Add new comment

Genus:
Psolos Staudinger, 1889 . Dt. ent. Z. Iris 2 (1) : 147.
Status:
Available Name
Homonyms: 4
Higher classification:
HESPERIOIDEA : HESPERIIDAE : HESPERIINAE
Notes:
Hemming (1967) stated:-

(a manuscript name published in synonym and therefore unavailable under Article II (d))

When publishing the name Astictopterus ulunda in 1889 (loc. cit. 2 : 147) Staudinger remarked that he had received some males of this species under the name "Psolos pulligo" and some females under the name ulunda, the latter name being attributed by Mabille (as reported by Staudinger) to Plötz. The generic name Psolos and the two specific names cited above were at that time unpublished manuscript names. Staudinger adopted the specific name ulunda (still attributed to Plötz, though actually here published by himself for the first time) and placed the species in question in Astictopterus Felder (C.) & Felder (R.), 1860. He did not adopt either of the other names mentioned in the note of Mabille's but he adopted the unfortunate course of citing each in the cross-heading bearing the name of this species, the generic name Psolos appearing in brackets - parentheses - after the name Astictopterus and the name pulligo - also in brackets (parentheses) - after the name ulunda. The name which Staudinger adopted for this species, namely Astictopterus ulunda, appeared in this heading in heavy black type, while the rejected manuscript names there cited - that is, the names Psolos and pulligo, appeared in italics.

Writing at a time when there was no provision in the Code regarding the status to be accorded to names published in synonymies and when it was commonly held permissible to bring such names into use, Evans in 1949 (Cat. Hesp. Eur. Asia Australia : 278) brought forward the name Psolos Staudinger, 1889 (of which he treated [Astictopterus] ulunda Staudinger as type-species by monotypy), employing it in place of the name Sancus de Niceville, 1891, till then employed for this genus. The resuscitation of names published in synonymies has since been prohibited in the Code (Article II (d)) and accordingly Evans's action is now seen to have been invalid, the name Sancus becoming once more the oldest (and the sole) name applicable to this genus.


Cowan (1970, Annot. Rhip.: 30) stated:-

"PSOLOS Staudinger, 1889, Iris 2 : 147. Type-species by designation by Evans, 1949 (Cat. Hesp. Eur. Asia Austr. in B.M.N.H. : 278); Astictopterus ulunda Staudinger, 1889, Iris 2 : 147.

Evan's designation was "fuligo Mabille; sole species included was ulunda, which is a synonym of fuligo". As will be seen below, fuligo was not included by Staudinger so cannot be designated. However, by citing ulunda Staudinger as a synonym, Evans validly designated that as the type-species in accord with Article 69 (a) (iv). The further fact that ulunda was not sole species, Staudinger having also described celunda as congeneric at the same time, does not upset the designation which, under Article 69 (a) (iii), is accepted "for whatever reason, right or wrong", provided it is definite.

Astonishing confusion over this generic name persisted everywhere until Evans clarified it in 1949 and, at the same time, validated it under the Code as revised in 1963.

Mabille, 1876, almost simultaneously, twice described two distinct species under similar names;
[26 July] 1876, Bull. Soc. ent. France 1876 (1) : XXVI, nos. 19, 20.
[11 Oct.] 1876, Ann. Soc. ent. France (5) 6 (2) : 271, nos. 19, 20, the species being no. 19 Tagiades amigo; no. 20 Tagiades pulligo.

Both these articles gave details of a paper read to the Society on 11 April 1875; both pairs of descriptions were perfectly clear; and both species were described from Java.

From that moment until 1949 no author seems to have seen the descriptions in either version. All identification appears to have been made by correspondence, and Mabille seems to have entirely ignored fuligo, identifying both species in litt. by the name pulligo, and furthermore calling one "Psolos pulligo".

Staudinger, 1889, having recognised new species from the Philippines and from Celebes, sent specimens of the former to Mabille. He then named it Astictopterus ulunda, adding that the males had been called "Psolos pulligo Mabille in litt." He was clearly uneasy about the latter name. The Celebes species he named A. celunda. It is now considered that these two are in a distinct genus and (cf. Evans, 1949) that ulunda Staudinger is the Philippine subspecies (and celunda the Celebes one) of fuligo Mabille, 1876; whereas pulligo Mabille proper is in an entirely different genus, and a junior subjective synonym of Astictopterus jama Felder & Felder, 1860.

Meanwhile deNiceville, 1891 in Calcutta (J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 6 : 395) regretted being unable to obtain the original descriptions in this group and confessed to being confused by his correspondents on both "Psolos" and "pulligo". He recognised the existence of the genus and named it Sancus for Astictopterus subfasciatus Moore, 1879 (now considered the Indo-Burmese subspecies fuligo Mabille).

Mabille himself in 1904 (in Wytsman, Gen. Ins. 17b, 17c) had the chance to clarify matters, but unfortunately he made no mention of either Psolos or fuligo, and actually listed the complete genus Sancus deNiceville twice; as genus No. 42 (17b : 106) in Pamphilinae section A, and as genus No. 147 (17c : 175) in section B.

Evans eventually studied the original descriptions, allocated the names correctly, and raised Psolos Staudinger, 1889 out of synonymy as a fully valid name. His action has made it available.

On this showing, Psolos Staudinger, 1889 is valid, and Sancus de Niceville, 1891 is also valid but a junior subjective synonym. But this is only half the story.

Treitsche, 1825 (in Ochsenheimer, Schmett. v. Europa 5 (2) : 434) validly introduced the name Psoidos (which has no apparent meaning) for a genus of five dark grey moths. In 1827 (l.c. 6 (1) : 254) he changed that name to Psodos (also of no obvious meaning). The original name Psoidos cannot be arbitrarily so either rejected (Art. 18) and replaced, nor emended (Art. 32A), without authority of the International Commission. It actually looks as if the name really intended by Treitsche was "Spodios" (which does mean ash-coloured) or, more correctly as the noun "Spodos".

The International Commission was in fact asked to correct this name by Berthet, 1950 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3 (4/6) : 157). But the name proposed was Psolos! The case remains undecided.

If the last proposal is adopted and Psolos Treitsche, 1825 (emend, Berthet, 1950) is placed on the Official List, Psolos Staudinger, 1889 will be invalid as a junior homonym. But that seems improbable.

For the present, Psolos Staudinger, 1889 is valid; Sancus deNiceville is valid but not required as a junior subjective synonym; and for the moths Psoidos Treitsche, 1825 must remain unless and until action (changing it to "Spodos"?) has officially been taken.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/butmoth/search/...