Papilio orbitulus De Prunner, 1798 (p. 75)
Albulina orbitulus (De Prunner, 1798)
Albulina orbitula (De Prunner, 1798)
Plebeius orbitulus (De Prunner, 1798)
Agriades orbitulus (De Prunner, 1798)
Note: the species epithet is the diminutive of orbita, -ae (f) (Latin:
orbit, eye socket) and thus obviously refers to the eye-spots on the
hindwing underside: these lack a black core, and thus are "eye spots,
without the eyes", i.e. just small "eye sockets". However, De Prunner (1798)
formed the diminutive unconventionally: the primitivum (original root
word, i.e. "orbita") is of female gender and diminutive forms always
must take the gender of the primitivi: thus the correct diminutive of
orbita is orbitula, not orbitulus. This can be interpreted in two ways:
either (1) De Prunner made an error and the incorrect form "orbitulus" must be emended to the correct "orbitula",
or (2) De Prunner used the diminutive of orbita as an adjective. In this
case, the grammatical genus depends on the substantive noun that the
adjective refers to. The original genus used by De Prunner, Papilio, is
of male gender, which would explain why he used "orbitulus".
I prefer the latter interpretation, because it resolves the problem and
does not require to assume that De Prunner made an error. Because the
genus name Albulina is of female gender, the correct form is therefore
"orbitula".
Note: the analysis by Wiemers et al. (2009)
suggests that the genera Plebejidea (absent from Germany), Agriades,
Albulina, Kretania (absent from Germany), Plebejus and Lycaeides are all
monophyletic, but are all very closely related and form a larger
monophyletic group. Thus, a case could be made to synonymize all these
genera under the oldest available name (Plebejus). However, I argue here
for retaining the genera: the genetic differentiation between them may
be low, even lower than between the species in huge genera like
Polyommatus or Agrodiaetus, but the morphological differentiation
between them is very clear and most species can easily be assigned to
the genera by the color and other wing markings. Thus, I consider the
distinct genera (as long as they are all monophyletic, which they seem
to be) to be of substantial value especially in terms of species
identification and identification keys. The only exception I make is
that I lump together the genera Plebejus and Lycaeides, because they are
extremely similar and they form a monophyletic group in the analysis of Wiemers et al. (2009). Thus, I regard Lycaeides as a synonym of Plebejus.
Note: in their analysis of Polyommatini relationships Talavera et al. (2013)
use a concept of defining genera as monophyletic groups that have a
certain minimum age (about 4-5 million years). While this is
scientifically unproblematic, it has some severe implications for
species identification, because it lumps together morphologically
divergent species as long as they belong to a monophyletic group that is
4-5 million years old. This also led Talavera et al. (2013)
to subsume the species of Vacciniina and Albulina under a more
inclusive genus Agriades. I note that Agriades, Vacciniina and Albulina
as they are used here in DEpository are all monophyletic in the analysis
by Talavera et al. (2013)
and they are combined under Agriades only because their separation from
a common ancestor is younger than 4-5 million years. I agree that
genera should be monophyletic groups, but I argue that they should not
be defined by their age, but by their morphology. Age is always
hypothetical only and may change with the next phylogenetic study. And,
more importantly, age is not a character that can be seen in the
specimen, and thus a classification that is based on age does not help
in species identification. I believe that natural classifications that
at the same time help in species identification are more useful than
natural classifications alone. Therefore, I do not accept the lumping of
Agriades, Albulina and Vacciniina and retain the nominal species
Papilio orbitulus in the genus Albulina.
|
