Talk:Episcepsis

Lepidoptera Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of butterflies and moths on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LepidopteraWikipedia:WikiProject LepidopteraTemplate:WikiProject LepidopteraLepidoptera
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Insects Low‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Synonymy

Two things for other editors to note: (1) the NHM card catalog, as of this date, is completely unreliable regarding the constituency of this and a few other genera I have been investigating. From what I can determine from the literature, the resource at Funet is correct and up-to-date, regarding spellings and generic placements. (2) I cannot for the life of me determine why Centronia is not the valid name for this genus, since the type species of Centronia is presently included here (melanitis); it is not a homonym, and it has been used as valid after 1899, so appears not to violate any clauses in the ICZN that would permit Episcepsis to be used as valid in its place. Anyone who can clarify this, please contact me. Dyanega (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]