| Memo: |
Hemming (1967) stated:-
As explained in a note prepared by myself in conjunction with M. H. Stempffer (1963, Entomologist 96 : 292-293) it later transpired that the holotype and sole known specimen of the nominal species Pseudoliptena bitje (now preserved in the Hope Department of Entomology, Oxford University) was an entirely artificial species, having no counterpart in nature. In his original description Stempffer had remarked that in general appearance and wing-pattern this specimen showed similarities with the Tetrarhanids but that the genitalia resembled those in Liptena; he added that the characters of the venation were unique among the Liptenines. The presence of this strange amalgam of characters was fully explained when it transpired that at some stage a Liptenine abdomen had been gummed on to the specimen in question in an ill-judged attempt, apparently, to repair that specimen after its abdomen had become detached. Following this discovery, the holotype of this nominal species was re-examined by M. Stempffer who concluded (a) that the thorax and wings of this specimen (which was in bad condition) belonged to a species of the genus Anthene Doubleday, 1847, which he identified as being probably Anthene lachares Hewitson, [1878] (i.e. Lycenesthes lachares Hewitson, [1878], Ill. diurn. Lep., Lycaenidae 1 : 225; ibidem. 2 : pl. 91, figs. 33, 34) but (b) the abdomen from which the preparation of the genitalia had been made had been taken from a specimen of Liptena modesta Kirby, 1890 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) 6 : 270). Thus, on the basis of current ideas the name Pseudoliptena bitje Stempffer, 1946, is a junior subjective synonym of Lycaenesthes lacheres Hewitson, [1878], and Pseudoliptena Stempffer a junior subjective synonym of Anthene Doubleday, 1847.
The higher classification used here follows Lamas (2008).
|
|