Euryphene
| Number: | 11291.0 | |
|---|---|---|
| In Author: | Doubleday | |
| Author: | Westwood | |
| Bhl Page: | http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/49324#page/40/mode/2up | |
| Family: | Nymphalidae | |
| Genus: | Euryphene | |
| Journal: | Gen. diurn. Lep. | |
| Year: | 1850 | |
| Homonym Count: | 2.0 | |
| Of Value: | ; | |
| Page: | 285 | |
| Ref Id: | 6455.0 | |
| Status: | Unjustified emendation | |
| Subfamily: | Limenitidinae | |
| Superfamily: | Papilionoidea | |
| Tribe: | Limenitidini | |
| Volume: | 2 | |
| Senior Syn: | EURIPHENE | |
| Senior Syn Author: | Boisduval | |
| Senior Syn Page: | 592 | |
| Senior Syn Year: | 1847 | |
| Type Country: | ? COUNTRY | |
| Type Depository: | (? Depository) | |
| Type Locality: | ? Locality | |
| Types: | ? Type status | |
| Type Des: | (through Article 67.8 (replacement names)) | |
| Type Sp Author: | Boisduval | |
| Type Sp In Author: | Delegorgue | |
| Type Sp Journal: | Voy. Afrique austr. | |
| Type Sp Of: | ; | |
| Type Sp Page: | 592 | |
| Type Sp Year: | 1847 | |
| Type Sp Ref Id: | 9064.0 | |
| Type Sp Genus: | Euriphene | |
| Type Sp: | coerulea | |
| Memo Links: | ['http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/gbn/Lamas_Genera_04ii08.xls', 'http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/127039', 'http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/search?searchTerm=EURYPHENE', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nymphalidae'] | |
| Memo: | Hemming (1967) stated:- An Unjustified Emendation of Euriphene Boisduval, 1847. Westwood attributed the name Euryphene to Boisduval and placed in this genus six species, exclusive of five which he attributed to it doubtfully, assigning to each a mark of interrogation. One of the species unhesitatingly placed by Westwood in this genus was Euriphene coerulea Boisduval, the type-species of Boisduval's genus Euriphene. In citing this binomen West- wood correctly spelled it with an "i" in the second syllable. It is thus abundantly clear that Westwood was fully aware that Doubleday considered correctly that Boisduval was the author of this name and also that that author had spelled the second syllable with an "i" and not with a "y". Thus, it is to Westwood alone that the "y" spelling in this work must be attributed. Accordingly, the name Euryphene Westwood, [1850], ranks (as stated above) as an Unjustified Emendation of the name Euriphene Boisduval, 1847. As this name of Boisduval's is nomenclatorially available, Westwood's emendation Euryphene is objectively invalid, its type-species being automatically the same species as that of Euriphene Boisduval, namely Euriphene coerulea Boisduval. The emendation Euryphene Westwood had a most unfortunate subsequent history, being erroneously treated as though it had been published by Westwood as the name for a new genus of his own, quite distinct from Euriphene Boisduval. Initially, no doubt this was largely due to the fact that the generic diagnosis provided by Westwood did not apply to Euriphene coerulea (the type-species of Euriphene Boisduval), but did apply to Papilio cocalia Fabricius, 1793, another of the species placed by Westwood in what he called Euryphene Boisduval. It was used in this sense, for Example, by Röber ([1888], in Schatz) and by Reuter ([1899]), both of whom attributed this name, as Eurypheme, to Boisduval, placing in it only Papilio cocalia. Between the publication of the these works by Röber and Reuter, the process of misunderstanding was carried a further stage by Karsch who in 1895 established the genus Diestogyna for a species (Aterica tadema Hewitson), which exhibits the same generic characters as does Euriphene coerulea, the true type-species of Euriphene Boisduval, with the result that for many years thereafter that species was misplaced in Karsch's genus. The last phase was reached in 1898 (K. svenska VetenskAkad. Handl., Stockholm 31 (No. 5) : 191-202) when Aurivillius, while retaining Westwood's invalid spelling Euryphene, broke the last link between this generic name and Boisduval, expressly attributed it to Westwood, but published it as "Eurytheme Westwood" Thus, it was that the mythical genus Euryphene Westwood came into existence. This extraordinary muddle only came to light when the present work was in preparation. It has been remedied by the provision of the name Behearia Hemming, 1960 (type-species : Euryphene iturina Karsch, 1894) for the species hitherto placed in the nonexistent genus Eurphene. First, Euryphene (sic) Boisduval (sic) was just "one more of those widely circulated but unpublished names for which Boisduval was noted" (Hemming, passim). This is surely obvious from the wide currency of the name, which first appeared almost simultaneously from Feisthamel 1850 (see entry, List [Hemming, 1967] : 187) and from Westwood [Sep. 1850]. Westwood himself was at pains to credit Boisduval with the name; at the head of the genus, in the subtitle, and in listing as a queried synonym of E. absolon Fab. "Euryphene guineensis Boisduval M.S.", while carefully distinguishing "Euriphene caerulea Boisduval in Delagorgue" (though admittedly misspelling both the diphthong in coerulea, and also Delegorgue). All authors of the time regarded, therefore, the published name Euriphene Boisduval as, so to speak, an incorrect subsequent spelling of Euryphene Boisduval M.S.! Unfortunately Boisduval never corrected his original publication, and confusion resulted. Looked at in this way, the otherwise strange treatment by Kirby in 1871 (Cat. diurn. Lep. (1) : 246) of "Euryphene Boisduval", as comprising "Euriphene Boisduval, 1847 and Euryphene Westwood, 1850", makes sense. Scudder (1875) was the first to take a detached view, saying "Euriphene Boisduval . . caerulea (sic) sole species, and therefore type . . spelled Euryphene by Westwood, Felder and Kirby". Second, Boisduval gave no diagnosis of the genus Euriphene. He described the binomen "Euriphene coerulea Boisd., inédit. - Port Natal" as (a) having the identical structure and size of guineensis, (b) having the upperside deep blue colour of Cramer's illustration of veronica (for which he gave a wrong reference to two moths; recte Stoll, pl. 325, figs. C, D); and (c) a description of the markings. The specific description is good and valid, but the generic diagnosis (a) depends entirely on guineensis - yet another manuscript name, not described for another 20 years! (It became E. guineensis Felder, 1867, Reise Novara Lep. (3) : 430). Thus is explained not only Westwood's and others' change in spelling, but also the increasing tendency of later authors to regard Westwood's full publication as the first valid one for the genus, his different concept of which, and natural diffidence in defining a type-species, resulted later in the establishment of Diestogyna Karsch. To return to the present situation. Boisduval gave sufficient description to identify coerulea, and therefore sufficient indication to diagnose Euriphene under the present Code; coerulea being the type-species by monotypy since veronica was mentioned only for comparison, and guineensis was non-existent. And, since Boisduval's original publication contains no evidence of a misprint, the spelling Euriphene can be upheld as valid. So the same conclusion as Hemming's is reached by different means; that Euryphene Westwood is, rather unjustly, an Unjustified Emendation. It is noticed that Oberthür, Aurivillius and Hemming all alter the type-locality of E. coerulea from Port Natal (i.e. Durban) to French Guinea, the "opposite corner" of Africa. This seems strange, for Delegorgue did not call there, nor are any other species from there described in the same work (not even guineensis !). Finally, it should be mentioned that on the last page (561) of Aurivillius' "1898" work it is stated that it appeared "Ende April 1899"; and it nowhere mentions "Eurytheme Westwood"." Cowan (1968: 12) stated:- EURYPHENE Westwood, line 29; "1898 should read; (1899) line 32; "Eurpheme" should read; Euryphene line 34; "Behearia" should read; Bebearia line 36 (last); "Eurphene" should read Euryphene Cowan (1968: 17) stated:- Apart from the unfortunate series of errata under the entry for Euryphene Westwood, 1850, failure to realise two important facts has undermined the historical notes. Cowan (1970: 36) stated:- EURYPHENE Westwood, 1850. An Unjustified Emendation of Euriphene Boisduval, 1847. This curious case was considered in Annot. Rhop. 1968. [Given above]. 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.
Version Permanent URL for this version of the record data:
https://data.nhm.ac.uk/record/c1727662-2d1e-426f-818c-d144552a747c/11278/1677508006952
Retrieved: 14 Jun 2025 12:34:48 (UTC)
Latest Permanent URL for the most up to date record data:
https://data.nhm.ac.uk/record/c1727662-2d1e-426f-818c-d144552a747c/11278
Retrieved: 14 Jun 2025 12:34:48 (UTC)
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 |