Skip to content

Data Portal

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

Licus

Number: 16075.0
Author: Hübner
Bhl Page: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/45770#page/51/mode/2up
Family: Lycaenidae
Genus: Licus
Journal: Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.
Year: 1823
Homonym Count: 1.0
Of Value: ;
Page: 7
Ref Id: 2857.0
Status: Incorrect subsequent spelling
Subfamily: Theclinae
Superfamily: Papilionoidea
Tribe: Eumaeini
Volume: 2
Senior Syn: CALLOPHRYS
Senior Syn Author: Billberg
Senior Syn Page: 80
Senior Syn Year: 1820
Memo Links: ['http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/search?searchTerm=LICUS', 'http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/gbn/Lamas_Genera_04ii08.xls', 'http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/127039', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycaenidae']
Memo: Hemming (1967) stated:- The name Licus of the Zuträge was probably - but not certainly - intended as an Emendation of Lycus of the Verzeichniss published in 1819, in which case it would have been a Justified Emendation, as Lycus Hübner, [1819], is invalid as being a junior homonym of Lycus Fabricius, 1787 (the name of a genus of Coleoptera) ; it would however have itself been invalid, as a junior objective synonym of Callophrys Billberg, 1820. For this reason also, it would have been invalid also, if it had been published in the Zuträge as a new name, independent of the earlier name Lyons Hübner, [1819]. Cowan (1970: 37) stated:- "LICUS" Hübner, [1823]. An Incorrect Subsequent Spelling of Lycus Hübner, 1819. Hübner, [1819], Verz. bek Schmett. (5) : 74 introduced the new generic name Lycus for three species; 730. Lycus niphon. Zuträge 203, 204. [a new species] 731. L. rubi Linn., Syst. Pap. 237. Hübn., Pap. 364, 365. 732. L. gryneus. damon Cram., 390 C, D. [a nom. nov.]. As is well known, the plates of Hübner's Zutr. s. Samml. exot. Schmett. were then appearing, and plate [36] of [1819] made the otherwise undescribed L. siphon valid through the cross-reference here of figures 203, 204 (of that plate), as the plates bore the numbers only, no names. Lycus was so spelt consistently in the Verzeichniss, with no evidence of any lapsus. It happens to be a junior homonym of Lycus Fabricius, 1787 in Coleoptera. When the text for the Zuträge plate [36] appeared, in [1823] (lieferung (2) : 7), the name applied to figures 203, 204 was "Licus niphon", and this Florida species was said to be allied to "L. rubi (Linn.)". Hübner did not explain the spelling "Licus", nor mention Lycus. Scudder (1872 : 52) validly designated Papilio rubi Linnaeus to be the type-species of Licus, and (1875 : 210) the same for Lycus. "Licus" Hübner, [1823] could not have been, as has been suggested, a Justified Emendation made because Lycus was an invalid homonym, for in those days Lycus and "Licus" would themselves have been regarded as homonymous. Had it been a Justified Emendation it would have automatically the date of the emended name, [1819], and so invalidate Callophrys Billberg, 1820. But there is no evidence of any error in the original spelling Lycus, nor are there any grounds for believing "Licus" to be an emendation at all. For similar reasons it cannot be regarded as a replacement name. It is a simple misspelling. 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