[Taxacom] Genus Hamadryas Hübner, 1806 (or 1808)

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

I am uncertain why it should be necessary (or even wise) for me to
comment here (I know very little of butterflies), but apparently there
is nobody else to point out the obvious. So, at the risk of sounding
unfriendly, I should say that I don't see any confusion whatever?

The Hamadryas-entry in LepIndex
( http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/lepindex/ )
accepts the name Hamadryas as available and valid, with the
publication specified as
     Samml. Exot. Schmett., 1806

The same entry points out that Opinion 278
    "rejects Hamadryas Hübn. 1806, in "Tentamen" "

The link that Roderic Page provided (http://biostor.org/reference/1833)
makes it clear that Opinion 789 rejects the 1808 pamphlet
"Erste zuträge ..."

So, assuming that both these last two works indeed concern
cases of "... a work rejected for nomenclatural purposes"
these two rejected publications hold no names: any text string
resembling a name is just that: a text string (or, to put it more
bluntly those 'names' don't exist, not as names). In the three
publications mentioned there should be only the one name
Hamadryas, which indeed should be available and valid.

So, I fail to see where there could be room for confusion?

Paul
* * *

Van: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu namens Tony.Rees at csiro.au
Verzonden: vr 12-3-2010 5:23

Thanks, Stephen.

I think part of the problem is that four of the 8(+) instances of Hamadryas
are all in Lepidoptera (!), so Cat. of Life combines them all under a single
genus instance instead of maintaining them separately as per its
contributing source for Lepidoptera (LepIndex). I look forward to your
updates in wikispecies as to the correct attributions.

In addition you might care to note that there appear to be 2 separate
instances of Hamadryas Hübner, not one: the first is in Testamen, 1806,
according to other sources this is now a synonym of Inachis Hübner, 1819
since it is based on the same type, while the second is in Samml. Exot.
Schmett., 1808 which appears to be the one considered valid by LepIndex
(both are in Nymphalidae, just to be helpful, and both are invalid according
to the ICZN). The year of the Samml. Exot. Schmett. instance is also given
as 1806 (not 1808) in LepIndex and also in Nomen. Zool., in case one is not
yet sufficiently confused...

Still wondering why the name is still in use after being rejected by ICZN,
nevertheless.

Regards - Tony

________________________________
From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
Sent: Friday, 12 March 2010 3:11 PM

Dear Tony,
I have begun to sort out the God awful mess of Hamadryas, but it is going to
take a while. There appears to be many problems. For a start, according to
LepIndex, there are only 22 valid species of Hamadryas, not 81. The
disparity arises because LepIndex is badly structured, and CoL has treated
all species and subspecies as species. CoL also has not put the author/date
of species into parentheses when the original combination has changed. Here
are some Wikispecies pages which begin to sort all this out:
http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hamadryas
http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hamadryas_(Nymphalidae)
http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hamadryas_amphinome_aegina
The third page above demonstrates the species/subspecies confusion. If you
click on the CoL link, it will give species rank. If you click on the
LepIndex link, you will see:
Current rank: SUBSPECIES
Current Comb: HAMADRYAS ssp. aegina
but only on the card does it tell you which species it is a subspecies of
...
Cheers,
Stephen

________________________________
From: "Tony.Rees at csiro.au" <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Thu, 11 March, 2010 6:50:57 PM
Subject: [Taxacom] Genus Hamadryas Hübner, 1806 (or 1808)

Dear Taxacomers,

I am seeking some advice as to the currency / validity of the Lepidopteran
genus Hamadryas Hübner, 1806, or 1808, listed as "included in a work
rejected for nomenclatural purposes" in both cases (2 different works)
according to the ICZN Index, following Opinions 278 and 789, but apparently
still in use with some 81 currently accepted species according to LepIndex
and Catalogue of Life.

The ICZN index also lists 6 other instances of Hamadryas from other authors,
all listed as junior homonyms of "Hamadryas Hübner, [1806]" and therefore
unavailable names, but no available version of this genus is on the Official
List.

I'd appreciate it if anyone can shed light on this. For the record, the
LepIndex gives as valid the instance Hübner, 1806, Samml. Exot. Schmett., 1
pl. [47], however this corresponds with the 1808 instance as cited in the
ICZN Index (their earlier ref. is Testamen, also rejected). Also I have not
been able to find the detail of ICZN Opinion 278 or 789, or discover whether
there are any later rulings on this issue - so somewhat confused as to what
may be going on here...

Regards - Tony