Comments on the proposed establishment of availability of Balintus d’Abrera, 2001, Gulliveria d’Abrera & Bálint, 2001, Salazaria d’Abrera & Bálint, 2001, Megathecla Robbins, 2002 and Gullicaena Bálint, 2002 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, LYCAENIDAE) 2 (CASE 3458)

I have been following the ongoing debate on Case 3458 (BZN 65: 188–193). I have also had the opportunity to read an unpublished reply (now BZN 66: 349–351) by Robbins & Lamas to Craig’s comment (BZN 66: 271–272) on this case. I disagree with Craig’s interpretations and consider them incorrectly supported according to the meaning of Article 13.1 of the Code. Robbins & Lamas (2008) were very meticulous and correct with their support, explanation, and reasons for proposing (1) the availability of five generic names; (2) four generic names to be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, and four specific names to be placed on the Official List of Specific Names on Zoology; (3) eight generic names to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. The intention of the present comment is to support Case 3458 which was, in my opinion, properly intended to stabilise the usage of names in Neotropical butterflies.