Hemming (1967) stated:-
This generic name became lost in the literature some ninety years ago through an unfortunate misunderstanding as to the family to which the type-species is referable taxonomically. The circumstances were as follows : Hübner established this genus for three nominal species, all of them members of the family now known as the Riodinidae. One of these nominal species was Papilio archytas Stoll. This species had been treated by Kirby in 1871 (Syn. Cat. diurn Lep. : 632) as being a member of the family Hesperiidae, being placed by him in the genus Achlyodes Hübner. Scudder based the systematic portion of his work on generic names on the arrangement adopted four years earlier by Kirby, and he therefore also was under the erroneous impression that the above species was a Hesperiid when he selected it to be the type-species of Aetheius Hübner. Thereafter the name Aetheius virtually disappeared from the literature. The name of the type-species is currently treated - and for long has been treated - as a senior subjective synonym of the name Anteros axiochus Hewitson,  (Ill. exot. Butts 4 : , pl. , figs 1, 2), the name of the type-species of a genus called Ourocnemis by Baker in 1887 (Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1887 : 175). The name Ourocnemis has been consistently employed for the nominal species discussed above ever since its publication over seventy years ago, while (as already explained) the name Aetheius has not been used at all. It would clearly be of no advantage if the long-neglected name Aetheius Hübner were now to be substituted for the well-established name Ourocnemis Baker. In the interests of nomenclatorial stability the Commission is being asked to suppress the name Aetheius Hübner, thus preventing the disappearance of the name Ourocnemis Baker. In accordance with the provisions of Article 80 the name Aetheius is here treated as -being invalidated, pending the publication of the decision by the Commission on the application submitted.
Cowan (1968: 8.) made the following comment for this and other genera:-
The status and type-species of the following genera are at present the subjects of pending applications to the Commission. Against each is shown its relevant Z.N.(S.) Case Number;
* Aetheius Hübner, 1819; 1678
Capys Hewitson; 1748
* Euphaedra Hübner; 1686
* Gonophlebia Felder; 1688
Mantoides Druce; 1768
* Najas Hübner; 1686
Neolycaena de Niceville; 1758
* Ourocnemis Baker; 1687
* Pseudopontia Plotz; 1688
Scoptes Hübner; 1748
Thrix Doherty; 1768
Virgarina Druce; 1768
Of these six Aetheius, Gonophlebia, Najas are all nomina oblita, whose revival would threaten respectively the well-known Ourocnemis, Pseudopontia, and Euphaedra. The Commission is at present deferring rulings on nomina oblita.
Aetheius Hübner, , has been suppressed to conserve the name Ourocnemis Baker, 1887 (Riodinidae [now Lycaenidae, Riodininae,]), (Opinion 1381), 1986, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 43 (1) : 42.
Originally proposed by Hemming 1964, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 22 : 103. No comments were recieved. In 1973 a comment from Cowan, was treated in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 30 : 133 - 134. Again no comment was recieved. A revision was published by Cowan 1983, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 40 (4) : 246. Yet again no comment was recieved. Only in 1985 was the vote taken and passed to conserve Ourocnemis.
The higher classification used here follows Lamas (2008).
Learn more about Riodinidae in Wikipedia
Search the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) for references to AETHEIUS and included species.