Research Article |
Corresponding author: Nick V. Grishin ( grishin@chop.swmed.edu ) Academic editor: Wolfram Mey
© 2023 Jing Zhang, Qian Cong, Leina Song, Jinhui Shen, Théo Léger, Gerardo Lamas, Olaf H. H. Mielke, Nick V. Grishin.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Zhang J, Cong Q, Song L, Shen J, Léger T, Lamas G, Mielke OHH, Grishin NV (2023) Resolving inconsistencies between Plötz’s descriptions and presumed type specimens of some Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 70(1): 159-174. https://doi.org/10.3897/dez.70.98280
|
Comparing specimens curated in MfN as primary types of Hesperiidae names proposed by Carl Plötz with the original descriptions and unpublished drawings reveals a number of inconsistencies that we address. Lectotypes are designated for Telegonus labriaris Butler, 1877, Eudamus jalapus Plötz, 1881, and Apaustus interpunctata Plötz, 1884. Neotypes are designated for Netrocoryne seneca Plötz, 1882 and Hesperia irma Plötz, 1882. Hesperia ulphila Plötz, 1883 is treated as a nomen dubium. As a result of these designations, the following are junior objective synonyms: Netrocoryne seneca Plötz, 1882 of Telegonus labriaris Butler, 1877 and Hesperia irma Plötz, 1882 of Pamphila irma Möschler, 1879, the latter two names being homonyms. In all these instances, the original descriptions are satisfied, and, except for A. interpunctata, the current application of these names is unaffected. Taxonomically, Callimormus diaeses Schaus, 1902, stat. rest. is a valid species, not a synonym of A. interpunctata, which is a junior subjective synonym of Eutocus vetulus (Mabille, 1883).
biodiversity, classification, nomenclature, pseudotype, stability, taxonomy
Primary type specimens serve as bearers of zoological names. They are essential to define each name objectively, connecting it to actual specimens that can be studied and compared to others using phenotypic characters or DNA sequences. With the recent advent of genomic sequencing successfully applied to century-old Hesperiidae type specimens (
Mistakes can occur in the original descriptions of taxa or during the curation and labelling of type specimens. Some mistakes may be revealed as inconsistencies between the original descriptions and the appearance of specimens curated as types, including their label data. These errors need to be addressed and corrected to agree with the major principles of zoological nomenclature recorded in the ICZN Code (
Carl Plötz [1814–1886] named a large number of Hesperiidae species in the course of several years (
Due to sketchy descriptions and (where present) illustrations and frequently lost or unrecognisable type specimens, many of the names proposed by Plötz are still poorly understood, and their application to species is hypothetical, largely following a comprehensive revision by Evans that still remains the major source of Hesperiidae identifications (
The specimens were inspected and photographed in the following collections:
Natural History Museum, London, UK (
We present the analysis of discrepancies we stumbled upon dealing with the names proposed by Carl Plötz. In each case, we suggest a specific solution chosen as a compromise considering all information available to us. However, first, we discuss general considerations regarding numbers on labels of type specimens cited in original descriptions.
A label with a number is commonly placed on a specimen to enable its cataloguing and referencing. Some of such numbers or labels with numbers may be unique to a single specimen; others denote a series where every specimen in the series has a label with the same number. An example of an unusual specimen-unique numbering system would be the one adopted in the past in
Although, unless there is evidence to the contrary–see
In his works, after the new species names he proposed, Plötz regularly wrote the phrase “Mus. Berol. n.” followed by a number, presumably printed on a label of the specimen Plötz referred to. Although labels with these numbers are unique to a single specimen (i.e., unless a mistake has been made, only one specimen in
We note that in a number of cases, Plötz mentioned two collection numbers in descriptions, apparently when he considered that specimens with different numbers, and therefore from different localities, were conspecific. For instance, the original description of Goniurus pilatus lists two numbers: 5068 (3 specimens from “Bahia”, per catalogue of the collection) and 5069 (1 specimen from “Suriname”); and Goniurus velinus refers to 5102 (2 specimens from “Bahia”) and 5103 (2 specimens from “Caracas”) (
In his description of Netrocoryne seneca (type locality Brazil), Plötz referred to “Mus. Berol. n. 4865” (
Netrocoryne seneca Plötz, 1882. a–c. Pseudotype of N. seneca with specimen number 4865 in
Moreover, both the description and the drawing uniquely refer to a characteristically patterned and readily recognisable species known today as Ectomis (Ectomis) labriaris (A. Butler, 1877) (
To correct this problem, we searched for possible syntypes of N. seneca in the collections known to house Plötz’s types:
This neotype of N. seneca satisfies all requirements set forth by the ICZN Article 75.3. Requirement 75.3.1: it is designated to clarify the taxonomic identity of this taxon, which may be threatened by a specimen of a different species curated as a syntype and bearing a label with the number referred to in the original description of N. seneca. Requirement 75.3.2: the characters for the taxon have been given in its original description by
In his description of Eudamus jalapus (type locality Mexico: Veracruz, Xalapa), Plötz referred to “Mus. Berol. n. 4960” (
Eudamus jalapus Plötz, 1881. a–c. Lectotype of E. jalapus, currently in the genus Cecropterus, specimen number 4970 in
The difference in colour was puzzling, so we turned to the unpublished drawing No. 134 by Plötz that was among those copied by Godman’s decision (Fig.
A more careful comparison of the specimen with the drawing suggests a possibility that this specimen No. 4970 might not be the specimen drawn as No. 134, because its size is larger, forewing fringes are darker, the forewing discal cell spot extends beyond this cell towards the costa, and the shape of the forewing spots differs somewhat. However, it is difficult to judge whether these differences are not merely inaccuracies of Plötz’s drawing or its Godman’s copy. The specimen No. 4970 fits the original description (corrected for the colour of the ventral hindwing) and specified type locality, carries a label with a number similar to the one indicated in the original description, and therefore we consider it is a syntype of E. jalapus. Moreover, this syntype, sequenced as NVG-15032A11, agrees with the current usage of this name. Therefore, to stabilise nomenclature, we designate the syntype in
In his description of Hesperia ulphila (type locality Mexico), Plötz referred to “Mus. Berol. n. 5426” (
Hesperia ulphila Plötz, 1883. a–c. Pseudotype of H. ulphila, specimen number 5426 in
Moreover, the drawing shows that the ventral hindwing discal band reaches the costal margin, and the spot in space 8 (C-Sc+R1) is present, making it three white spots anterad of the bend in the band (Fig.
In the case of Eudamus jalapus Plötz, 1881 (see above), the specimen curated as a type and bearing a label with a number different from that mentioned in the original description was consistent with the drawings and showed discrepancies with the description (ventral hindwing colour and specimen number). In the case of H. ulphila, the specimen curated as a type and bearing a label with the number mentioned in the description is inconsistent with both the original description and the drawing, which agree with each other. Therefore, we believe that the specimen No. 5426 in
Furthermore, we note that the
The presumed female specimen(s) of H. ulphila, mentioned in the description and illustrated by Plötz (Fig.
Due to all these inconsistencies, and because species in two rather distantly related genera (Lon Grishin, 2019 and Paratrytone Godman, 1900) may at least partly agree with the copies of Plötz’s drawings, we propose to treat Hesperia ulphila Plötz, 1883 as a nomen dubium, and meanwhile search for specimens that fit the original description and drawings, more specifically, in having: (1) submarginal spots in forewing cells 4 (M2–M3) and 5 (M1–M2) and, ventrally, (2) a broadly pale forewing tornus and (3) a hindwing discal cell dash. These three characters seem to be shared by the presumed male and female H. ulphila syntypes as they were illustrated and conceptualised by Plötz (Fig.
In summary, either the original drawings of H. ulphila (and, correspondingly, the original description, which was likely written from the drawings rather than actual specimens) contain a number of substantial inaccuracies, or H. ulphila is a lost species not currently among those with specimens known to us, and remains to be rediscovered, probably in southern Mexico or Central America.
In his description of Apaustus interpunctata (type locality Brazil: Bahia), Plötz referred to “Mus. Berol. n. 5392” (
Apaustus interpunctata Plötz, 1884, specimens are separated by white lines, dorsal (left) and ventral (middle) views, enlarged hindwing venter (right), and labels (around) are shown for each specimen: a. Pseudotype, specimen number 5392 in
Inspecting unpublished Plötz’s drawings,
“Callimormus vetula, Mab.” by which he certainly meant the species known today as Eutocus vetulus (Mabille, 1883) (originally proposed in Cobalus Hübner, [1819]), not Pamphila vetula Mabille, 1878 (currently in Vehilius Godman, 1900). This is evidenced by the identification labels on specimens in Godman and Salvin collection, now in
Apparently, Godman was not the only one who studied the original Plötz’s drawings at the time when they were in London. In 1906, just a year before Godman’s paper, Francis Arthur Heron (1864–1940), who was an assistant curator in the
Then, we turned to the catalogue of historical specimens in
The segment of the drawer with the “Typus” specimen with the 5392 label, which is a pseudotype of A. interpunctata, is shown in Fig.
There is the fifth specimen within this interpunctata block (Fig.
Legs of all five specimens in
The locality label for the four specimens belonging to two species gives two distinct states in Brazil: Bahia and Pará (Fig.
We note that the original Plötz’s drawing listed both localities (“Bahia and Pará”) per
We realise that our line of thought above is highly speculative, but the facts are: (1) two E. vetulus specimens out of four specimens in “Mus. Berol.” series “n. 5392” (per collection catalogue) fully agree with what is known, published and unpublished, about A. interpunctata. (2) two V. vetula specimens out of four specimens in “Mus. Berol.” series “n. 5392”, including the header specimen, do not agree with the original description and specimens in
In summary, we support the original synonymy suggested by
In his description of Hesperia irma (type locality Colombia), Plötz referred to “Mus. Berol. n. 5234” (
Hesperia irma Plötz, 1882. a–c. Pseudotype of Hesperia irma, specimen number 5234 in
Godman did not mention Plötz’s drawing No. 270 in his work (
Then, we asked the question: how would an ideal match to the original description of H. irma look? Searching many different collections and butterfly images, we came up with a good option (Fig.
Next, we looked for a species in Colombia that matched the original description of H. irma. Such a species, widely distributed over both Americas, is apparently Pamphila irma Möschler, 1879 (type locality Colombia), currently in the genus Cynea Evans, 1955 (Fig.
For all these reasons, we conclude (1) that the specimen No. 5234 in
To correct these inconsistencies, we searched for syntypes of H. irma in the collections that are known to house Plötz’s types:
This neotype of H. irma satisfies all requirements set forth by the ICZN Article 75.3. Requirement 75.3.1: It is designated to clarify the taxonomic identity of this taxon, which may be threatened by a specimen of Mnaseas sirene (Mabille, 1904) curated as a syntype and bearing a label with the number referred to in the original description of H. irma. Requirement 75.3.2: The characters for the taxon have been given in its original description by
Finally, curious to learn more about the evolution of Plötz’s concept of H. irma before the publication of the name, we consulted Plötz’s archive in
Inspecting Plötz’s manuscript containing an early version of his keys, dated 1876, we find derasa and irma next to each other (numbers 277 and 278) (Fig.
One final observation is that all five cases analysed in this study involve specimens from the
We acknowledge Ping Chen and Ming Tang for their excellent technical assistance. We are grateful to Blanca Huertas, David Lees, Sharon Touzel, and Geoff Martin (Natural History Museum, London, UK), Robert K. Robbins, John M. Burns, and Brian Harris (