Dasyomma
| Number: | 8041.0 | |
|---|---|---|
| Author: | Felder & Felder | |
| Bhl Page: | http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/97825#page/410/mode/2up | |
| Family: | Nymphalidae | |
| Genus: | Dasyomma | |
| Journal: | Wien. ent. Monatschr. | |
| Year: | 1860 | |
| Homonym Count: | 1.0 | |
| Page: | 401 | |
| Part: | (12) | |
| Ref Id: | 1816.0 | |
| Status: | Junior homonym | |
| Subfamily: | Satyrinae | |
| Superfamily: | Papilionoidea | |
| Tribe: | Elymniini | |
| Volume: | 4 | |
| Senior Syn: | MYDOSAMA | |
| Senior Syn Author: | Moore | |
| Senior Syn Page: | 170 | |
| Senior Syn Year: | 1880 | |
| Type Country: | See BHL scanned Type-species page | |
| Type Des: | by monotypy | |
| Type Sp Author: | Felder & Felder | |
| Type Sp Bhl Page: | http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/97825#page/410/mode/2up | |
| Type Sp Journal: | Wien. ent. Monatschr. | |
| Type Sp Page: | 401 | |
| Type Sp Volume: | 4 | |
| Type Sp Year: | 1860 | |
| Type Sp Ref Id: | 1816.0 | |
| Type Sp Genus: | Dasyomma | |
| Type Sp: | fuscum | |
| Memo Links: | ['http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/search?searchTerm=DASYOMMA', '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:- This name is invalid, as it is a junior homonym of Dasyomma Macquart, 1841 (Mém. Soc. Sci. Lille 1840 : 309). It has been replaced by the name Mydosuena Moore, 1880 Cowan (1968: 12) stated:- DASYOMMA - v. FELDER GENERA, 2 last line; "Myoseuena" should read; Mydosama Cowan (1968 : 9-10) stated:- "Monotypic" Genera Chaetoneura C. & R. Felder 1862 : 185 (List 107) Dasyomma 1860 : 401 ( : 141) Doleschallia 1860 : 399 ( : 149) Isoteinon 1862 : 30 ( : 235) Rhinopalpa 1860 : 399 ( : 395) Well over 50 Felder genera are shown in the List [Hemming, 1967] as monotypic. All were checked to extract four of the above, which are not. The fifth, Doleschallia, is also anomalous. These genera were introduced in Wien. ent. Mon. 4 (1860) or 6 (1862), in papers dealing with small collections from abroad. The Felders' practice was to diagnose the new genus, then discuss the new foreign species for which they had introduced it, and then note any already described species from other places which belonged to it. For example, Doleschallia was introduced for the new Malayan species pratipa. After describing each of these new taxa in turn the Felders added that an allied species was "D. bisaltide Cramer", the "D." showing clearly their inclusion of Papilio bisaltide Cramer as a good Doleschallia. Kirby listed both these species, together with a third, polibete Cramer, in his 1871 Cat. darn. Leg., under Doleschallia. Now Doleschallia was dealt with by Scudder (1875 : 158), who based his work on Kirby 1871, as follows. He gave bisaltide in bold print as the one included species which he recognised, followed in parentheses by (polibete, bisaltide) which purported by his system (Scudder 1875 : 92) to be the originally included species classed as synonyms. He entirely ignored pratipa. He then concluded that bisaltide Cramer was "Sole species, and therefore type". Thus Scudder, according to his reading of the then unwritten Code as well as to the current Code, wrongly included an extraneous species, wrongly ignored one of the two originally included species, correctly included the second which he wrongly called the sole species, and then designated that as the type-species. Hemming ignores Scudder's exchange of pratipa for polibete, noting only his error in treating two species as synonymic, and concludes "Fortunately this error is of no consequence, for he unequivocally (!) specified Papilio bisaltide Cramer as being the type-species". The saving clause, which validates Scudder's selection, is in Article 69 (a)(iii) of the Code, which accepts such a selection "for whatever reason, right or wrong." The other four genera were introduced by the Felders in exactly the same way. Their originally included species were; Chaetoneura hippalus nov. (from interior Brazil) *"Ch. nearchus Latreille" (N. Brazil) "Ch. sataspes" nov. (Mexico) "Ch. pauses Westwood" (Amazon) * Dasyomma fuscum nov. (from Malaya) "D. anapita Moore" * Isoteinon lamprospilus nov. (from China) "I. pygmaeus Fabr., of India" * Rhinopalpa fulva nov. (from Malaya) "Rh. polynice Cramer" As "Sole species, and therefore type", Scudder gave those I have asterisked; for Chaetoneura, searches, with which he bracketed "hippulus" as a synonym; and the first named for each of the others without mention of synonyms or any other species at all. His selections were thus all anomalous, but all are valid under Article 69 (a)(iii) of the Code, and must stand. Hemming's List [1967] wrongly shows all these genera as "monotypic", and furthermore wrongly gives "hippulus" (sic) instead of nearchus as type-species of Chaetoneura. The Index shows nearchus correctly! 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/8030/1677508006952
Retrieved: 30 Aug 2025 05:31:57 (UTC)
Latest Permanent URL for the most up to date record data:
https://data.nhm.ac.uk/record/c1727662-2d1e-426f-818c-d144552a747c/8030
Retrieved: 30 Aug 2025 05:31:57 (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 |