Hemming (1967) stated:-
Fabricius cited three nominal species as belonging to the genus Euploea ; from these Scudder in 1875 (Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 172) selected the second, Papilio similis Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. led. 10) 1 : 479) to be the type-species of this genus. Three years later (1878, J. linn. Soc. Lond., Zool. 14 : 291) Butler selected as the type-species of this genus the nominal species Papilio core Cramer,  (Uitl. Kapellen 3 (23) : 133, pl. 266, figs E, F.) Quite apart from Scudder's earlier action, this selection would have been invalid, because it was not one of the species cited by Fabricius as belonging to his genus. Butler did not realize this because he erroneously identified Papilio core Cramer with Papilio corus Fabricius, which was the third of three species originally included by Fabricius. Butler's mistake was noted by Moore who in 1883 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1883 : 288) specified Papilio corus Fabricius as the type-species. With negligible exceptions, very few in number, the name Euploea has been used as though the type-species were Papilio corus Fabricius by all writers since the publication of Moore's paper in 1883.
In these circumstances nothing would be more confusing than the fact that by Scudder's selection the genus Euploea Fabricius is a Danaid, whereas it is universally understood as being a Euploeid. It was for this reason that, when I was preparing my book on the Generic Names of the Holarctic Butterflies (1934), I included (: 24) a recommendation that the Commission should be asked to prevent the otherwise unavoidable and widespread confusion by using its Plenary Powers to designate Papilio corus Fabricius as the type-species of the genus Euploea, thereby providing a valid basis for the usage of this name in the enormous literature which has grown up around it. This application was submitted to the Commission in October 1934, and in due course the action proposed was approved by the Commission. Various causes contributed to delay in the promulgation of the Commission's decision which did not take place until 1945 when it was published in Opinion 163 (Opin. int. Comm. zool. Nom. 2 : 335-346). In the same Opinion the name Euploea Fabricius, 1807, defined as above, was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 611.
After the foregoing application had been submitted to the Commission it was discovered that certain of the generic names published by Fabricius in the Mag. f. Insektenk. had been published a few weeks earlier by Illiger in an anonymous paper in the Allgem. Lit. Ztg the names so published being employed for the most part in a sense quite different from that in which they were used in Fabricius's well-known paper. One of the names so published by Illiger was Euploea, the publication of this name making the well-known name Euploea Fabricius invalid under the Law of Homonymy. To protect this from happening the Commission - as has already been explained - suppressed the name Euploea [Illiger] under its Plenary Powers, thus validating the name Euploea Fabricius.
EUPLOEA was included within the subfamily NYMPHALIDAE: DANAINAE by Dugdale et al., in Kristensen (1999).
The higher classification used here follows Lamas (2008).
Learn more about Nymphalidae in Wikipedia
Search the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) for references to EUPLOEA and included species.
Anadara Moore, 1883: 317.
Doricha Moore, 1883: 317.
Euplaea ; Boisduval, 1832: 93.
Euplaea ; Macleay, 1826: 461.
Euplea ; Kirby, 1879: 128.
Euploca ; Rafinesque, 1815: 127, no. 22.
Eupolea ; Hulstaert, 1932: 97.