Hemming (1967) stated:-
Weeks used this name twice in the text (: 20, 29) and cited it also in the index. He said nothing to indicate that it was a new name. Lindsey (1925, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 18 : 102) reported that Weeks had stated (in litt.) that he had received this name from Swinhoe. Lindsey went on to say that Schaus had suggested that this generic name was an Incorrect Subsequent Spelling of the name Systasea Edwards, 1877. Lindsey added that this view was supported by the fact the sole species cited by Weeks was Antigonus corrosus Mabille ; from which it may be inferred that he considered that this species was referable to the genus Systasea. It may be observed, however that in the most recent treatment of the group - that by Evans, 1953, (Cat. amer. Hesp. Brit. Mus. 3 : 158) it was placed in the genus Antigonus Hübner, a taxon which is however considered to be closely related taxonomically to Systasea.
It is possible that the Schaus/Lindsey theory corresponds with the true origin of the name Systaspes Weeks, but there is no evidence supporting that theory which would justify its acceptance for nomenclatorial purposes. It follows therefore that the name Systaspes Weeks must be treated as a nomenclatorially available name. From a practical point of view no inconvenience ensures, for, as already explained, Antigonus corrosus Mabille, the type-genus [sic, see below], is currently placed in the genus Antigonus. On this taxonomic view, therefore, the name Systaspes Weeks is a junior subjective synonym of Antigonus Hübner.
Cowan (1968: 14) stated:-
SYSTASPES, line 17: "type-genus" should read; type-species.
The higher classification used here follows Lamas (2008).
Learn more about Hesperiidae in Wikipedia
Search the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) for references to SYSTASPES and included species.