Hemming (1967) stated:-
The name Paradopaea was dealt with quite differently in the text volume (vol. 2) and in the plates volume (vol. 3). The treatment in the plates volume is the earlier of the two. In this volume the name Paradopaea was applied (on pl. 92) to two nominal species, namely : Paradopaea garita (Reakirt) [i.e. Hesperia garita Reakirt], figs 23, 24, 25 ; Paradopaea calega Godman [then a new species], figs 26-29. In the text volume the name Paradopaea was dropped altogether, the species which on plate 92 had been assigned to this genus being there assigned to the genus Oarisma Scudder, 1872. At the same time each of the taxa figured on that plate were treated as having been misidentified : the specimens figured as Hesperia garita (figs 23-25) were treated (: 469) as belonging to Hesperia powesheik Parker, 1870, while those which had been figured under the new name Paradopaea calega (figs 26-29) were treated (: 470) as belonging to Hesperia garita. [It may usefully be noted at this point that the status of these nominal species was renumerated by Lindsey, Bell & Williams in 1931 (J. Sci. Lab. Denison Univ. 26 : 72) who reached the following conclusions as to the specimens figured by Godman on his plate 92 : (a) the specimens figured as figs 23 & 24 as belonging to Hesperia garita Reakirt were correctly so identified, their attribution in the text to Hesperia powesheik Parker being erroneous ; (b) the male genitalia figured as fig. 25 and also attributed to Hesperia garita are, in fact, referable to Thymelicus edwardsii Barnes, 1897 (a nominal species not mentioned by Godman) ; (c) the specimens figured as figs 26-29 as representing the new species Paradopaea calega were misidentified by Godman when in the text he identified them as belonging to Hesperia garita, the foregoing authors considering that Godman's calega probably represented a distinct species. More recently however calega Godman has been treated by Evans (1955, 4 : 306) as a subspecies of Hesperia garita Reakirt, also placed by him in the genus Oarisma Scudder.]
Godman explained the inconsistency of his treatment of the name Paradopaea in the text and plate volumes respectively by the following note at the footnote at the bottom of page 469 : "Scudder's description of the genus Oarisma was not seen by us until after Tab. XCII. was printed, and the specimens sent us by Strecker as Hesperia garita were wrongly named : hence confusion has arisen in the identification of this insect. "It will be appreciated from the explanation already given regarding the synonymy of the species-group names concerned that the confusion which had arisen was much greater even than Godman supposed, for his revised view as to the identification of the specimens which he had figured as figs 23 and 24 [but not that shown as fig. 25], which he referred to as "this insect" in the footnote quoted here and which he then identified as Hesperia powesheik did not belong to that species, being, as he had originally thought specimens of Hesperia garita.
Having now completed the survey of the tangled history of the name Paradopaea Godman, and of the identity of the species cited in that author's plate 92 as belonging to that genus, it is possible to form a conclusion as the status of that generic name. First, it must be noted that, if it had not been for the publication of the above plate, the name Paradopaea would have possessed no status in nomenclature, for in the text Godman mentioned that name only to reject it immediately, by placing it in the synonymy of the name Oarisma Scudder. As there published, it was a name published in a synonymy and therefore, under Article II (d), possessed no standing and was completely invalid. The position is however quite different in the plates volume (vol. 3), for here on plate 92 Godman unequivocally adopted the name Paradopaea for two nominal species, of which one (Paradopaea calega) was there established for the first time. Nothing written by Godman in the text volume can be held to detract from the nomenclatorial status of the name Paradopaea as used on plate 92 in the plates volume. Accordingly, the name Paradopaea Godman ranks as a nomenclatorially available name, and the two nominal species cited on that plate as belonging to Paradopaea rank as the originally included species of that genus. Lindsey (1925) was therefore perfectly in order when he selected the first of these species, Hesperia garita Reakirt, to be the type-species of the genus Paradopaea Godman. Finally, it must be noted that, although in the text Godman expressed erroneous opinions as to the identity of the taxon represented by the nominal species Hesperia garita, he identified that taxon correctly on his plate 92 (the only place which is relevant in connection with the interpretation of the nominal genus Paradopaea), giving two figures of the male of that taxon, showing the upperside as fig. 23, and the underside as fig. 24. The only mistake which he made on this plate was erroneous association, with the figures of the male of Hesperia garita, of a figure (fig. 25) showing the male genitalia of a different, though closely allied species.
To sum up, the name Paradopaea Godman is an available name and the type-species of the genus in question is the nominal species Hesperia garita Reakirt, which was correctly identified by Godman when (on pl. 92) he placed it in this genus. [It may be useful to add from the purely taxonomic side that the view expressed by Godman in the text of his work that his Paradopaea is a junior subjective synonym of Oarisma Scudder is still the accepted subjective opinion of specialists in this group].
See also electronic Biologia centrali americana. Insecta. Lepidoptera-Heterocera volume 3
The higher classification used here follows Lamas (2008).
Learn more about Hesperiidae in Wikipedia
Search the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) for references to PARADOPAEA and included species.