis 

 Donzel, 1847, and the specific name was spelled " siphax " instead of " syphax " . The first 

 of these spellings has been accepted by subsequent authors ; the First Reviser choice of this 

 spelling as the Correct Original Spelling having been made by Kirby in 1871 (Syn. Cat. diurn 

 Lep. : 404, 405). 



The present name is not invalid, as being a junior homonym of Zerythis Blanchard, 1840, 

 because Blanchard's Zerythis is an Incorrect Subsequent Spelling of an older name (Zeritis 

 Boisduval, [1836]), and, as such possesses no status in nomenclature and in consequence does 

 not invalidate any later use of the name, either in the same or some other sense. [The fact 

 that Zerythis Lucas, 1849, is an available name does not cause any practical inconvenience, 

 for according to current taxonomic ideas the type-species of Zerythis Lucas is treated sub- 

 jectively as being congeneric with Cigaritis zohra Donzel, 1847, the type-species of the older- 

 established nominal genus Cigaritis Donzel, 1847.] 



ZESIUS Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (5) : 77. Type-species by subsequent 

 designation under Article 6g(a)(ii) by Scudder (1875, Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 

 10 : 292) : Zesius chrysomallus Hiibner, [1819-1821], Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett. 2 : 20, 



Pi- [53]. figs 3°i- 3°2. 



Hiibner gave a brief diagnosis for this genus in the Verzeichniss and the name Zesius is 

 therefore available as from that work. At the same time he cited two nominal species 

 (Zesius phaeomallus ; Zesius chrysomallus) as belonging to his genus. Unfortunately, at that 

 date both these names were manuscript names. From the nomenclature point of view, there- 

 fore, Zesius Hiibner is a genus established without included nominal species, and its type- 

 species has therefore to be determined by subsequent designation under the procedure laid 

 down in Article 69(a) (ii). The first occasion on which either of the nominal species was 

 validated was in volume 2 of the Zutrdge published in [1819-1821] ; the references are : — 



