Lephelisca
| Number: | 15728.0 | |
|---|---|---|
| Author: | Barnes & Lindsey | |
| Bhl Page: | http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/44557#page/104/mode/2up | |
| Family: | Riodinidae | |
| Genus: | Lephelisca | |
| Journal: | Ann. ent. Soc. Am. | |
| Year: | 1922 | |
| Homonym Count: | 1.0 | |
| Page: | 93 | |
| Part: | (1) | |
| Ref Id: | 259.0 | |
| Status: | Junior objective synonym | |
| Subfamily: | Riodininae | |
| Superfamily: | Papilionoidea | |
| Tribe: | Riodinini | |
| Volume: | 15 | |
| Senior Syn: | CALEPHELIS | |
| Senior Syn Author: | Grote & Robinson | |
| Senior Syn Page: | 310 | |
| Senior Syn Year: | 1869 | |
| Type Country: | See BHL scanned Type-species page | |
| Type Des: | by original designation | |
| Type Sp Author: | Guérin-Méneville | |
| Type Sp Bhl Page: | http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/88600#page/182/mode/2up | |
| Type Sp Journal: | Iconog. Régne Anim. Cuvier | |
| Type Sp Page: | pl.81, fig.1 | |
| Type Sp Page Comment: | ; [1844], ibidem (text) : 489 | |
| Type Sp Volume: | 2 | |
| Type Sp Year: | 1832 | |
| Type Sp Ref Id: | 2277.0 | |
| Type Sp Genus: | Erycina | |
| Type Sp: | virginiensis | |
| Memo Links: | ['http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/search?searchTerm=LEPHELISCA', '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:- Prior to the publication of the name Lephelisca, the nominal species designated by Barnes & Lindsey as the type-species of this genus was commonly treated erroneously as the type-species of the genus Calephelis Grote & Robinson, 1869, a genus based upon an erroneously determined type-species. In a recently submitted application dos Passos has asked (1963, Bull. zool. Nom. 20 : 313-320) the Commission to deal with the name Calephelis under Article 70(a) by designating Erycina virginiensis as the type-species of that genus, thereby giving effect to the original intention of Grote & Robinson and at the same time validating the majority practice of taxonomists. In accordance with the provisions of Article 80 the names Calephelis and Lephelisca are treated provisionally as though the foregoing application has already been approved by the Commission. Accordingly, although at present an available name, Lephelisca is here treated as a junior objective synonym of Calephelis Grote & Robinson. The foregoing is no more than a brief summary of the present case, which is described in full in the note given under the name Calephelis. There has been some discussion as to the authorship to be attributed to, and the date of publication of, the name Erycina virginiensis, but, as will be seen from the note referred to above, (1) that name was first published by Gray in 1832 (in Griffith's Cuvier's Anim. Kingd. 15 : pl. 58, fig. 1) and (2),as published by Guérin in the Iconographie Ins., there is no evidence that it was published within the meaning of the Code before September 1844. Finally, it must be noted that, after it had been established that Calephelis Grote & Robinson was a genus established on a misidentified type-species and therefore that under the Code Erycina virginiensis was not its type-species, the name Nymphidia Boisduval & Leconte, [1833], was treated as being available for this genus with, as its type-species by monotypy, the nominal species Nymphidia pumila Boisduval & Leconte, [1833]. This arrangement was based upon the subjective view of taxonomists that that nominal species represented the same taxon as that represented by Erycina virginiensis. This view, which was advanced by myself in 1934 (Gen. Names hol. Butts 1 : 99), was based on the assumption that Nymphidia, as published by Boisduval & Leconte, was an available name, notwithstanding the likelihood that it was looked upon by those authors as an emendation of the name Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807. The clarification of the rules relating to emendations and erroneous subsequent spellings embodied in Article 33 of the revised Code showed that the foregoing view was incorrect and that Nymphidia, as published by the foregoing authors, has no separate existence in nomenclature, being no more than an Incorrect Subsequent Spelling of Nymphidium Fabricius. Cowan (1968: 7) stated:- Opinion 755 ruled that Lephelisca Barnes & Lindsey is invalid. The footnotes on pp. 86, 317 of the List [Hemming, 1967] apply equally on p. 251. Cowan (1970: 50) stated:- LEPHELISCA line 2: "1844" to read - [l832]. Delete "489" line 3: add [l844], idem (text) : 489" Lephelisca Barnes & Lindsey, 1922 was placed on the List of Invalid and Rejected Names in Zoology, (Opinion 755), The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature : 282. 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/15710/1677508006952
Retrieved: 13 Jun 2025 03:01:04 (UTC)
Latest Permanent URL for the most up to date record data:
https://data.nhm.ac.uk/record/c1727662-2d1e-426f-818c-d144552a747c/15710
Retrieved: 13 Jun 2025 03:01:04 (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 |