[Taxacom] taxonomic question concerning naming of unique species known only from painting of lost type

[John Grehan]

I should have thought of that! (it's late at night, my excuse). We have an
incertae sedis section already, so that looks like the best option. Thanks.

John Grehan

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 12:08 AM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:

> It should be cited under the heading Hepialidae incertae sedis, as the
> original combination, i.e. Porina mairi. The main thing is just to make it
> clear that the correct generic placement is unknown. Saying "incertae
> sedis" should be clear enough. Alternatively, just state that the correct
> generic placement is unknown.
>
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Fri, 2/3/18, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Subject: [Taxacom] taxonomic question concerning naming of unique species
> known only from painting of lost type
>  To: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>  Received: Friday, 2 March, 2018, 5:47 PM
>
>  Dear colleagues,
>
>  I would be interested in opinions
>  regarding what to do about the genus name
>  of a ghost moth for which the type has
>  been lost and for which the original
>  genus name is preoccupied. The only
>  record of its existence is a painting
>  made by the collector. Kiwi
>  entomologists on this list will be familiar
>  with this case.
>
>  The moth was originally named as Porina
>  mairi. The genus Porina was
>  originally applied to a number of New
>  Zealand ghost moths but since it was
>  preoccupied these species have been
>  assigned to other genera. The mairi
>  species has been listed on the web
>  under the genus Aoraia but there is not
>  a shred of evidence for that assignment
>  as the moth looks nothing like any
>  known species of Aoraia (actually not
>  specifically much like any known
>  ghost moth other than in a general way
>  for some of the wing pattern [other
>  parts of the wing pattern being
>  anomalous]).
>
>  So the question for me is how to list
>  this species in a world catalog of
>  ghost moths. Should I just list it as
>  'Porina' mairi, or assign it to a new
>  genus? Which approach would be
>  considered most 'professional' if that could
>  be said? Please post views to the list
>  so others may respond if
>  appropriate. There may not be a 'right'
>  answer, but at least opinions on
>  this might help me decide which choice
>  to make. Below is a description of
>  the history of this specimen. A photo
>  for the curious is at
>  http://musicmusic.tripod.com/forgotten-fauna/forgotten-
> fauna-moth-cicada.html
>
>  Many thanks,
>
>  John Grehan
>
>  Web site history note: New Zealand's
>  largest moth may well be rarer than
>  the black robin or the kakapo. Buller's
>  moth, a relative of the
>  agricultural pest species the porina,
>  is known only from a single specimen
>  caught in the Ruahine Ranges by Sir
>  Walter Buller (the famous Victorian
>  ornithologist) and his brother-in-law,
>  Captain Gilbert Mair, while they
>  were searching for huia during summer
>  of 1867.
>
>  The moth was reported to have a
>  wingspan of almost 6 inches (150
>  millimetres), being as large as the
>  huge bright green puriri or ghost moth
>  which is occasionally attracted to
>  house and street lamps on moist nights
>  mainly during spring. The moth was
>  described by Buller and illustrated in
>  the Transactions of the Royal Society
>  of N.Z. of 1872, and the specimen
>  then lay for over 20 years in his son's
>  collection. In 1890, the moth was
>  reportedly sent to the British Museum
>  on the barque Assaye, which sank
>  during the voyage. However, we now know
>  that the Assaye sank not on its way
>  to England, but on the return journey,
>  and so the present location of the
>  specimen (if it still exists) remains a
>  mystery.
>
>  <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_
> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
>  Virus-free.
>  www.avast.com
>  <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_
> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
>  <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Taxacom Mailing List
>  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
>  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>  The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
>  searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
>  Send Taxacom mailing list submissions
>  to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>  To subscribe or unsubscribe via the
>  Web, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>  You can reach the person managing the
>  list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
>  Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting
>  Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.
>
>