Skip to content

Data Portal

Explore and download the Museum’s research and collections data.

Erchia

Number: 10272.0
Author: Walker
Bhl Page: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/121890#page/382/mode/2up
Family: Riodinidae
Genus: Erchia
Journal: List Spec. lepid. Insects Colln Br. Mus.
Year: 1854
Homonym Count: 2.0
Page: 357
Part: (2)
Ref Id: 8448.0
Status: Junior homonym
Subfamily: Riodininae
Subtribe: Nymphidiina
Superfamily: Papilionoidea
Tribe: Nymphidiini
Senior Syn: PSEUDERCHIA
Senior Syn Author: Kirby
Senior Syn Page: 410
Senior Syn Year: 1892
Type Country: BRAZIL
Type Depository: (? Depository)
Type Locality: ? Locality
Types: Type(s)
Type Des: by monotypy
Type Sp Author: Walker
Type Sp Bhl Page: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/121890#page/382/mode/2up
Type Sp Journal: List Spec. lepid. Insects Colln Br. Mus.
Type Sp Page: 357
Type Sp Part: (1)
Type Sp Year: 1854
Type Sp Ref Id: 8448.0
Type Sp Genus: Erchia
Type Sp: extranea
Memo Links: ['http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/search?searchTerm=ERCHIA', 'http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/gbn/Lamas_Genera_04ii08.xls', 'http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/127039', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riodinidae']
Memo: Hemming (1967) stated:- Walker used the name Erchia as a new generic name twice in the same volume, namely the present name Erchia (: 357) and Erchia (: 321), this latter being applied to a genus of Dioptid moths. For names such as these published in the same work and on the same date, the relative precedence to be accorded depends on the choice made by the First Reviser. In this case the First Reviser was Kirby when in 1892 (Syn. Cat. Lep. Het. 1 : 410) he gave precedence to Dioptid Erchia (: 321) over the present Erchia, introducing for the latter the replacement name Pseuderchia. In introducing the present name, Walker erroneously supposed that its type-species, Erchia extranea, was a Geometrid moth, whereas in fact it is a Riodinid butterfly. In consequence of the way in which these names were published by Walker, they have been completely overlooked in the literature of the butterflies. The true nature of these taxa only came to light recently in the course of work in the British Museum (Natural History), as I was informed by Mr. N. D. Riley when he kindly drew my attention to these hitherto unknown names. If the discovery of these ancient names had led to the upsetting of names in current use, there would have been a very strong case for asking the Commission to reject them as nomina oblita. Fortunately, however, such action is not required in the present case : - (i) The generic name Erchia Walker, as applied to the Riodinid butterfly, is (as shown above) invalid under the Law of Homonymy. (ii) The nominal species Erchia extranea Walker (the type-species of Erchia) is subjectively treated as representing the same taxon as that represented by the older-established nominal species Limnas barca Hewitson, [1853 (Ill. exot. Butts 1 : [120], pl. 60], fig. 12), and in consequence the specific name extranea Walker falls as a junior subjective synonym of barca Hewitson. (iii) The generic name Pseuderchia Kirby, 1892, typified as indicated above, is a junior subjective synonym of Melanis Hübner, [1819] a genus commonly but incorrectly known by the name Lymnas Blanchard. Watson, Fletcher & Nye (1980) stated:- Erchia was established as a subgenus of Dioptis Hübner, 1818. The higher classification used here follows Lamas (2008).

Cite this as

We track changes to records and therefore you have a choice of citation options:

To cite the most up to date record data use the Latest URL.

Or to cite this specific version of a record's data, ensuring any followers of the link see the same data every time they visit the link, use the Version URL.

Additional Information

Format unknown
License Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike
Dataset buttmoth
Dataset ID f8bc9b9c-009a-4689-bd01-ed621095c457
Resource Butterflies and Moths of the World
Resource ID c1727662-2d1e-426f-818c-d144552a747c