OCR Text |
Show 1893.] THE BUTTEEELIES OE THE GENUS THYSONOTIS. 537 the name Papilio damis. Fabricius in 1807 (Illiger's Mag. vi. p. 286) described the geuus Banis, but did not mention his type. Westwood, in 1852, was apparently the first author to associate the Fabrician genus with Cramer's insect, but upon what grounds is not clear. But by the rules of nomenclature a generic name must not be one which has been used as a specific name, consequently Banis cannot stand. Now, to make matters still more complicated, Boisduval in 1832 (Voy. Ast., Lep.) uses Bamis as a generic name, but by the same law this is inadmissible. Westwood in 1852 characterized the genus, at the same time expressing his doubts whether it showed sufficient distinctness to allow of its separation from Lyccena. But why he allowed the Fabrician name to stand for the genus, when Cramer's insect bad received it as a specific name some 28 years before seems inexplicable. So far as Boisduval is concerned, I think there can be no doubt that he meant Banis when he wrote Bamis on p. 67 (Voy. Astr., Lep.), as on p. 69 he writes E. damis, Godt., and P. damis, Cr., both of which should be spelt danis. The question now is what generic name should be used, as it is not right that Cramer's name should be only a synonym when his insect was described for so long a time before Boisduval's. The next name to deal with is Thysonotis, proposed by Hiibner in 1816, which has been used by Semper and others for these insects; and bad as we think is the practice of doing away with well-known generic names for others which may be older but which their authors have employed without characterizing, in this case we can see no help for it, as it affects the specific name of the type of the genus. Dr. Felder at one time (1859) used Banis when describing an insect of the group, afterwards (in 1860) Thysonotis, and then seems to have considered Lyccena sufficient. In a note by Mr. W . Doherty published by Mr. de Niceville (Butt. India, iii. p. 261), he speaks of an Arhopala mimicking the danis group of Cyaniris, but as the type of that genus has the costal nervure of the fore wing free, and as after examining a large number of the group we have not found one which at all approaches it in that respect, we do not think, in spite of M r . de Niceville's remarks about G. transpectus, Moore (Butt. India, iii. p. 92), that they can be placed together under the same generic name. It is evident such a course would alter the synonymy considerably, and we venture to think uselessly, as we have here a group of Butterflies which, although they cannot be perhaps structurally defined, present in their markings an easily recognized division in the family. W e have divided the genus into 5 divisions as follows, a short account of which is given under their respective headings :- A. The danis group. B. The wallacei group. C. The schaeffera group. D. The taygetus group. E. The cyanea group. |