"Hemming (1967) stated:-
The taxon represented by Boisduval on his plate 9 is currently identified on taxonomic grounds with that represented by the nominal species Nymphalis pygas Godart,  (Ency. méth. 9 (Ins.) (2) : 423). On his plates Boisduval placed at the foot of each plate the name of each species figured; sometimes he added the name of the author of the specific name concerned, but not always. In the present case he cited no author's name. In the leaflet printed at some unknown but certainly considerably later date with the title "Species Géneral des Lépidoptéres : Explication des Planches composant les deux livraisons qui accompagnent le premier volume" the information given at the foot of plates was supplemented by the following information: - "Catagramma Hydaspes, Fab. (non God.). Brésil". When I dealt with this matter in 1934 (Gen. Names hol. Butts 1 : 85) I treated Catagramma as a genus based on a misidentified type-species. I now consider however that, in view of the fact that Boisduval gave no author's name for hydaspes at the foot of the plate, the preferable course would be to treat the name Catagramma hydaspes, as there published, as being a new name of Boisduval's own, more especially in view of the fact that the information given in the later published leaflet gives no clear indication of the name, if any, which - according to that leaflet - its author considered was objectively applicable to the taxon figured on plate 9. The procedure here proposed is in harmony with the provision now embodied in Article 70 (b) - which did not exist at the time when this matter was considered by myself in 1934 - under which, when an author deliberately uses for the type-species of a genus an older name in some qualified sense, he is to be treated as having thereby himself established a new nominal species.
Cowan (1970: 16) stated:-
"The title of Boisduval's "1836" [cf. title-page] (in Roret, Suite àBuffon, Hist, nat. Ins.) Spec. gén. Lépid. 1 has become garbled into "Consid. gén. Lépid.", or a variant, in a large block of entries between Calais (: 85) and Gamana (: 195). The date is wrongly given as  throughout."
Cowan (1970: 43) stated:-
"CATAGRAMMA - see List B (Boisduval), [Given above].
There is some confusion in the explanatory paragraph here. Boisduval's "Explication des Planches" was certainly not published "considerably later", but was an integral part of the work (see J. Soc. Biblphy. nat. Hist. 5 (2) : 121-122). And he cited no authors' names on any of his plates. Thus his sole originally included species in Catagramma was what he called Catagramma hydaspes Fab. (non God.) Brésil.
Within eight years, Guérin-Méneville,  (Iconogr. Régne Anim. (Ins.) : 479, to whom the specimens would have been familiar, made the situation very clear. He said there were three distinct species;
Papilio hydaspes Drury, 1782, Ill. nat. Hist. 3 : pl. 15, figs. 2, 3 (=Nymphalis hydaspes Godart,  : 424).
Papilio hystaspes Fabricius, 1781, Spec. Ins. 2 : 57, 58 (= P. hydaspes Fabricius, 1793, Ent. Syst. 3 (1) : 54).
Guérin-Méneville overlooked the former name of this species, accepted the replacement and, as the latter was a junior homonym, proposed the further replacement name Catagramma fabricii;
Nymphalis pygas Godart, , Encyc. Méth. (Zool.) 9 (2) : 423, and this was the "Catagramma hydaspes" of Boisduval.
Guérin-Meneville's views are held to this day, and there seems abundant evidence that Catagramma Boisduval was based on a misidentified type-species : the specimen illustrated by him being referable to Nymphalis pygas Godart. Views of those more familiar with the insects involved would be appreciated before action under Article 70a is initiated", [therefore the type-species was changed from - Catagramma hydaspes Boisduval, , ibid. 1 : pl. 9, fig.2 (in Hemming 1967: 99)].
The higher classification used here follows Lamas (2008).
Learn more about Nymphalidae in Wikipedia
Search the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) for references to CATAGRAMMA and included species.