2: 141, pl.189, figs D-E.
[; , ibidem. 3 (22) : 115, [pl.] 258, figs E, F]
Hemming (1967) stated:-
When introducing the nominal genus Delias, Hübner took the view that Cramer had confused two species under the name Papilio egialea ; he thereupon established two new nominal species, the first of which he called Delias tyche and the second, Delias apriate. D. tyche was based on the female figured on Cramer's plate 189, while D. apriate was based on the male figured on Cramer's plate 258. Butler (1870) selected Papilio egialea Cramer as the type-species of Delias, but at that time this selection appeared to be of doubtful validity, if not to be actually invalid. This was because, first, it seemed doubtful whether Papilio egialea could properly be looked upon as ranking as one of the originally included species of the genus since Hübner had not accepted it as a taxonomically valid species, citing its name only in synonymy, and, second, because Hübner had rejected that name altogether, having established new nominal species upon the two parts (i.e. Cramer's pl. 189 and the same author's pl. 258 respectively) on which Cramer's Papilio egialea was based. When I considered this matter in 1934 (Gen. Names hol. Butts 1 : 124) I took the view that Butler's selection of Papilio egialea Cramer should be regarded as acceptable, as Hübner had included that name when introducing the genus Delias, but that, as Hübner had not accepted Papilio egialea Cramer as a taxonomically good species, the type-species ought to be cited under the name which Hübner had employed when citing Papilio egialea as a synonym. Of the two nominal species based by Hübner on parts (i.e. on syntypes of Papilio egialea), I then selected as the type-species of Delias the nominal species Delias tyche, the first of the two nominal species established by Hübner (i.e. the nominal species based on the female figured on Cramer's plate 189).
Since the action described above, the Paris Congress of 1948 gave a ruling that a nominal species cited in the synonymy of a species placed in a new genus is itself to rank as an originally included species, and this provision has now been incorporated in the revised Code published in 1961 (Article 69 (a) (i)). Under this provision Butler's selection of Papilio egialea Cramer as type-species becomes completely acceptable and that nominal species becomes the unquestioned type-species.
From the taxonomic point of view it is of interest to note that it is now considered contrary to the view expressed by Hübner - that the female figured on Cramer's pl. 189 (the type of D. tyche Hübner) and the male figured on his plate 258 (the type of D. apriate Hübner) are in fact no more than the two sexes of a single species, namely Papilio egialea Cramer.
The taxon represented by the nominal species Papilio egialea Cramer is currently treated subjectively on taxonomic grounds as a subspecies of the taxon represented by the nominal species Papilio aglaia Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 465).
Cowan (1970: 45) stated:-
"Last line; "aglaia" to read - aglaja. This name is the subject of current scrutiny by the International Cornrnission (Case Z.N.(S.) no. 1791)]."
"DELIAS line 3 : "115, 258" to read -115, pl. 258, [type-species page].
Cramer should be credited with having said emphatically that his two illustrations were the sexes of the one species. For precision, the name must automatically attach to the 1777 figure.
The higher classification used here follows Lamas (2008).
Learn more about Pieridae in Wikipedia
Search the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) for references to DELIAS and included species.