Skip to content

Data Portal

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

Baeotus

Number: 3482.0
Author: Hemming
Family: Nymphalidae
Genus: Baeotus
Journal: Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond.
Year: 1939
Homonym Count: 1.0
Page: 136
Part: (7)
Ref Id: 2550.0
Series: (B)
Status: Available name
Subfamily: Nymphalinae
Superfamily: Papilionoidea
Tribe: Coeini
Volume: 8
Type Country: See BHL scanned Type-species page
Type Des: by original designation
Type Sp Author: Doubleday
Type Sp Bhl Page: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/49324#page/324/mode/2up
Type Sp Journal: Gen. diurn. Lep.
Type Sp Page: pl.48, fig.2
Type Sp Page Comment: ; Westwood, [Nov. 1850], in Doubleday, ibid. (2) : 312 (beotus emended to baeotus)
Type Sp Year: 1849
Type Sp Ref Id: 1482.0
Type Sp Genus: Megistanis
Type Sp: beotus
Memo Links: ['http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/search?searchTerm=BAEOTUS', 'http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/127039', 'http://butterfliesofamerica.com/L/t/Baeotus_a.htm', 'http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/gbn/Lamas_Genera_04ii08.xls', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nymphalidae']
Memo: Hemming (1967) stated:- The name Megistanis baeotus was first published - unfortunately as a manuscript name by Doubleday, 1844 (List. Spec. lep. Ins. Brit. Mus. 1 : 109), where, as shown, the first syllable was spelled "bae-". When it was first validly published by Doubleday in 1849 on plate 48, it appeared in the defective spelling "be-", which was however corrected to "bae-" by Westwood in the text of the same work published (in 1850) after Doubleday's death. This is considered to be a clear case of an original spelling "beotus" being demonstrably due to an inadvertent error. In accordance with the provisions of Article 32 (a) of the revised Code the spelling "baeotus" used in the text of the same work is the Correct Original Spelling. If however the view were to be taken that the spellings "beotus" and "baeotus" should be regarded as a pair of Incorrect Original Spellings and therefore that this case should be dealt with under Section (c) of Article 32 instead of under Section (a) of that Article, the spelling "baeotus" would still rank as the Correct Original Spelling, it having been used in preference to the spelling "beotus" by Westwood ; acting as First Reviser in 1850 (in the text of Doubleday's book). The generic name Baeotus was introduced in order to provide an available name for the genus hitherto incorrectly known by the name Megistanis Doubleday, 1844. The latter is an available name but Scudder's selection in 1875 (Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 213) of Megistanis baeotus as type-species was invalid because at that time the name Megistanis baeotus was (as already noted) only a manuscript name, and no description or indication for it was then provided by Doubleday. Cowan (1970: 42) stated:- "BAEOTUS line 2 : "baeotus" to read - beotus [sic], [type-species]. A whole series of mishaps is here. Megistanis beotus was consistently so spelt by Doubleday; in 1844 : 109 (when it was a nomen nudum), and on plate 48 [1849] (when it became available). Westwood was inconsistent; using "baeotus" in [1850] : 312, and beotus in his Index to plates [1852] : ix. The name must stand as Baeotus beotus Doubleday. The generic name is not eligible for emendation as it was deliberately so spelt. The higher classification used here follows Lamas (2008). See images at Butterflies of America.

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