Skip to content

Data Portal

Explore and download the Museum’s research and collections data.
  1. Home
  2. Data
  3. Butterflies and Moths of the World
  4. Butterflies and Moths of the World
  5. Paduca

Paduca

Number: 20996.0
Author: Moore
Bhl Page: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/98725#page/48/mode/2up
Family: Nymphalidae
Genus: Paduca
Journal: J. Linn. Soc. Lond.
Year: 1886
Homonym Count: 1.0
Page: 34
Part: (126)
Ref Id: 4050.0
Series: (Zool.)
Status: Available name
Subfamily: Heliconiinae
Superfamily: Papilionoidea
Tribe: Vagrantini
Volume: 21
Type Country: See BHL scanned Type-species page
Type Des: by original designation
Type Sp Author: Felder & Felder
Type Sp Bhl Page: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/97825#page/246/mode/2up
Type Sp Journal: Wien. ent. Monatschr.
Type Sp Page: 236
Type Sp Volume: 4
Type Sp Year: 1860
Type Sp Ref Id: 1816.0
Type Sp Genus: Atella
Type Sp: fasciata
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=PADUCA', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nymphalidae']
Memo: Hemming (1967) stated:- Prior to the promulgation of the new Code in 1961 there existed no authoritative provision determining the conditions in which any two generic names were to be treated as being homonyms of one another. In these circumstances the name Paduca here in question and the name Paduka Distant were treated as being homonyms of tone another. Both these names were published in the year 1886, the name Paduka Distant having appeared in that year on 30th April and Paduca Moore on 13th November. As the junior of these two names Paduca Moore was rejected as being invalid under the Law of Homonymy ; it was replaced in the year 1900 by Moore himself by the name Ducapa. Under the clarification of the rules relating to homonymy between generic names embodied in Article 56 (a) of the revised text of the Code the "One-Letter-Difference" Rule provides that a generic name is not to be treated as a homonym of another name, if the two names concerned differ from one another in spelling by a single letter. Under this provision the name Paduca Moore is not to be treated as a homonym of the slightly older name Paduka Distant and is therefore an available name, its replacement name Ducapa falling therefore into synonymy. According to current taxonomic ideas the name Paduca Moore will not however require to be brought into use [sic, see below], for the type-species of Paduca is currently regarded subjectively as being congeneric with the type-species of the genus Algia Herrich-Schaeffer, 1864. Cowan (1968: 13) stated:- PADUCA Moore: last sentence is wrong - should read: It is in use. Cowan (1968: 16) stated:- It is wrong to treat Paduca Moore (See also: List [Hemming, 1967] : 330) as not in current use. With Ducapa the name has long been well known, and was mentioned in Seitz (Grschm. Erde 9 : 484, by Fruhstorfer, 1912), and Paduca was confirmed as fully valid by Corbet in 1956 (Butt. Malay Penin. : 198, 446, 477 note 15), in his classic which is widely consulted now in the territory of Paduca. Algia was never brought into general use because, not only was it introduced in unsatisfactory fashion as Hemming points out so clearly, but it also was discarded by Scudder in his Historical Sketch (1875). It ranked as a perfect example of a nomen oblitum when, a century after its introduction, Hemming (1964, Annot. Lep. 4 : 124) improperly revived it. This act contravened Article 23 (b) of the Code in that he did not "refer it to the Commission, to be placed either on the appropriate Official Index of Rejected Names or, if such action better serves the stability and universality of nomenclature, on the appropriate Official List [Hemming, 1967]. A nomen oblitum is not to be used unless the Commission so directs. It is still felt that stability and universality will best be served by the continued use of Paduca Moore, 1886 and the rejection of Algia Herrich-Schäffer, 1864, and a proposal to this effect is being submitted. Cowan (1970: 33) stated:- ALGIA and PADUCA In Annot. Rhop. 1968 (p. 16, note 2) it was said than an application would be submitted under Article 23b regarding Algia Herrich-Schäffer, 1864 and Paduca Moore, 1886, whose type-species are regarded respectively as the Celebes and the Sumatran subspecies of the same species. This has not been done. These two generic names remain both valid, their synonymy being purely subjective. The type-species, A. satyrina Felder & Felder, 1867 and P. fasciata Folder & Felder, 1860 are remarkably different in appearance and there is even some structural difference between them. Although they must represent the same original parent species their divergence is considerable and presents an interesting situation. It is felt that until more is known of their early stages, habits and other properties, there is no harm in leaving the nomenclature as it stands. In any case it is not possible to act under Article 23b at present, as that Article is still in abeyance, having been inoperative since 1966. 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/20970/1677508006952

Retrieved: 25 Aug 2025 21:53:08 (UTC)

Latest Permanent URL for the most up to date record data:

https://data.nhm.ac.uk/record/c1727662-2d1e-426f-818c-d144552a747c/20970

Retrieved: 25 Aug 2025 21:53:08 (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