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.
Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 56(3), 2002, 171-172
NOMENCLATURAL CORRECTNESS OF PHYCIODES PRATENSIS VS. PHYCIODES PULCHELLUS (NYMPHALIDAE)
Additional key words: nomenclature, pulchella.
Scott (1994) published an exhaustive analysis of Phyciodes species names, including the issue of whether pulchella (Boisduval, 1852) or pratensis (Behr, 1863) is the correct name in accordance with the rules of zoological nomenclature, for the widespread "Field Crescent" butterfly of western North America. Bird et al. (1995) adopted the use of pulchella, as did Emmel et al. (1998) who emended the spelling to puchellus to conform to the gender congruence provisions of the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature [ICZN] 1999). Other recent authors, such as Guppy and Shepard (2001), Layberry et al. (1998) and Opler (1999), used pratensis, with only Layberry et al. (1998) providing any reasons for taking this approach. This on-going disagreement regarding the usage of these two names needs further discussion, to establish nomenclatural stability.
Layberry et al. (1998) disagree with the use of pulchella because of two alleged shortcomings in the original description. One stated shortcoming is that the name "... lacked a description (required for all new species) . . .". This alleged shortcoming is an incorrect summary of nomenclatural requirements. New names published prior to 1931 are in fact available on the basis of a description, a definition or an indication (ICZN 1999, Article 12). An indication denotes "the proposal of a new . . . species-group name in association with an illustration of the taxon being named, or with a bibliographic reference to such an illustration ..." (ICZN 1999, Article 12.2.7). In naming pulchella, Boisduval (1852) provided a clear indication to two published illustrations that he considered to be pulchella. He cited "Drury, Ins. I. PL 21, f.5,6" which is a clear reference to two illustrations in Drury (1770). This, together with Boisduval having met the requirements of ICZN (1999) Article 11, establishes the availability of the name pulchella Boisduval, 1852.
Scott (1994) missed the simplicity of this conclusion, and instead concluded that the reference to the illustrations, combined with Drury s statement that pulchella is not to be confused with P. tharos or P. mor-pheus, constitutes a description or definition. Whether this conclusion is correct (it is, at best, a very poor definition) is irrelevant, because the name pulchella is available through an indication, regardless of whether a description or definition is provided. It is also interesting to note that P. tharos Drury, 1773 was named through indication to the same figures in Drury
(1770). This situation gets even more interesting when one realises that Kirby (1837) also referenced the same figures in his description of P. sclents.
The second shortcoming stated by Layberry et al. (1998) was that pulchella "... was proposed by Boisduval to be applied to an illustration of Phyciodes tharos in Drury s classical book (1773) . . ." and thus pulchella should be viewed as a junior synonym of tharos. While researching this issue, one colleague suggested that the type of pulchella is the figure in Drury and hence pulchella is an objective synonym of tharos. This cannot be. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Article 72.5.6) sets out that the name bearing type is the specimen or specimens and not the illustration, although perhaps our colleague intended to suggest that the type was the specimen^) on which Drury s illustration was based. However, Boisduval only indicated that the specimen(s) illustrated by Drury (1770) represented his new species pulchella; he did not assert that the illustration was the "type" specimen to which he was applying the name. Boisduval did not specify a holotype, and the actual name bearing type of pulchella is a specimen in the United States National Museum. The specimen has been designated both as a lectotype and as a neo-type (Scott 1994, Emmel et al. 1998). Pulchella can only be a subjective synonym of tharos for those people who might be inclined to view pulchella and tharos as being the same taxon. We are unaware of anyone who has suggested such a taxonomic interpretation. It is also irrelevant that the illustrations in Drury (1770) that were indicated in Boisduval's description of pulchella are in fact illustrations of dark tharos, because the type specimen determines the application of a name and the actual identities of all other specimens or illustrations are irrelevant.
The name pulchella is therefore available in conformance with the Internationa] Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Furthermore, there is no question that the name-bearing type of pulchella is a different butterfly than the name-bearing type of tharos, so pulchella cannot be a synonym of tharos Drury, 1773. An author denying the correctness of pulchella must demonstrate a deficiency in the lectotype designation, followed by demonstration of a deficiency in the neo-type designation, or they stand in non-compliance with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Nothing has been published to upset the correctness of pulchella over pratensis. So the correct name for
172
Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society
this butterfly is Phyciodes pulchellus (Boisduval, 1852) by virtue of the provisions of the Code, including gender congruence.
Literature Cited
Bird, C. D., G. J. Hilchie, N. G. Kondla, E. M. Pike & F. A. H. Sperling. 1995. Alberta Butterflies. The Provineia] Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. 349 pp.
Boisduval, J. B. A. D. de. 1852. Lepidopteres de la Californie. Annales Societe Entomologique France 10:275-324.
DRURY, D. 1770. Illustrations of natural history, wherein are exhibited upwards of two hundred and forty figures of exotic Insects ... to which is added a translation in French. London, White Lxxviii + 130 + [2] pp., 50 + 1 pis, 4 f.
Emmel, J. E, T. C. Emmel & S. O. Mattoon. 1998. The types of California butterflies names by Jean Alphonse Boisduval designation of lectotypes and a neotype, and fixation of type localities. Pp. 3-76 Jn T C. Emmel (ed.), Systematics of Western North American Butterflies. Mariposa Press, Gainesville, Florida. 878 pp
Guppy, C. S. & J. H. Shepard. 2001. Butterflies of British Columbia. UBC Press, Vancouver. 414 pp.
Hedya salicella (L.) is a trans-Palaearctic species whose larvae feed in spun shoots and folded leaves of Salix and Populus species (Salicaceae). The five North American specimens reported here were in three different collections, two public and one private. The distinctive forewing and genitalia of these specimens (Figs. 1, 2) match illustrations and adult sizes in Bentinck & Diakonoff (1968), Bradley et al. (1979), and other handbooks on Eurasian Olethreutinae. They
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, fourth edition. The Natural History Museum, London, UK. 126 pp.
Kirby, William. 1837. [Lepidoptera: Diurna.] Pp. 286-300, pis. 3,4, in Part 4, Insects. In Fauna Boreali-Americana or the zoology of the northern parts of British America, John Richardson. Josiah Fletcher, Norwich, England, v-xxxix + 325 pp. + cpl 1-8 + page i (errata).
Layberry, R. A., P. W. Hall & J. D. Lafontaine. 1998. The Butterflies of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario. 280.
Opler, P. A. 1999. A Field Guide to Western Butterflies. Houghton Mifflin Co., New York, New York. 540 pp.
Scott, J A. 1994. Biology and systematics of Phyciodes. Papilio (New Series) 7:1-120.
Norbert G. Kondla, Box 244, Genelle, British Columbia V0G 1G0 Canada, and Crispin S. Guppy, 4627 Quesnel-Hydraulic Road, Quesnel, BC V2J 6P8 Canada.
Received for publication 28 January 2002; revised and- accepted 10 May 2002.
also match three pinned adults of H. salicella from England and Germany that we examined.
The American specimens were collected over a 30-yr period at scattered localities: 1956 in Ontario, 1975 in Massachusetts, and 1985 in Newfoundland and Missouri. Such a diffuse temporal-geographic pattern provides little specific information about introduction and spread beyond the general conclusion that H. salicella is an immigrant in North America.
Journal of the Lepidopterists7 Society 56(3), 2002, 172-173
HEDYA SALICELLA (L.), A PALAEARCTIC SPECIES, COLLECTED IN NORTH AMERICA (TORTRICIDAE)
Additional key words: immigrant, Olethreutinae, Salix, Populus.
Figs. 1-2. Hedya salicella male from Atchison Co., Missouri. 1. Wings. 2. Genitalia (genit. slide MS 97199).