Skip to content

Data Portal

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

Bithys

Number: 3928.0
Author: Hübner
Bhl Page: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/45770#page/22/mode/2up
Family: Lycaenidae
Genus: Bithys
Journal: Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.
Year: 1818
Homonym Count: 1.0
Page: 18
Ref Id: 2844.0
Status: Suppressed name
Subfamily: Theclinae
Superfamily: Papilionoidea
Tribe: Eumaeini
Volume: 1
Senior Syn: SIDERUS
Senior Syn Author: Kaye
Senior Syn Page: 195
Senior Syn Year: 1904
Type Country: ? COUNTRY
Type Depository: (? Depository)
Type Locality: ? Locality
Types: ? Type status
Type Des Ref Id: 4884.0
Type Des: by subsequent designation by
Type Des Author: Riley
Type Des Year: 1922
Type Des Journal: J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc.
Type Des Title: Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society
Type Des Volume: 28
Type Des Part: (2)
Type Des Page: 466
Type Des Bhl Page: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/95242#page/610/mode/2up
Type Sp Author: Hübner
Type Sp Journal: Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.
Type Sp Page: 18, pl.[16], figs 87-88
Type Sp Volume: 1
Type Sp Year: 1818
Type Sp Ref Id: 10068.0
Type Sp Genus: Bithys
Type Sp: leucophaeus
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=BITHYS', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycaenidae']
Memo: Hemming (1967) stated:- The name Bithys Hübner, 1818, is invalid for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, having been ruled to be such by the Commission under its Plenary Powers by the Ruling given in its Opinion 541 (1959, Opin. int. Comm. zool. Nom. 20 : 87-102). Under this Ruling the name Bithys cannot be validly used in the sense in which it was employed by Hübner in 1818 but despite its having been suppressed in this way, it nevertheless retains its power to invalidate as junior homonyms any later uses of the name. Further in the Opinion cited above, the name Bithys Hübner was placed by the Commission on the "Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology" as Name No. 1234. The grounds on which the Commission was invited to suppress the name Bithys Hübner are set out in detail in the application submitted to the Commission by Riley and myself and published in the Opinion already referred to (1959, loc. cit. 20 : 90-97). Briefly, the problem arose in this case from the doubts which formerly existed as to the relative precedence to be accorded to new names published in volume 1 of the Zuträge and in the Verzeichniss respectively, preference at that time being given to the Verzeichniss over the Zuträge. On the discovery of the Hübner manuscripts it was found (Hemming, 1937, Hübner 1 : 462-468, 517) that, as previously believed, the text of volume 1 of the Zuträge was published in 1818 but that the text of the butterfly section - other than the first 16 pages - of the Verzeichniss was not published until 1819. In the present, and in certain other cases, the fact that the first volume of the Zuträge had priority over the Verzeichniss led to a change of type-species, the species included in the genus in the Verzeichniss not being the same as those included in the Zuträge. Type-selections for the genus Bithys, as used in the Verzeichniss ((5) : 75) were made by two authors : the first and valid selection was made by Scudder in 1875 Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 127, the species so selected being Papilio strephon Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 522). This selection was never effectively acted upon, mainly no doubt because then, as now, the great mass of Neotropical species were in need of thorough revision and were all grouped together, though very incongruously, in a single genus - currently the genus Strymon Hübner, 1818. The second - but invalid - type-selection made for Bithys in the Verzeichniss sense was that of Papilio quercus Linnaaes, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 482), this selection having made by Tutt ([1907], Nat. Hist. Brit. Butts 2 : 231, 234). The species so selected by Tutt belongs to an entirely different group of Hairstreaks, namely the true Theclids (sens. str.) and it was with this group that the name Bithys quickly (through incorrectly) came to be associated. Neither of the above species was included by Hübner when he first published the name Bithys, and both accordingly ceased to be connected with the case, except historically. The species included in the Zuträge which, as already noted, was selected by Riley in 1922 as the type-species of Bithys, namely Bithys leucophaeus Hübner, 1818 (then a new species) belongs to the so-called Strymonid Hairstreaks; its acceptance as the type-species of Bithys Hübner would thus have led to a most confusing transfer of that generic name from the true Theclids, where it was firmly (though invalidly) entrenched, to the Strymonids, for which it had never been used since Hübner's time. It was this situation which was prevented from arising by the decision by the Commission to suppress the name Bithys under its Plenary Powers. 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