Content uploaded by Andrew V Z Brower
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andrew V Z Brower on Dec 28, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
GENERAL NOTES
Journal
of
the Lepidopterists' Society
48(2), 1994,
166-168
THE
CASE
OF
THE
MISSING H:
HELICONIUS
CHARITHONIA
(L., 1767),
NOT
"HELICONIUS
CHARI
TONIA
(L.,
1767)"
Additional
key
words:
Nymphalidae,
Heliconiini,
nomenclature,
taxonomy,
spelling.
Systematic
nomenclature
is
perhaps
the
only
truly
typological
part
of
our
science, since
it
depends
on
published
historical
records
and
not
on
the
vagaries
of
organismal
variation.
There
are
correct
names,
and
there
are
incorrect
names.
This
little
note
is
about
spelling,
and
thus
may
seem
trivial
and
pedantic,
but
there
are
four
reasons
why
my
topic
is
noteworthy
(if
you
will). First,
the
taxon
in
question
is
the
type
species of
the
celebrated
genus
Heliconius,
which
has
enjoyed
paradigmatic
status
in
ecological genetics, historical
biogeography,
and
community
ecology
for
several
decades. Second,
the
incorrect
spelling
of
the
name
is
in
wide
use: a
quick
scan
through
literature
from
the
last
ten
years yields
more
than
a
dozen
uses
of
charitonia
and
no uses of charithonia.
This
raises
point
three:
as
electronic
reference
data
bases
become
more
prevalent,
alternate
spellings
of
names
must
be
eliminated,
to
promote
efficient searching. Lastly,
the
story
behind
the
confusion
is
entertaining,
if
nomenclatorially
and
historically convoluted.
Papilio Heliconius charithonia was
described
as a species
by
Linnaeus
in
the
12th
edition
of
Systema
Naturae
(1767),
but,
because
he
considered
all butterflies to
belong
to
the
genus
Papilio,
the
infrageneric
name,
Heliconius
is
invalid.
(Interestingly,
if Hel-
iconius
L.
were
valid,
the
type
species
would
be
H. ricini
L.,
1758
and
not
H. charithonia,
L.
1767,
but
that's
another
story.)
For
almost
150
years,
authors
attributed
the
name
Heliconius
to
Latreille
(either
1804
or
1805),
with
a
variety
of
type
species
including
charitonia (Fabricius, 1775!).
In
1933,
the
great
historian of
lepidopteran
systematic
literature,
Francis
Hemming,
recognized
that
Heliconius (Latreille, 1804)
lacked
a valid (
ype
species,
and
selected
charitonia
Fabr.,
which
he
equated
with
charithonia
L.
(Hemming
1933a).
Immediately
after
publication
of this deSignation,
Hemming
apparently
discovered a
prior
binomial
usage
of Heliconius
by
Kluk (1802).
He
quickly
published
a new
designation,
this
time
listing charitonia
L.
as
the
type
species,
without
the
"h"
(Hemming
1933b). By 1934,
however,
Hemming
had
returned
to
charithonia,
and
clearly
acknowledged
the
differ-
ences
in spelling
between
the
early
authors,
indicating
his
preference
for
the
Linnaean
use
of
the
"h."
This
decision
is
reiterated
in
his
posthumous
magnum
opus
(Hemming
1967).
Apparently
unaware
of
Hemming's
efforts,
Comstock
and
Brown
specifically
addressed
the
problem
of
the
"h"
again
in
1950.
They
pointed
out
that
the
index
of
the
12th
edition
of
Systema
Naturae
(1767)
makes
reference
to charitonia, as does
the
13th
edition
(1790).
They
argue
further
that
the
name
is
etymologically
derived
from
charites,
Latinized
from
the
Greek
name
for
the
Graces,
and
thus
logically
not
containing
the
"h."
They
claimed
that
since
the
two
spellings
are
of
equal
age,
and
since
no
other
revisers
had
addressed
the
issue,
they
could
choose charitonia as
the
proper
spelling.
Amazingly,
in
their
next
paragraph,
they
coined
yet
another
version
of
the
name,
charitonius,
to
produce
gender
agreement
between
the
genus
and
the
species.
This
paper
appears
to
be
the
source
of
current
ubiquitous
usage
of
charitoni-
(with
the
-a
or
-usmffix
variously applied).
Five
years
after
Comstock
and
Brown
tried
to lay
it
to
res!t,
the
"h"
issue rose
up
yet
again
in a case
submitted
to
the
International
Commission
on Zoological
Nomenclature
regarding
the
priority
of
names
for a
crustacean
(Holthuis
&
Hemming
1956).
It
seems
that
Sicyonia thamar,
the
name
given
by
Hubner
(1816) to
what
we
recognize
today
as
Heliconius sara
(Fabr.
1793),
had
priority
over
a
generic
name
used
for
a well
known
genus
of
prawn
(Sicyonia,
Milne
Edwards
1830).
Under
its
plenary
powers,
the
Com-
mission
decided
to
sink Sicyonia
Hubner,
in
deference
to
the
request
to
retain
the
popular
usage of
the
name
for
the
prawn
,
and
because
the
butterfly
name
was
not
in use,
the
VOLUME 48, NUMBER 2 167
species
described
by
Hubner
being
considered
to
belong
to Helieonius.
In
an
addendum
to this decision,
Hemming,
the
Secretary
of
the
Commission,
officially
rejected
Helieonius
Latreille,
1804; Apostraphia
Hubner,
1816; Helieonia
Godart,
181H;
and
Helieonius
L.,
1758.
He
also
placed
Heliconius Kluk, 1802
on
the
Official List
of
Generic
Names
in
Zoology,
and,
crucial
to
the
point
of this note,
he
put
eharithonia
L.,
1767
on
the
Official
List
of
Specific
Names
in Zoology (Melville &
Smith
1987).
Decisions
made
under
the
plenary
powers
of
the
I.C.Z.N.
overrule
previous
arguments
about
nomenclature,
and
thus
clearly
invalidate
Comstock
and
Brown's
(1950)
arguments,
whether
they
bear
merit
or
not.
It
is
arguable,
however,
that
Comstock
and
Brown's
views
are
based
on
poor
interpretations
of
the
International
Code
of Zoollogical
Nomenclature
(Ride
et
at. 1985).
Even
if
their
dubious
claim
to
First
Reviser statm:
is
valid,
giving
them
the
prerogative
to
choose
between
alternate
spellings in
the
origin~.l
description
(Article
24(C)),
the
Code
recommends
that
the
spelling
that
appears
first
be
chosen
when
it
is
not
obviously
wrong
or
will
not
fail to
serve
universality
of
nomenclature
(Recommendation
24(A)).
Prior
to
Comstock
and
Brown's
dictum,
most
major
Heliconi,~s
systematists (Kirby
1871, Riffarth 1901, Stichel 1906,
Eltringham
1916, Seitz 1924,
Neustetter
1929,
and
of
course,
Hemming
1933a, 1933b, 1934) used charithonia.
Furthermore,
it seems
more
appropriate
to choose
the
name
accompanying
the
original
description
than
the
name
listed
subsequently
in
an
index,
which
might
have
been
less subject to
editorial
scrutiny.
Linnaeus'
personal
copy
of
the
12th
edition
of Systema
Naturae
(1767),
although
filled
with
hand-written
corrections
and
amendments,
shows no suggestion
that
Linnaeus
viewed
eharithonia as a
misprint
in
his text.
With
regards
to
the
etymology
of
the
name,
there
is
no
extrinsic
evidence
to
suggest
that
eharitonia
is
derived
from
Charites. As
Turner
(1967)
pointed
out,
many
18th
century
names
do
not
derive
unambiguously
from
Latin
or
Greek
roots.
Turner
also
chided
authors
for
inappropriate
masculinization
of specific
names
to
bring
them
into
gender
agreement
with
generic
names. Article 31(B(i)) of
the
Code
(Ride
et
a!. 1985) explicitly states
that
names
stand
as first
published,
regardless
of
gender,
unless
the
author
specifically
stated
that
the
species
name
is
an
adjective
modifying
the
generic
name,
which
Linnaeus
did
not.
So
there
we
have
it. Helieonius eharithonia,
described
by
Linnaeus
(1767),
designated
as
type
species of
the
genus
by
the
rightful
First
Reviser,
Hemming
(1933b),
and
placed
on
the
I.C.Z.N. official list of
generic
and
specific
names
by
Holthuis
and
Hemming
(1956). Yet
every
major
guide
to
butterflies
published
since
then
has followed
Comstock
and
Brown
(1950), listing
the
species as
"eharitonia,"
(or
even
"ehMitonius,"
employing
their
demonstrably
incorrect
masculinization). I
hope
that
this
minor,
yet
irritating
detail
will
be
corrected
in
future
publications.
LITERATURE
CITED
COMSTOCK,
W. P. & F. M.
BROWN.
1950.
Geographical
variation
and
subspeciation in
Heliconius eharitonius
Linnaeus
(Lepidoptera,
Nymphalidae).
Am. Mus. Novit. 1467:
1-21.
ELTRINGHAM,
H. 1916.
On
specific
and
mimetic
relationships
in
the
genus
Heliconius,
L.
Trans.
Entomo!'
Soc.
Lond.
1916:101-148.
FABRICIUS,
J.
C. 1775.
Systema
Entomologiae.
Pp.
458-465.
---
1793. Entomo!. Syst. 3(1):167.
GODART,
J.
B.
1819.
Ency.
Meth.
9(1) (Ins.):203.
HEMMING,
F. 1933a.
On
the
types
of
certain
butterfly
genera.
E.ntomologist
66:196-
200.
---
1933b.
Additional
notes
on
the
types
of
certain
butterfly
~:enera.
Entomologist
66:222-225.
---
1934.
The
generic
names
of
the
Holarctic
butterflies I.
1758-1863.
British
Museum
(Natural
History). 184 pp.
---
1967.
The
generic
names
of
the
butterflies
and
their
type-species
(Lepidoptera:
Rhopalocera).
Bull. Br. Mus. Nat. Hist. (Ent.), Supp!. 9,
509
pp
HOLTHUIS, L.
B.
&
F.
HEMMING.
1956.
Opinion
382:
Validation
under
the
Plenary
Powers
of
the
generic
name
"Sicyonia"
Milne
Edwards
(H.)
W30
(class
Crustacea,
168 JOURNAL
OF
THE LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY
order
Decapoda)
and
action
consequential
thereon,
pp.
43-58.
In
Hemming
, F. (ed.),
Opinions
and
declarations
rendered
by
the
International
Commission
on
Zoological
Nomenclature
12(3).
HOBNER,
J.
1816.
Verz
.
Bekannt.
Schmett.
1:13.
KIRBY,
W. F. 1871. A
synonymic
catalogue
of
diurnal
Lepidoptera.
John
Van
Voorst,
London.
690
pp.
KLUK,
K. 1802. Zwierz. Hist. Nat. Pocz. Gospod. 4:82.
LATREILLE,
P.
A.
1804.
Nouvelle
Dictionaire
d'Histoire
Naturelle
24 (Tab.):185, 199.
---
1805.
Histoire
Naturelle
Generale
et
Particulaire,
des
Crustaces
et
des Insectes.
14:108.
LINNAEUS,
C. 1758.
Systema
Naturae.
10th
ed.
464
.
---
1767.
Systema
Naturae.
12th
ed. 1(2):757. (Microfiche facsimile of
Linnaeus'
personal
copy.
London.
British
Museum
(Natural
History)
and
the
Linnean
Society,
1991).
MELVILLE,
R.
V.
&
J.
D. D.
SMITH
(eds.). 1987. Official lists
and
indexes
of
names
and
works
in
zoology.
International
Trust
for
Zoological
Nomenclature
and
the
British
Museum
(Natural
History),
London.
209.
MILNE
EDWARDS,
H.
1830. Ann. Sci.
Nat.
, Paris (1) 19:339.
NEUSTETTER
, H. 1929.
Nymphalididae:
subfam.
Heliconiinle.
Lepidopterorum
Cata-
logus.
36:1-136.
RIDE,
W. D.
L.
,
C.
W.
SA
BROSKY,
G.
BERNARDI
&
R.
V.
MELVILLE (eds.). 1985.
Inter-
national
code
of zoological
nomenclature.
International
Trust
for
Zoological
Nomen-
clature
and
the
British
Museum
(Natural
History),
London.
338
pp.
RIFFARTH,
H.
1901.
Die
Gattung
Heliconius
Latr.:
Neu
be
;
ubeitet
und
Beschreibung
neuer
Formen.
Ber!'
Entomo!'
Zeit. 46:25-183.
SEITZ,
A.
1924.
Subfamily:
Heliconiinae.
Macrolepidoptera
of
the
world:
The
American
Rhopalocera. Alfred
Kernen,
Stuttgart
5:593-597.
STICHEL,
H. 1906.
Lepidoptera
Rhopalocera
fam.
Nymphalidae
subfam.
Heliconiinae.
Genera
Insectorum
37:1-74
(6 plates).
TURNER,
J.
R.
G. 1967. Goddess
changes
sex,
or
the
gender
game.
Syst. Zoo!.
16:349-
350.
ANDREW
V.
Z.
BROWER,
Section
of
Ecology
and
SystematiCS, Cornell University,
Ithaca,
New
York 14853-2701, USA (current address:
Department
of
Entomology,
Amer-
ican
Museum
of
Natural
History,
Central
Park
West
at
79th
St.,
New
York,
New
York
10024-5192).
Received for publication
15
July
1993; revised
and
accepted
30
October 1993.
Journal
of
the
Lepidopterists' Society
48(2), 1994,
168-170
NATIVE
PIERINE
BUTTERFLY
(PIERIDAE)
ADAPTING
TO
NATURALIZED
CRUCIFER?
Additional
key
words:
Brassicaceae,
diet
breadth.
Native
butterflies
encounter
naturalized
plants
related
to
their
hosts as
one
consequence
of
Palearctic
weeds
spreading
throughout
North
America.
~;ometimes
these
plants
are
incorporated
into
the
butterfly
diet
and
permit
a
longer
flight season (e.g., Pieris
napi
microstriata on watercress:
Shapiro
1975; Papilio zelicaon on
sweet
fennel: Sims 1983,
Tong
&
Shapiro
1989,
Shapiro
in
press).
In
other
cases,
females
do
not
lay
eggs
on
the
naturalized
plant
so
that
it
is
not
used,
even
though
it CBen
support
complete
larval
development
(e.g., Colias philodice
and
crown
vetch:
Karowe
1990). A
third
alternative
