Case 3637 Papilio phoebus De Prunner, 1798: proposed conservation in its accustomed usage by suppression of Papilio phoebus Fabricius, 1793 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, papilionidae)

Article (PDF Available) · June 2014with 88 Reads
DOI: 10.21805/bzn.v71i2.a6
Case 3637
Papilio phoebus De Prunner, 1798: proposed conservation in its
accustomed usage by suppression of Papilio phoebus Fabricius, 1793
(Insecta, Lepidoptera, PAPILIONIDAE)
Emilio Balletto
Department of Life Sciences and Systems Biology, Via Accademia Albertina
13 – I-10123 Torino, Italy (e-mail: emilio.balletto@unito.it)
Simona Bonelli
Department of Life Sciences and Systems Biology, Via Accademia Albertina
13 – I-10123 Torino, Italy (e-mail: simona.bonelli@unito.it)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 78.1 and 81.2.1 of the Code,
is to conserve a name that has been used mistakenly for a long time for a very
well-known Holarctic butterfly species, by suppressing Papilio phoebus Fabricius,
1793 and thereby freeing for use Papilio phoebus de Prunner, 1798, a junior primary
homonym that actually refers to the taxonomic species in question. This course,
eectively resulting only in a change in authorship, would make additional name
changes unnecessary and thus promote nomenclatural stability.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; PAPILIONIDAE;PARNASSIINAE;Parnassius;P.
phoebus;P. ariadne;P. corybas; European ‘Small Apollo’ butterfly; Holarctic.
1. The European ‘Small Apollo’ butterfly was long known as Parnassius delius
(originally Papilio delius Esper, [1804], p. 114; pl. 115, fig. 5), a taxon described from
the Alps, ‘in der Nähe von Genev’ [in the vicinity of Geneva] (see Staudinger, 1861,
p. 14; 1871, p. 2). Godart ([1819], p. 80) was the first to suggest that Papilio phoebus
(Fabricius, 1793, p. 181), described from ‘Sibiria’, [sic] and P. delius Esper were
conspecific. Kirby (1871, p. 511) also thought so, with the result that Esper’s name
was used for a time to identify the European ‘subspecies’, as Parnassius phoebus delius
(Esper, [1804]) (see Butler, 1870, p. 233; Kirby, 1871, p. 511). Papilio delius Esper,
[1804], however, is a junior primary homonym of Papilio delius Drury, [1782] (vol. 3,
p. [77] (name in index) and p. 18 (description), pl. 14, figs. 5, 6; currently Antanartia
delius). The date of publication of Esper’s book was established by Heppner (1981,
1982), while that of Drury’s was fixed by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature in Opinion 474 (Opinions and Declarations 16: 297–306;
July 1957). The homonymy between Esper’s and Drury’s names was soon resolved by
Stichel (1906, p. 86), who proposed the name Parnassius phoebus sacerdos to replace
Papilio delius Esper, [1804].
2. The name Papilio phoebus Fabricius, 1793 itself has, until recently, been applied
to a wrong species. As Hanus & Theye (2010) correctly observed, Fabricius made
unequivocal reference to the watercolours painted by William Jones (i.e. ‘Papilio
75Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 71(2) June 2014
Phoebus Jon. fig. pict. 2. tab. 2. fig. 2’). Under Article 72.5.6 of the Code, these
pictures are deemed to be representations of the dorsal and ventral surfaces of the
holotype (or two syntypes?) of P. phoebus, which Fabricius said was preserved, at the
time, in the ‘Mus.[eum] Dom.[ini] Drury’. Drury apparently never figured this
specimen independently and his collection has been lost. No other possibly original
Fabricius’s specimen is extant in either the Natural History Museum in London or
the Natural History Museum of Denmark (see Zimsen, 1964, p. 560, and Kristensen
& Karsholt, 2008). A neotype was designated by Hanus & Theye (2011). It is worth
noting that, although the watercolours comprising Jones’ ‘Icones’ were apparently
painted between ca. 1780 and ca. 1790 (see Vane-Wright, 2010), i.e. at a time
antedating Fabricius’s description of his Papilio phoebus, they were not then printed
or published. As a result, the apparently uninominal name ‘Phaebus’ [sic!] attributed
to Fabricius on the plate has no status in nomenclature (Articles 8.1, 8.4, and 9.12),
and the description given on the plate (‘Alis rotundatis integerrimis concoloribus albis
nigro maculatis: posticis maculis tribus rufis’) may be a later addition copied verbatim
from Fabricius’s (1793) description of Papilio phoebus. When Jones’s watercolours
where inspected by Hanus & Theye (2010), it became apparent that they did not
depict the species generally known as Parnassius phoebus, but instead represented a
specimen of what is commonly known as Parnassius ariadne Lederer, 1853 (p. 354),
a species inhabiting the southwestern foothills of the Altai Mountains Hemming
(1934, p. 198) reviewed the nomenclatural history of this latter taxon.
3. Most authors have overlooked the fact that the name Papilio phoebus was
independently published twice, the first time by Fabricius in 1793 as recounted above,
and later on by de Prunner (1798, p. 69), in a book dealing with the Lepidoptera of
the South Western Alps and the surroundings of Nice, in which this author provided
a detailed (for the times) description. Esper (1800, p. 102, footnote) did notice the
homonymy but he regarded de Prunner’s phoebus as merely a variety (‘Abänderung’)
of P. apollo Linnaeus, 1758.
We reproduce here for clarity de Prunner’s original description, together with an
English translation provided to clarify a couple of peculiarities inherent to this
author’s Latin.
‘E.[ques] H.[eliconius] Pap.[ilio] Phoebus
Antennis albe, nigre catenatis; alis oblongis integerrime flave-albis: primoribus intus
extusque ocellis coccineis nigro circulo circumdatis, ac prope corpus quatuor, duobus
simillibus solitariis longitudine alarum; posterioribus intus extusque nigris transversis
maculis, extus vermiculato ocello prope marginem extoriorem.
In fine Varaitanae vallis non tam rarus: invenitur in monte Verz mense Junii.’
i.e.
‘Antennae white-and-black ringed; wings elongate, completely yellowish-white; the
first (i.e. the hind wings) inside and outside with scarlet ocelli, [each] surrounded by
a black ring, and near the body four [ocelli], two [of which] similar to isolated
[ocelli] for the whole length of the [wing] basis; the second (i.e. the fore wings)
inside and outside with transverse black spots, outside with a vermillion eye-spot by
the outer margin.
At the end of the Varaita Valley, not very rare: it is found on Mount Verz in the
month of June.’ (Translation by S. Cecchin).
76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 71(2) June 2014
It should be noted that de Prunner’s description was published as part of an
appendix to ‘Sectio Prima, Papiliones’ of his work, which appendix included 30
species not listed in the main text. Eight of them were clearly attributed to previous
authors, while the remaining 22, including Pap. phoebus, bore no such attribution.
This does not unequivocally prove that the latter were meant to represent new species
group names, but most of them have since been treated as such in the following
literature, where they have been regarded as either junior synonyms of other names,
junior primary homonyms for which replacement names have been created, or valid
species or subspecies. Pap. phoebus represents the only exception; even though it
shares all the characteristics of de Prunner’s other new species group names, it was
rarely recognised as such. Another reason may be that the taxon it represents is
indeed very close to, and has been considered conspecific with, Fabricius’s Papilio
phoebus. It is to be remembered, however, that in ancient Greek (and later Latin)
mythology, Phoebus was one of the alternative appellations of Apollo, so that it may
have seemed logical to more than one author that a species rather recalling P. apollo
in its external habit should be named P. phoebus. In other words it is possible that the
two taxa bear the same name by mere coincidence.
4. Evidence of de Prunner’s taxon being regarded as distinct can be traced as
follows. Hübner, [1804] (pl. 110, figs. 567, 568, no text) depicted as [Papilio]phoebus
specimens obviously belonging to the European taxon, as is shown by their clearly
annulated antennae and the basal red spots on the ventral surface of the hind wings.
Godart (1819, p. 80) was apparently the first to observe that Fabricius’s Pap. phoebus
from Siberia was probably a dierent species than that depicted by Hübner. He
attributed [Pap.]phoebus to Hübner (as first figuring author) and (irrespective of its
earlier publication date) listed de Prunner’s Pap. phoebus among its synonyms,
together with Pap. delius. Later, Kirby (1871, p. 511, perhaps following Esper)
dubiously listed Pap. phoebus de Prunner in the synonymy of Pap. apollo, therefore
not under Pap. phoebus Fabricius, but he included Pap. delius in the synonymy of the
latter. Sherborn (1902, p. 744) separately listed ‘phoebus Papilio, J.C. Fabricius, Ent.
Syst., III (1) 1793, 181’ and ‘phoebus Papilio, L. Prunner, Lep. Pedemont. 1798, 69’.
Among de Prunner’s (1798) names for other new species of Papilio, Sherborn (1902)
included all the new names apart from Papilio polidamas de Prunner, 1798; Pap.
glandon de Prunner, 1798; Pap. pluto de Prunner, 1798; Pap. xylostei (also spelled
xilostei’) de Prunner, 1798 and Pap. medon de Prunner, 1798; while also including
some misspellings and misquotations. Sherborn’s authority, together with the
foregoing, supports our interpretation of de Prunner’s name Papilio phoebus as
having been published independently of Fabricius’s Pap. phoebus.
5. Among the several available species-group names proposed to identify Asiatic
species of the Parnassius phoebus complex, the second most senior after Fabricius’s is
Parnassius corybas Fischer de Waldheim, 1823 (pl. 6, figs. 1, 2), described from
Kamchatka [the plates were issued in 1823, the text after November 1824 – see
Sherborn (1922)]. It is likely that P. phoebus var. intermedia [Ménétriés] in Sie-
maschko (1850, caption to pl. 4, fig. 1) is synonymous with P. phoebus phoebus, part
of the material being topotypic, having been collected in the Altai according to
Ménétriés’s (1855, p. 72) detailed description of the former, now raised to full species
rank (see also Nekrutenko & Kerzhner, 1986). Hemming’s (1934, p. 198) analysis of
the 1850 publication was mistaken. Most recently, Hanus & Theye (2010) considered
77Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 71(2) June 2014
Parnassius phoebus intermedius [Ménétriés], 1850 a junior synonym of P. phoebus
corybas Fischer de Waldheim, 1823.
7. As a consequence of the circumstances described in paras. 2 and 4, and as
already discussed in depth by Hanus & Theye (2011, 2013), under the Code the
widespread species traditionally known as Parnassius phoebus must be renamed as P.
corybas Fischer de Waldheim, 1823, while the Altai species traditionally known as
Parnassius ariadne should now be called P. phoebus. The likelihood of taxonomic
confusion is actually much greater, because P. phoebus as traditionally conceived is
considered to include at least one subspecies in Europe, a minimum of around eight
in Asia (Siberia) and at least two in North America, not to mention the 42 subspecies
recognized by Eisner (1976). The names used to identify all these taxa would have to
switch to as many new combinations, under P. corybas. All this confusion can be
avoided by suppressing Papilio phoebus Fabricius, 1793, thus (1) allowing Parnassius
ariadne (Lederer, 1853) to continue in use for the Altai species, and (2) raising Papilio
phoebus de Prunner, 1798 from permanent invalidity, thereby making it available for
the species of Parnassius traditionally referred to by this name. In eect, only the
authorship of Parnassius phoebus will change, not the generally accepted application
of the name.
8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the specific name phoebus Fabricius, 1793,
as published in the binomen Papilio phoebus, for the purposes of both the
Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy;
(2) to place on the Ocial List of Specific Names in Zoology the name phoebus de
Prunner, 1798, as published in the binomen Papilio phoebus;
(3) to place on the Ocial Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the name phoebus Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen
Papilio phoebus and as suppressed in (1) above.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to express their gratitude to Prof. Sergio Cecchin (Turin University,
Italy) for his invaluable help in fully checking de Prunner’s Latin description of
Papilio phoebus; Dr. Gian-C. Bozano (Milano) as well as Prof. Tommaso Racheli
(and his son Luigi) for having provided us with some very rare and important
publications; Prof. Paolo Parenzan (Palermo University) for having very generously
allowed us to have open access to his huge entomological library and vast knowledge
of the international lepidopterological literature, as well as the Librarians of the
Department of Animal Biology of Turin University and of the Museo regionale di
Scienze naturali (Torino), for their invaluable help in finding the very large amount
of entomological literature necessary for the completion of the nomenclatural part
this work. We particularly wish to thank Prof. Alessandro Minelli (Padua University)
for his constructive criticism on a previous draft of this manuscript.
References
Bryk, F. 1935. Lepidoptera, Parnassiidae. Pars II (Subfam. Parnassiinae). In:Das Tierreich, 65.
LI, 790 pp. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin & Leipzig.
78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 71(2) June 2014
Bryk, F. & Eisner, C. 1934. Kritische Revision der Gattung Parnassius unter Benutzung des
Materials der Kollection Eisner, Dahlem. Parnassiana,3(4/5): 47–62.
Butler, A.G. 1870. Catalogue of diurnal Lepidoptera described by Fabricius in the collection of
the British Museum. v, 303 pp., 3 pls. BMNH, London.
de Prunner, L. 1798. Lepidoptera Pedemontana Illustrata. iii, 124 pp. Mathaeus Guaita,
Augusta Taurinorum.
Drury, D. [1783]. Illustrations of natural history, vol. 3. xxvi, 76, [ii] pp, 50 pls. Printed for the
Author, London.
Eisner, C. 1955. Parnassiana nova. 4. Kritische Revision der Gattung Parnassius (Fortsetzung
2). Zoologische Mededelingen,33(17): 127–156, pl. 23.
Eisner, C. 1976. Parnassiana nova. 49. Die Arten und Unterarten der Parnassiidae (Lepidop-
tera) (Zweiter Teil). Zoologische Verhandelingen,148: 99–266, 2 pls.
Esper, E.J.C. 1776-[1830]. Die Schmetterlinge in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit Beschreibun-
gen (5 Theile). Theil I. Die Tagschmetterlinge. 2 Bände & Suppl.: Theil I. Abschnitt I.
[1803–04]. 105–120 pp., 113–116, pls. Erlangen, Walther.
Fabricius, J.C. 1793. Entomologia systematica, vol. 3(1). [6], 487 pp. Hafniae.
Fischer de Waldheim, [J.]G. 1823-[1824]. Entomographie de la Russie, vol. 2. xx, 264 pp., 39 pls.
Lepidoptera, 11 pls. Société Impériale des Naturalistes. Auguste Semen, Moscou.
Godart, [J.-B], 1819-[1824]. Lépidoptères in:Latreille Encyclopédie méthodique. Tomologie ou
histoire naturelle des crustacés des arachnides et des insectes. vol. 9. 828 pp. Agasse, Paris.
Hanus, J. & Theye, M.-L. 2010. Parnassius phoebus (Fabricius, 1793), a misidentified species
(Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Nachrichten der Entomologischen Vereins Apollo, NF,
31(1/2): 71–84.
Hanus, J. & Theye, M.-L. 2011. Supplements to ‘‘Parnassius phoebus (Fabricius, 1793), a
misidentified species’’ (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae), Nachrichten der Entomologischen
Vereins Apollo, NF,32(1/2): 25–27.
Hanus, J. & Theye, M.-L. 2012 [2013]. Les premiers Parnassius: histoire de leur découverte de
leur description et de l’erreur d’identification de Parnassius phoebus (Fabricius, 1793).
Alexanor,25(6): 323–354.
Häuser, C.L. 1993. An annotated checklist of the species of the Parnassiinae (Lepidoptera:
Papilionidae). Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 136 (1): 137–146.
Häuser, C.L. (in co-operation with) de Jong, R., Lamas, G., Robbins, R.K., Smith, C.,
Vane-Wright, R.I. 2005. Papilionidae – revised GloBIS/GART species checklist (2nd
draft). http://www.insects-online.de/frames/papilio.htm
Hemming, F. 1934. Revisional notes on some species of Rhopalocera (Lepidoptera). Stylops,
3(9): 193–200.
Heppner, J.B. 1981. The dates of E.I.C.Esper’ s ‘Die Schmetterlinge in Abbildungen. . .’
1776-[1830]. Archives of Natural History,10(2): 251–254.
Heppner, J.B. 1982. Dates of selected Lepidoptera literature for the western hemisphere fauna.
Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society,36(2): 91–92.
Hübner, J. [1799–1838] Sammlung europäischer Schmetterlinge, vol. 1. 208 pls. Papiliones,
Augsburg.
Kirby, W.F. 1871. A synonymic catalogue of diurnal Lepidoptera. viii, 883 pp. van Voorst,
London.
Kristensen, N.P. & Karsholt, O. 2008. Zoological Museum Copenhagen: Fabricius Types
Order Lepidoptera (author Fabricius 1793–1807). http://zoologi.snm.ku.dk/english/collec
tions/entomology_collections/collections/fabricius_samling/.htm. Accessed April 1, 2014.
Lederer, J. 1853. Lepidopterologisches aus Sibirien. Verhandlungen des Zoologisch-botanischen
Vereins in Wien,3(3): 351–386, 4 Pls.
Ménétriés, E.P. 1855. Descriptions des nouvelles espèces de Lépidoptères diurnes de la
collection de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences. IIIme et dernière partie. Pp. 69–97 in:
Enumeratio corporum Animalium Musei: Classis insectorum, ordo Lepidopterorum. Cata-
logue de la collection entomologique de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St. Petersburg.
St Petersburg.
79Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 71(2) June 2014
Nekrutenko, Y.P. & Kerzhner, I.M. 1986. On the species and varieties of Parnassius
(Lepidoptera Papilionidae) established by E. Ménétriés in the book by J. Siemaschko
«Russkaya Fauna» [in Russian]. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie,65(4): 769–779.
Pelham, J.P. 2013. A Catalogue of the Butterflies of the United States and Canada. Available
on line at: http://butterfliesofamerica.com/US-Can-Cat.htm
Sherborn, C.D. 1902. Index animalium. Sectio prima, a Kalendis Januariis MDLVIII ad finem
Decembris MDCCC. i-lvii, 1–1195 pp. Cantabrigiae, e typographio acadmico.
Siemaschko, Yu. 1850. Russkaya Fauna. vol. 6, 4 pp., 4 pls. Vnigedera, St. Petersburg,
Staudinger, O. 1861. Macrolepidoptera. In: O. Staudinger & M. Wocke, Catalogue der
Lepidopteren Europa‘s und der angrenzenden Länder. xvi, 192 pp. O. Staudinger, Dresden.
Staudinger, O. 1871. Macrolepidoptera. In: O. Staudinger & M. Wocke, Catalogue der
Lepidopteren der europæischen Faunengebiets. Xxxviii, 426 pp. O. Staudinger, Dresden.
Stichel, H. 1906. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Lepidopteren-Gattung Parnassius Latr. Berliner
Entomologische Zeitschrift,51: 81–94, Pl. 2. [published in late September 1906].
Vane-Wright, R.I. 2010. William Jones of Chelsea (1745–1818) and the need for a digital,
online ‘Icones’. Antenna,34(1): 16–21.
Zimsen, E. 1964. The type material of I.C. Fabricius. 656 pp. Munksgaard, Copenhagen.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 70: 152.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 71(2) June 2014
  • Article
    This paper presents an updated checklist of the butterflies of Europe, together with their original name combinations, and their occurrence status in each European country. According to this checklist, 496 species of the superfamily Papilionoidea occur in Europe. Changes in comparison with the last version (2.6.2) of Fauna Europaea are discussed. Compared to that version, 16 species are new additions, either due to cryptic species most of which have been discovered by molecular methods (13 cases) or due to discoveries of Asian species on the eastern border of the European territory in the Ural mountains (three cases). On the other hand, nine species had to be removed from the list, because they either do not occur in Europe or lost their species status due to new evidence. In addition, three species names had to be changed and 30 species changed their combination due to new evidence on phylogenetic relationships. Furthermore, minor corrections were applied to some authors’ names and years of publication. Finally, the name Polyommatus ottomanus Lefèbvre, 1831, which is threatened by its senior synonym Lycaena legeri Freyer, 1830, is declared a nomen protectum, thereby conserving its name in the current combination Lycaena ottomana.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    This paper presents an updated checklist of the butterflies of Europe, together with their original name combinations, and their occurrence status in each European country. According to this checklist, 496 species of the superfamily Papilionoidea occur in Europe. Changes in comparison with the last version (2.6.2) of Fauna Europaea are discussed. Compared to that version, 16 species are new additions, either due to cryptic species most of which have been discovered by molecular methods (13 cases) or due to discoveries of Asian species on the eastern border of the European territory in the Ural mountains (three cases). On the other hand, nine species had to be removed from the list, because they either do not occur in Europe or lost their species status due to new evidence. In addition, three species names had to be changed and 30 species changed their combination due to new evidence on phylogenetic relationships. Furthermore, minor corrections were applied to some authors’ names and years of publication. Finally, the name Polyommatus ottomanus Lefèbvre, 1831, which is threatened by its senior synonym Lycaena legeri Freyer, 1830, is declared a nomen protectum , thereby conserving its name in the current combination Lycaena ottomana.
  • Lepidoptera, Parnassiidae. Pars II (Subfam. Parnassiinae) In: Das Tierreich, 65. LI, 790 pp
    • F Bryk
    Bryk, F. 1935. Lepidoptera, Parnassiidae. Pars II (Subfam. Parnassiinae). In: Das Tierreich, 65. LI, 790 pp. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin & Leipzig.
  • Catalogue of diurnal Lepidoptera described by Fabricius in the collection of the British Museum. v, 303 pp., 3 pls
    • A G Butler
    Butler, A.G. 1870. Catalogue of diurnal Lepidoptera described by Fabricius in the collection of the British Museum. v, 303 pp., 3 pls. BMNH, London.
  • Lepidoptera Pedemontana Illustrata. iii, 124 pp
    • L De Prunner
    de Prunner, L. 1798. Lepidoptera Pedemontana Illustrata. iii, 124 pp. Mathaeus Guaita, Augusta Taurinorum.
  • 1776-[1830] Die Schmetterlinge in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit Beschreibungen (5 Theile). Theil I. Die Tagschmetterlinge. 2 Bände & Suppl
    • E J C Esper
    Esper, E.J.C. 1776-[1830]. Die Schmetterlinge in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit Beschreibungen (5 Theile). Theil I. Die Tagschmetterlinge. 2 Bände & Suppl.: Theil I. Abschnitt I. [1803–04]. 105–120 pp., 113–116, pls. Erlangen, Walther.
  • Entomologia systematica
    • J C Fabricius
    Fabricius, J.C. 1793. Entomologia systematica, vol. 3(1). [6], 487 pp. Hafniae.
  • Article
    Lepidoptera literature of 58 authors, involving Western Hemisphere species which have had various dates applied to specific titles, are listed and correct dates noted. In some cases works are given dates by sections of pages and plates. This selection ofliterature references on Western Hemisphere Lep-idoptera, primarily original descriptions of taxa, does not include all works on LepIdoptera of this fauna. Included are only those works that have repeatedly been dated incorrectly by subsequent authors or had various kinds of confusion surrounding their correct dates. In many cases dates of specific pages or plates are noted. This list was originally prepared in conjunction with the work of the collaborators now engaged in cataloging and reviewing the Neo-tropical Lepidoptera for the series, Atlas ojNeotropical Lepidoptera. Inasmuch as various dates have often been applied to various works on N eotropical Lepidoptera, this list was prepared to determine the correct dates of certain works as best known at this time, thus ensuring consistency regarding dates used in the Atlas. It is hoped that this listing will also be of help to other authors when consulting these works. The literature is listed alphabetically and chronologically by author. For each of the 58 authors in the main listing, their full known name and dates of birth and death are provided when known. Likewise, the full titles to each work are given. A second section to this listing covers works on dates of the main citations and other works on Lep-idoptera. A number of persons helped to ensure the accuracy of dates in this listing, the following having been especially involved: D. S. Fletcher, and K. Sattler [British Museum (Natural History), London]; J. C.
  • Article
    Parnassius honrathi honrathi Staudinger Zugänge: Sultan-Hazreth Geb. 1 ♂ 1 ♀; Sarafschan 3 ♂; Sultan-Hazreth Geb. 2 ♂ 1 ♀; Sarafschan 1 ♂ 1 ♀; Kargaisk, Kandyk-Tau 1 ♂, f. costalisnigroocellata n.c. 1 ♂; Samarkand 1 ♂ 2 ♀; Barschepky 1 ♂; SultanHazreth-Geb., f. nigroocellata n.c. 1 ♂; Samarkand 1 ♂; Karategin 1 ♂; Pamir(?) 1 ♂; Sultan-Hazreth Geb. 1 ♀. Sie bestätigen die Merkmale dieser markanten Unterart. Parnassius honrathi ernesti Bryk Zugänge: West-Pamir 1 ♂ 1 ♀; Karategin 2 ♂; West-Pamir 1 ♂; Turkestan (?) 1 ♀; Garm 1 ♂; West-Pamir 1 ♂ 1 ♀; Garm, f. nigroocellata n.c. + inpicta n.c. 1 ♂, 2 ♀; Pamir(?) 1 ♂ 1 ♀; Garm 1 ♂. Bezüglich der vagen Fundortangaben und der damit zusammenhängenden Schwierigkeit der Einordnung verweise ich auf das darüber in 1950 (Parn. Nov. xxix: 144) Ausgeführte. Allgemein lässt sich aus dem mir vorliegenden Material von honrathi Staudinger sagen, dass seine Vertreter im Westen des Fluggebietes am dunkelsten und kräftigsten gezeichnet auftreten und nach Osten zu einen helleren Habitus zeigen. Parnassius honrathi alburnus Stichel Zugänge: Chorog 3 ♂ 2 ♀, ex c. Sheljuzhko; Pamir(?) 1 ♂ 1 ♀; Chorog 1 ♂ 1 ♀, ex c. Sheljuzhko; Chorog 7 ♂ 3 ♀, f. posterior-submarginalisextenta (= Submarginale wurzelwärts in ein bis zu den Costalflecken und dem Hinterrands fleck sich ausdehnendes schwarzbeschupptes Feld verbreitert) 1 ♀ Holotype; Chorog 7 ♂, f. escudei n.c. 2 ♂, f. minusculus n.c. 1 ♂, 5 ♀, die beiden Serien leg. Tzvetajev. Die Zugänge bestätigen die Merkmale dieser distincten Unterart.
  • Article
    In dieser Fortsetzung werden behandelt der Rest der mnemosyne subspecies, P. stubbendorfi Ménétr., P. glacialis Butler, P. nordmanni Ménétr., P. clarius Eversm., P. eversmanni Ménétr., P. clodius Ménétr., P. Orleans Ch. Oberthur, P. honrathi Stgr., P. apollonius Eversm., P. bremeri Bremer, P. phoebus F. und die Unterarten dieser Parnassien Parnassius mnemosyne L. subsp. hartmanni Standf. Reichenhall 1 ♂ Typus ex c. Standfuss; Sonntagshorn 1 ♀ f. halteres + siegeli; Fischbach a. Inn 3 ♂ 3 ♀ ; Mangfalltal (Topotypen von subsp. lysandra Fruhst.) 11 ♂ 11 ♀ ex c. Kotzsch; Saletalp 5 ♂ 5 ♀ ; Königssee 1 ♂, 1 ♀ f. grundi Bryk; Hochgern 3 ♂ 3 ♀ ; Petersberge 4 ♂, ♂ f. ernestinae Bryk, 1 ♀ f. halteres, 1 ♂ trs. f. halteres Musch., 5♀,2♀ f. halteres Musch., 2 ♀ f. minuscula Bryk ; Melleck 2 ♂ 2 ♀ ; Obersee 1 ♂ f. minuscula Bryk; Nesselgraben/Reichenhall 2 ♂ 2 ♀ ; Sonnenwendjoch 2 ♂ 1 ♀ ; Reichenhall 2 ♂, 1 ♂ f. antiquincunx Bryk, 1 ♂ f. halteres Musch., 1 ♀ , 1 ♀ f. lunulata Bryk, 1 ♀ f. umbratilis ; Oberaudorf 4 ♂ 3 ♀ ; Schafberg 1 ♂ f. siegeli Bryk, 1 ♀ ; Sonntagshorn 5 ♂, 3 ♀,2 ♀ f. halteres Musch. ; Hochgern 2 ♂ 1 ♀ ; Stuhlfelden, Pinzgau 1 ♂ 1 ♀. Das sehr reichhaltige in etwa 25 Jahren gesammelte Material, das ich ex c. E. Hoffmann erworben und von dem ich die nachstehend aufgeführten Vertreter in meine Sammlung eingereiht habe, bestätigt die in Parnassiana v. 2 p. 51 gegebene Diagnose; nur scheint der helle und dunkle Habitus in den gleichen Höhenlagen nebeneinander aufzutreten. Hoch-Felln 20 ♂, trs. f. halteres 4 cf, f. cardinalis 3 ♂, f. lunulata 2 ♂, 1 ♂ dem hellen Typ angehörend, mit fast völlig verschwärzter Zelle