Skip to content

Data Portal

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

Cepora

Number: 5490.0
Author: Billberg
Bhl Page: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/105024#page/88/mode/2up
Family: Pieridae
Genus: Cepora
Journal: Enum. Ins. Mus. Billb.
Year: 1820
Homonym Count: 1.0
Page: 76
Ref Id: 455.0
Status: Available name
Subfamily: Pierinae
Subtribe: Aporiina
Superfamily: Papilionoidea
Tribe: Pierini
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: 138
Type Des Comment: (as a junior name of nerissa)
Type Des Bhl Page: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/22173#page/146/mode/2up
Type Sp Author: Cramer
Type Sp Bhl Page: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/95174#page/218/mode/2up
Type Sp Journal: Uitl. Kapellen
Type Sp Page: 69, pl.44, figs B-C
Type Sp Volume: 1
Type Sp Year: 1775
Type Sp Ref Id: 6911.0
Type Sp Genus: Papilio
Type Sp: coronis
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=CEPORA', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieridae']
Memo: Hemming (1967) stated:- The taxon represented by the nominal species Papilio coronis Cramer is currently treated subjectively on taxonomic grounds as being the same as that represented by the nominal species Papilio nerissa Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 471). As these names were both published in the year 1775 and there was no sure evidence as to which was the first to be published, there has always been some doubt as to which of these names should be used in preference to the other. For the most part however authors have used the specific name nerissa Fabricius rather than the name coronis Cramer. The underlying question here involved affected a considerable number of pairs of names, not only names published by Fabricius and Cramer in 1775 but also by other authors published in that year, notably von Rottemburg and Denis & Schiffermüller. This question was considered in a preliminary way in 1948 by the Commission which directed that a detailed investigation should be carried out and a report submitted to it for consideration. The report so called for was considered by the Commission in 1957. The decision then taken by the Commission was later embodied in the Commission's Opinion 516 (1958, Opin. int. Comm. zool. Nom. 19 : 1-44). In that Opinion the Commission ruled, inter alia, that the Systema Entomologiae of Fabricius is to be treated as having priority over those Parts of Cramer's Uitl. Kapellen published in 1775. Under this ruling the specific name nerissa Fabricius, 1775, published in the combination Papilio nerissa, takes precedence over the name coronis Cramer, [1775], published in the combination Papilio coronis. Thus, on the subjective taxonomic view indicated above, the name nerissa Fabricius, 1775, is the oldest available specific name subjectively applicable to the type-species of the present genus. CEPORA was included within the subfamily PIERIDAE: PIERINAE by Ackery et al., in Kristensen (1999). 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