66 
Psyche 
[March 
Nomenclatural epilogue. — A species of what we now call Celotes 
was named three times within less than a decade, 1877 to 1884 (see 
e.g. Lindsey, Bell and Williams 1931; Evans 1953). In order of 
publication, the names are Pholisora nessus Edwards, Spilothyrus 
notabilis Strecker, and Carcharodus radiatus Pldtz. The fact that I 
have made no effort to examine types is not so cavalier as it might 
seem. On the one hand, genus Celotes is such a distinctive element 
of the American fauna that one may safely assume that all three 
names have long since been assigned to it correctly. On the other 
hand, one may also assume that all three refer to nessus rather than 
to limpia for the following reasons. The type locality for both 
nessus and notabilis is San Antonio (or perhaps the nearby town of 
New Braunfels for the latter), at the eastern edge of the main range 
of nessus and therefore a few hundred miles removed from the near- 
est populations of limpia in Trans-Pecos Texas. Because intervening 
areas have now been well-collected, the total lack of limpia from 
eastcentral Texas is real. The type locality for radiatus is simply 
Texas; but, inasmuch as the name was published in 1884, the ma- 
terial on which it was based almost certainly came from central 
Texas, too. The west Texas areas in which limpia occurs are rela- 
tively remote. Indeed, in all of the material assembled from museums 
for this study, there were only two specimens of limpia that had been 
collected prior to 1961 — and they were taken in 1926. 
Godman and Salvin (1899) proposed Celotes as a monotypic genus 
with Pholisora nessus Edwards as its type-species. There is some 
historical and distributional interest in noting that their hypodigm 
of “nessus” undoubtedly included nessus but may have been mixed. 
As they themselves said, it comprised 3 specimens from Texas pro- 
vided by Strecker and 3 from Mexico (Northern Sonora and Du- 
rango city). Strecker’s notabilis ( — nessus) was one of a series of 
lepidopterans that he described from material collected “'by Mr. J. 
Boll, mostly in the vicinity of New Braunfels and San Antonia [sic]” 
(Strecker 1878). Owing to its geographic origin, the Strecker ma- 
terial certainly — and that from Northern Sonora almost certainly 
— would have been nessus. Furthermore, the male genitalia that 
Godman and Salvin clearly figured (pi. 91, fig. 29) belong without 
question to nessus. The Durango material is problematic, however. 
To judge from the locality, it might almost as well be limpia ‘as 
nessus. Godman and Salvin’s color illustrations of dorsal and Vteiitral 
aspects of a female of Celotes (pi. 91, figs. 27, 28) could be taken 
for either species, the dorsal view (fig. 27), in particular, being 
