taxonID	type	description	language	source
03C4D365FFA8C412FF255459FEACF817.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The date of publication printed on the paper which originally described acroleuca is “ August, 1881 ” (Wood- Mason & de Nicéville 1881 Aug.). While Bridges (1988) recorded the publication date of this name as October, 1881, and that of hiraca as September, 1881. According to this record, de Jong & Treadaway (1992) shifted the priority from acroleuca to hiraca, this treatment continued in their subsequent works (de Jong & Treadaway 2007, 2008), and was also followed by others (e. g. Devyatkin & Monastyrskii 1999; Kitamura 2003; Ek-Amnuay et al. 2007; Mohanraj & Veenakumari 2011). But: 1) in a paper issued on 21 December, 1881, Wood-Mason & de Nicéville described acroleucus again in a more detailed way under the name “ Hesperia acroleuca ”, they even gave a one-month priority of their name acroleucus (August) over Moore’s hiraca (September). 2) the “ letter code ” assigned to acroleucus in Bridges (1988, 1994) is “ a ”, meaning “ available valid species name ”, and that to hiraca is “ c ” meaning “ synonym ”; the name hiraca is clearly recorded as “ SS: acroleucus (Wood-Mason & de Nicéville), 1881 ” with a note “ Close, September versus August ”, indicating that hiraca is a junior synonym of acroleucus because of one month behind in publication. 3) The library of the Natural History Museum in London confirmed that the original paper of acroleucus was published in August 1881. Thus, according to Chapter 5 (Articles 21 and 22) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Fourth Edition), the date of publication of the original paper introducing acroleuca should be accepted as [31 August] 1881. The nomenclatural act by de Jong & Treadaway (1992), which has caused a misapplication of hiraca and threatened the stability of acroleuca, should be corrected. Therefore, we restore acroleuca to a valid name, and submerge hiraca herein.	en	Xue, Guo-Xi, Lo, Yik Fui Philip (2015): A taxonomic note on Erionota acroleuca (Wood-Mason & de Nicéville, 1881) stat. rest. (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae). Zootaxa 3926 (3): 445-447, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3926.3.9
03C4D365FFA9C410FF2557B2FF58FD98.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. 1 ♀, Menglun, Mengla County, Xishuangbanna, Yunnan, China, 570 m, 7. IX. 2004, leg. Y. Qiao (ZULI); 1 ♂ 1 ♀, Nangongshan, Mengla County, Xishuangbanna, Yunnan, China, 1000 m, 29. III. 2012, leg. Y. F. P. Lo, reared from Caryota ochlandra, emgd. 22. IV. 2012, genitalia preparation: YFL h 0032 (KFBG); 2 ♂, Laohutiao Nature Reserve, Napo County, Baise, Guangxi, China, 370 m, 24. II. 2014, leg. Y. F. P. Lo, pupa from Arenga westerhoutii, emgd. 8. III. 2014. Immature biology. Host plant records are Caryota ochlandra in Yunnan and Arenga westerhoutii in Guangxi, both species belong to the family Arecaceae. Eggs are laid in cluster on the underside of host plant. The larvae on Caryota ochlandra stay on different pinnae of the same secondary rachis and roll the pinnae into a cone-shape shelter. The pupa is pale cream in colour with brown spiracles and is sealed in a cocoon. The proboscis is long, extending just beyond the cremaster. The cremaster is attached to a diffuse silk pad and there is no girdle. The length of pupa is 33 mm (n = 2). The pupa shelter on Arenga westerhoutii is constructed by rolling the undersurface of the apex half of rachis laterally. Similar to the other two Chinese Erionota species, E. torus and E. grandis, the larva and pupa of E. acroleuca are covered with white waxy powder. Kitamura (2003) reported the immature stage of E. acroleuca apex (as E. hiraca apex) from Samar Island, Philippines and the recorded host plant was Livistonia rotundifolia (Arecaceae). The second author of the present paper also reared two individuals of E. acroleuca apicalis from an unidentified palm in Singapore (unpublished record). Available information reveals that the species is primarily a palm feeder.	en	Xue, Guo-Xi, Lo, Yik Fui Philip (2015): A taxonomic note on Erionota acroleuca (Wood-Mason & de Nicéville, 1881) stat. rest. (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae). Zootaxa 3926 (3): 445-447, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3926.3.9
03C4D365FFA9C410FF2557B2FF58FD98.taxon	discussion	Remarks. As an infrasubspecific name, Erionota thrax thrax var. apicalis Evans, 1932 is nomenclaturally unavailable. de Jong & Treadaway (1992) treated apicalis as a good subspecies of E. hiraca and used the name “ Erionota hiraca apicalis Evans, 1932 ”. This act actually established a new subspecific combination which is an available name. According to Article 45.5.1 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Fourth Edition), the authorship of this name should be attributed to de Jong & Treadaway (1992). Acknowledgements. Field work in Guangxi, China was assisted by Napo County Forestry Department. This study is supported by the National Science Foundation of China (41401067) and the Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden, Hong Kong.	en	Xue, Guo-Xi, Lo, Yik Fui Philip (2015): A taxonomic note on Erionota acroleuca (Wood-Mason & de Nicéville, 1881) stat. rest. (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae). Zootaxa 3926 (3): 445-447, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3926.3.9
