Psolos
| Number: | 24939.0 | |
|---|---|---|
| Author: | Watson | |
| Bhl Page: | http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/111041#page/118/mode/2up | |
| Family: | Hesperiidae | |
| Genus: | Psolos | |
| Journal: | Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. | |
| Year: | 1893 | |
| Homonym Count: | 4.0 | |
| Page: | 87 | |
| Ref Id: | 11576.0 | |
| Status: | Unavailable name | |
| Subfamily: | Hesperiinae | |
| Superfamily: | Hesperioidea | |
| Volume: | 1893 | |
| Senior Syn: | SANCUS | |
| Senior Syn Author: | de Nicéville | |
| Senior Syn Page: | 395 | |
| Senior Syn Year: | 1891 | |
| Memo Links: | ['http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/search?searchTerm=PSOLOS', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesperiidae', 'http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/gbn/Lamas_Genera_04ii08.xls', 'http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/127039'] | |
| Memo: | Hemming (1967) stated:- Like Semper in 1892, Watson in 1893 treated Psolos as a manuscript name of Mabille's and placed it as a doubtful synonym of Sancus de Niceville. He added with a note of interrogation that the type-species of Psolos was Tagiades pulligo Mabille, 1876. This species was definitely selected as the type-species of Psolos by Lindsey in 1925 (Ann. ent. : Soc. Amer. 18 : 99). As a name published in a synonymy, Psolos Watson is invalid. If Psolos Watson had not been unavailable on the above account, it would nevertheless have been invalid, both as a junior homonym of Psolos Semper, 1892 - and, like that name, also of Psolos Staudinger, 1889, if that in turn had been an available name - and also as a junior objective synonym of Psolos Semper, 1892. Cowan (1970: 31) stated:- "GENERIC NAMES INTRODUCED IN SYNONYMY "PSOLOS" Watson, 1893, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1893 : 87. Not available. Of the various other authors who, between 1889-1961, have cited "Psolos Mabille in litt." the only noteworthy one was Watson, because Lindsey, 1925 (Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 18 : 99) designated as type-species of Psolos Watson, 1893 the nominal species Tagiades pulligo Mabille, 1876. That name was included by Watson, but it was a misidentification for fuligo. Lindsey called it the "Orthotype" and made no further comment. His treatment appears to have been insufficient to fulfil all the requirements of Article 11 (d) as revised, so "Psolos Watson, 1893" is not available and no action is necessary under Article 70(a) regarding the misidentified type-species. Even if this name were available, it would be invalid as a junior homonym of Psolos Staudinger, 1889. It would also be a junior subjective synonym of Sancus de Niceville, 1891. 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/24910/1677508006952
Retrieved: 28 Jul 2025 05:06:51 (UTC)
Latest Permanent URL for the most up to date record data:
https://data.nhm.ac.uk/record/c1727662-2d1e-426f-818c-d144552a747c/24910
Retrieved: 28 Jul 2025 05:06:51 (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 |