The text below is grayed out because it is not intended to be read. It is a necessarily imperfect OCR of the original and is only used by a search engine.
74
Vol. 6, nos. 4-5
THE NAMES OF CERTAIN BUTTERFLIES OF THE EASTERN
UNITED STATES by Bryant Mather
Two books of great value to the student of the butterflies of the eastern United States were published in 1951: A Field Guide to the Butterflies of North America, East of the Great Plains by Alexander B. Klots (Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston), and "The Butterflies of Virginia" by Austin H. CLARK and Leila F. Clark (Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 116, no. 7, Washington). In some cases these works do not use the same names to designate the same butterflies. These differences are, in most cases, not such as to cause serious confusion; they are however annoying to one who would like to have a basis for selecting the best current usage in designating butterflies. A number of these differences were called to the attention of Mr. Clark, Dr. Klots, and Mr. Cyril F. dos Passos in January 1952, and a series of communications and comments was elicited which are summarized below for the interest of others. It should be noted that, although this summary has been reviewed by those whose comments are included, and permission for its publication has been obtained, the opinions are given essentially as they were stated informally in letters and do not represent the explicit, fully documented discussions that would have been given had the contributors themselves prepared them for publication.
The differences may be considered in three groups: (1) those involving considerations of relationships and priorities to determine the "correct" name; (2) those involving the classification (i.e., rank or grade) of a name, as between genera and subgenera or species and subspecies; and (3) those involving steps taken for improving or correcting the spelling. The comments given below have been sorted into these groups and are taken up in systematic order.
DIFFERENCES INVOLVING RELATIONSHIPS AND PRIORITY
(1) Minois pegala (Clarks, p. 32), Cercyonis pegala (Kiots, p. 72): KLOTS used Cercyonis on the advice of R. L. CHERMOCK, an expert in the group; the CLARKS regard their use of Minois as an example of preferring "lumping"; DOS PASSOS has a letter from DE LESSE (15 January 1952) stating the belief that Cercyonis (type species Papilio dope Fab.) should be use for our Nearctic species, but DOS PASSOS feels that, since DE LESSE's opinion is unpublished, the proper current usage would be Minois following the most recent check list (McDunnough, 1938).
(2) Junonia evarete coenia (Clatks, p. 45), Precis lavinia coenia (Klots, p. 108): Klots regards his use of Precis as an example of preferring "lumping" and cites HEMMING (The Generic Names of the Holarctic Butterflies, pp. 73-74) as follows: "The name Junonia Hb., though nomenclatorially valid, is not required, as lavinia Cram, is congeneric with octavia Cram., the type of Precis Hb., which has page priority." The CLARKS used Junonia following W. P. COMSTOCK but Clark comments that perhaps Precis should have been used. Dos Passos regards Precis as probably preferable. The CLARKS again followed W. P. COMSTOCK in using evarete and Clark notes that Papilio lavinia Cramer is preoccupied by P. lavinia Fabricius and that P. evarete is the oldest available name. Dos PASSOS notes that CORBET (1948, p. 54) uses lavinia and considers it conspecific with Papilio (Nymphalis) orithya Linnaeus, 1758, p. 473, and that as a result, the correct name would appear to be Precis orithya evarete (Cramer), apparently also following COMSTOCK (1942, p. 190) in discarding Papilio lavinia Fabricius, 1775, and using Papilio evarete Cramer, 1779-
1952
The Lepidopterists' News
75
(3) Calephelis virginiensis and C. borealis (Clarks, p. 69), Lephelisca virgin-iensis and L. borealis (Klots, p. 123): KLOTS' use of Lephelisca follows W. D. FIELD. CLARK states that when the genus Calephelis was established an oriental species was given as the type, but the authors made it perfectly clear that the genus was founded on (C.) virginiensis misidentified. He notes that an Opinion of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature states: "in the absence of indubitable proof to the contrary the species named shall be the type." He feels that the proof here is indubitable that what the authors had in mind was (C.) virginiensis, thus it becomes the type and the name Lephelisca has no standing. Dos PASSOS, on the other hand, after an investigation of the problem, has concluded that the correct name to use is Nymphidia Boisduval & Leconte (1833-1837), noting however that an application by WILBUR S. McALPTNE is pending before the International Commission to validate Calephelis.
(4) Cyaniris argiolus (Clarks, p. 73), Lycaenopsis argiolus (Klots, p. 169): DOS PASSOS notes that the type species of Cyaniris Dalman, 1816, is argianus Dalmin, 1816 ( -Papilio semiargus Rottenburg, 1775) and the type species of Lycaenopsis Feider & Felder, 1865, is L. ananga Felder & Felder, 1865. He notes that Tutt regarded neither of these as congeneric with Papilio (Plebejus) argiolus Linnaeus, 1758, p. 483, and hence proposed Celastrina, 1906, p. 131, for argiolus. Dos PASSOS concludes that it is certainly more correct is use Celastrina for the time being. KLOTS used Lycaenopsis since he regarded Cyaniris as inapplicable but followed others who feel that ananga and argiolus are congeneric.
(5) Eupsyche m-album (Clarks, p. 78), Strymon m-album (Klots, p. 133) : KLOTS explains in his introductory comments on the Theclinae (p. 126) that he feels that it is necessary for the present to lump most of the species in one genus, in the absence of an adequate large-scale study. Clark remarks that perhaps they should have used Strymon, but feels that it is a "convenient grab-bag" for a decidedly heterogeneous assemblage of hairstreaks. Dos PASSOS would prefer Eupsyche but feels it to be a matter of opinion.
(6) Proteides clarus (Clarks, p. 147), Epargyreus clarus (Klots, p. 206): Both the CLARKS and KLOTS explain their different choices as following BELL (!). DOS PASSOS indicates that the choice depends on whether mercurius (see Klots, p. 284) is congeneric with clarus; if so, then only one generic name is required and Proteides has line priority; if not, then the usage employed by KLOTS is proper.
(7) Rhabdoides cellus (Clarks, p. 149), Autochton cellus (Klots, p. 211): KLOTS follows Bell, the CLARKS use Rhabdoides as a matter of preference, DOS PASSOS notes that the type species of Rhabdoides is Eudamus cellus Boisduval and Leconte (? 1837, pi. 73) and that the type of Autochton is Autochton itylius Hiibner. The question is whether itylius and cellus are congeneric.
DIFFERENCES INVOLVING THE CLASSIFICATION OF NAMES
(1) Zerene caesonia (Clarks, p. 112), Colias (Zerene) cesonia (Klots, p. 189): Clark regards Zerene as a separate genus from Colias on ecological and distributional grounds and feels that they are quite as distinct as some other genera in the Pieridae. KLOTS feels that Zerene is but a subgenus of Colias and refers to his discussion in Entomologica Americana 12:175 (1931). Dos PASSOS regards the question as a matter of opinion and suggests following McDUNNOUGH (1938) which would give Zerene generic status.
(2) Eurema jucunda (Clarks, p. 117), Eurema daira daira summer form jucunda (Klots, p. 195) : KLOTS believes that daira, 1819, and jucunda, 1833 are conspecific; he states in his book, however (p. 195): "Absolute proof of this will only be obtained by rearing a brood of one from two known parents of the other." The CLARKS found only typical jucunda in Virginia.
(3) Battus philenor, Graphium marcellus (Clarks, pp. 118, 145); Papilio phile-nor, Papilio marcellus (Klots, p. 179) : KLOTS, in his book, (p. 171) refers to Battus and Graphium as subgenera, and regards the question as a matter of opinion. Clark feels that Battus, Graphium, and Papilio are groups that differ from each
76
Mather: Names of Butterflies
Vol. 6, nos. 4-5
other in all stages much more than many universally accepted genera. Dos PASSOS prefers the CLARKS' usage and notes that it follows Ford's recent revision of Papilio.
(4) Atrytone alabamae (Clarks, p. 174), Atrytone dion alabamae (Klots, p. 255) : KLOTS considered dion and alabamae as conspecific, following LlNDSEY, BELL, and WILLIAMS (1931, p. 117) who had before them only the male type and a single female of alabamae, both from Alabama. CLARK concludes that alabamae and dion are not conspecific after having compared a long series of alabamae from Virginia with the types of both alabamae and dion and considered various other factors such as time of flight and plant associations. Dos PASSOS observes that this question can only be solved by breeding but that the reasons given by Clark for his conclusion seem cogent.
DIFFERENCES INVOLVING SPELLING
(1) Euptychia sosybius and Euptychia areolatus (Clarks, pp. 38, 36), Euptychia hermes sosybia and Euptychia areolata (Klots, p. 69) : In these two cases KLOTS has used sosybia and areolata so that the specific name will be of the same gender as the generic name.
(2) Zerene caesonia (Clarks, p. 112), Colias (Zerene) cesonia (Klots, p. 189) : DOS PASSOS has explained that STOLL wrote the name cesonia in the Dutch and sesoni-a in the French text; most authors have emended cesonia to caesonia which is probably more classical Latin, but DOS PASSOS and KLOTS decided that the original spelling should be used in accordance with Article 19 of the Regies.
P.O. Drawer 2131, Jackson, Miss., U.S.A.
OBITUARIES
MARGUERITE S. FORSYTH
Marguerite Shepard (Mrs. Lesley E.) Forsyth of Florida City, Florida, died February 6, 1952, in North Haven, Connecticut, while visiting a sister. She was born August 28, 1889, in North Haven. In 1923 she and her husband and son moved to Florida. Her husband died in 1950; her son, William H. Forsyth 2d, is at present a resident of Miami.
Soon after arriving in Florida, Mrs Forsyth began the collecting of Lepidoptera that was continued until poor health forced her to curtail activities in the late 1940's. Her work in southern Florida, and particularly in the upper Florida Keys, was of the greatest importance to science. The accuracy of her data and observations helped greatly to dispose of some of the deliberate falsifications which commercially minded collectors in tropical Florida had created by mislabelling tropical specimens. Her collecting during the period when so many of the famous localities in southern Florida were being wiped out by real estate developments, drainage and fires furnished many records now unobtainable.
Needless to say, Mrs. Forsyth discovered many rarities. Two butterflies which she collected have been named after her: Papilio polyxenes ab. forsythae Wood and Papilio cresphomes ab. forsythae Gunder. She was, as