122 R. W. CROSSKEY 
mediate viewpoint and regard them as desirable in groups that have been much 
confused with diverse applications of the same names (with a high potential for 
continuing future confusion), but only for names that are maintained as valid or are 
unfamiliar synonyms for which there is good reason to have neotypes. In the present 
work, neotypes are established for twelve of the fifteen names for which original 
type-material no longer exists; the other three names (australasia Gray, fulvipes 
Guérin-Méneville, and vidwa Guérin-Méneville) have been accepted for many years 
as junior synonyms, there are no reasons for doubting the rightness of the synonymies, 
and neotypes are not therefore established for these names. 
Special care has been taken here to ensure that the neotypes proposed are validly 
designated according to the rather stringent terms of Article 75 of the International 
Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1961). The present paper contains the results of 
revisory work based upon a study of the whole tribe Rutiliini, during which it has 
been found necessary for neotypes to be established in the interests of stability of 
nomenclature, by resolving confused and doubtful identities (Article 75 (a) (i). 
For each neotype it is considered that the qualifying conditions specified in Article 
75 (c) (1-6) are fully satisfied in the present work for the following reasons (in order 
of the six qualifying conditions): (1) The placement of the species for which the 
neotype stands in a key to all the species of its higher taxon, together with a figure 
of the male genitalia and a bibliographic reference to the original description, 
constitute a statement of the characters which (in my view) differentiate the species 
for which the neotype is designated; (2) The data is published here for each neotype 
and each has been appropriately labelled; (3) Original material has been personally 
searched for in all likely museum collections, none has been found and none has been 
mentioned by any author since the time of description, from which facts it is con- 
cluded that all original type-material of each nominal species for which a neotype is 
designated is either lost or destroyed; (4) The characters of each neotype are com- 
pletely consistent with the original description, except that a male specimen has 
usually been chosen as neotype (for the male has better characters than the female) 
even though the original description or figure was based or apparently based on a 
female specimen; (5) The exact provenance of the original material is usually uncer- 
tain, in which case the neotype specimen is chosen from an area which is considered 
a likely or possible original provenance having regard to all the circumstances of the 
time when the species was described (e.g. early coastal development of Australia) ; 
(6) The museum depository is named for each neotype (the neotypes are deposited 
either in the Australian National Insect Collection at Canberra or in the British 
Museum (Natural History) in London, which maintain research collections and 
make types available for study). 
The twelve neotypes designated are all for nominal species belonging in the genus 
Rutilia Robineau-Desvoidy s.1. ; ten of them (viz. chersipho, decora, formosa, imperialis, 
lepida, pellucens, regalis, setosa, splendida and vivipara) apply to nominal species of 
which the names are considered taxonomically valid in the present work, and the 
other two (durvillei and serena) apply to newly established synonyms. The twelve 
nominal species belong in three subgenera of Rutilia and their neotypes therefore 
show the subgeneric characteristics which define the subgenera (see subgeneric 
