Skip to content

Data Portal

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

Athyma

Number: 3154.0
In Author: Doubleday
Author: Westwood
Bhl Page: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/49324#page/28/mode/2up
Family: Nymphalidae
Genus: Athyma
Journal: Gen. diurn. Lep.
Year: 1850
Homonym Count: 2.0
Page: 272
Ref Id: 6455.0
Status: Available name
Subfamily: Limenitidinae
Superfamily: Papilionoidea
Tribe: Limenitidini
Volume: 2
Type Country: See BHL scanned Type-species page
Type Des Ref Id: 5223.0
Type Des: by subsequent designation by
Type Des Author: Scudder
Type Des Year: 1875
Type Des Journal: Proc. amer. acad. Arts Sci., Boston
Type Des Title: Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Boston
Type Des Volume: 10
Type Des Part: (2)
Type Des Page: 123
Type Des Bhl Page: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/22173#page/130/mode/2up
Type Sp Author: Linnaeus
Type Sp Bhl Page: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/10277#page/500/mode/2up
Type Sp Journal: Systema Naturae
Type Sp Page: 478
Type Sp Series: (Edn 10)
Type Sp Volume: 1
Type Sp Year: 1758
Type Sp Ref Id: 3527.0
Type Sp Genus: Papilio
Type Sp: leucothoe
Memo Links: ['http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/search?searchTerm=ATHYMA', 'http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/gbn/Lamas_Genera_04ii08.xls', 'http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/127039', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nymphalidae']
Memo: Hemming (1967) stated:- There has been considerable confusion regarding the proper application of the name Athyma Westwood, owing partly to doubts, until recently, as to the interpretation of originally included nominal species, and partly to taxonomic difficulties in certain respects. Normally, difficulties of this latter kind would fall outside the scope of the present work, but in the present instance some explanation is necessary for the proper understanding of the purely nomenclatorial issues. The first point to be noted is that what Scudder selected as type-species was cited by Westwood as "leucothoe Linn., 1764". However, Linnaeus did not describe a new nominal taxon in 1764 under the name Papilio leucothoe ; what he did do in the Mus. Lud. Ulr. (: 292) in that year was to redescribe the nominal species Papilio leucothoe established by himself in 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 478). Unfortunately, as specialists are agreed, Linnaeus in 1764 included under the name Papilio leucothoe two quite different taxa. This was first clearly established by Aurivillius in 1882 (K. svenska VetenskAkad. Handl., Stockholm 19, No. 5 : 68, 93, 94). What in 1764 Linnaeus described as the male of Papilio leucothoe was a species of the "Neptis-Group", while what he described as the female was a species of the group often incorrectly known in the xixth and early xxth century as the "Pantoporia-Group" and more recently as the "Parathyma-Group." The next point to be considered is the identity of the species to which the name Papilio leucothoe Linnaeus, 1758, properly belongs. On this subject there is general agreement that this name applies to the "Pantoporia-Group" species which is one of the two taxa to which Linnaeus in 1764 applied this name. It is further agreed subjectively on taxonomic grounds that the taxon represented by the nominal species Papilio leucothoe Linnaeus, 1758, is the same as that taxon established on an earlier page (: 471) in the same work. The specified names leucothoe and perius, both of Linnaeus, 1758, are therefore subjective synonyms of one another. The relative precedence to be accorded to these names depends on the choice made by the First Reviser. This was Aurivillius (1882, loc. cit. : 68) who gave preference to the name perius Linnaeus over the name leucothoe Linnaeus. Thus, on the basis of the subjective taxonomic view discussed above, the oldest available specific name for, and therefore the valid name of, the "Pantoporia-Group" species here in question is perius Linnaeus 1758. Up till comparatively recent times there was no Official guidance to the procedure to be followed in cases in which an author established a nominal genus on the basis of a misidentified type-species, some authors taking as the type-species the taxon to which the specific name cited by the author of the generic name properly applies, while others sought to establish the identity of the species intended by the author of the generic name and, having reached a conclusion on this subject, treated the species so determined as the type-species of the genus concerned. Under the revised Code (Article 70) an author of a generic name is to be assumed to have correctly identified the nominal species placed by him in the genus in question, save where he makes it plain that he is applying a given specific name in some sense other than that of the original author of the specific name in question. This latter provision does not apply in the present case, as Westwood said nothing to imply that he was using the specific name leucothoe in a sense different from that in which it had been originally applied by Linnaeus - and, indeed, could not have done so, in view of the fact that it was not until many years later that the identity of the taxa to which that specific name was applied by Linnaeus when (1) when he first published it, and (ii) when he used it again in the Mus. Lud. Ulr. was definitely established by Aurivillius (1882). The present therefore is a case in which it is necessary to assume that Westwood correctly identified the nominal species Papilio leucothoe Linnaeus when he placed it in his new genus Athyma. Thus, under the Code the type-species of Athyma is the species of the "Pantoporia-Group" to which the name Papilio leucothoe is properly applicable. When we turn to examine the interpretation of the genus Athyma by authors subsequent to Westwood, we find (a) that over a long period it was treated as having a type-species belonging to the "Pantoporia-Group" and was widely used in this sense, and (b) that a minority of authors, including myself in 1934 (Gen. Names hol. Butts 1 : 87) treated this genus as having a species of the "Neptis-Group" as its type-species, the name Athyma being treated by these latter authors as a junior subjective synonym of the older name Neptis Fabricius, 1807. It will be seen therefore that the acceptance - as now seen to be required under the Code - of the "Pantoporia-Group" species as the type-species of Athyma is fully in harmony with the general practice of authors. As pointed out by myself in 1934 (loc. cit. 1 : 87), the name Parathyma Moore, [1898] would be the oldest available generic name for species of the "Pantoporia-Group" if it were necessary - as is now seen not to be the case - to apply the name Athyma to the "Neptis-Group". Even the name Parathyma Moore will not be adversely affected by the acceptance of the name Athyma Westwood as the valid name for the genus having as its type-species the nominal species Papilio leucothoe Linnaeus, 1758 (=a junior subjective synonym of Papilio perius Linnaeus, 1758) if currently considered subjectively on taxonomic grounds to be distinct from that having Papilio sulpitia Cramer, [1779] as type-species, that is, as being distinct from the genus Parathyma Moore, [1898]. 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