Oxyptilus britanniodactylus Gregson, 1869
Capperia britanniodactyla (Gregson, 1869)
Capperia britanniodactylus (Gregson, 1869)
Pterophorus britanniodactylus (Gregson, 1869)
Pterophorus teucrii Jordan, 1869 (p. 15)
Oxyptilus teucrii (Jordan, 1869)
Capperia teucrii (Jordan, 1869)
Capperia heterodactyla teucrii (Jordan, 1869)
Pterophorus brittaniodactylus auct. (misspelling)
Phalaena didactylus auct. nec Linnaeus, 1758 (misidentification)
Pterophorus didactylus auct. nec Linnaeus, 1758 (misidentification)
Alucita heterodactyla auct. nec De Villers, 1789, necque Mueller, 1764 (misidentification)
Pterophorus heterodactylus auct. nec De Villers, 1789, necque Mueller, 1764 (misidentification)
Oxyptilus heterodactylus auct. nec De Villers, 1789, necque Mueller, 1764 (misidentification)
Oxyptilus heterodactyla auct. nec De Villers, 1789, necque Mueller, 1764 (misidentification)
Capperia heterodactyla auct. nec De Villers, 1789, necque Mueller, 1764 (misidentification)
Pterophorus hieracii auct. nec Zeller, 1841 necque Stainton, 1849 (misidentification)
Oxyptilus parvidactylus auct. nec Haworth, 1811 (misidentification)
The nomenclature of this species is problematic. Previously, the name "britanniodactylus" has been considered to be the
older name, because some authors attributed it to a paper by Gregson in the
journal "The Entomologist" of the year 1867, but this is an error:
Gregson´s paper in "The Entomologist" was published in August 1869 (Gregson 1869). The name "teucrii" has been published by Jordan in June 1869 (Jordan 1869).
Thus, "teucrii" should have precedence over "britanniodactylus".
However, there are two problems. First, Gregson´s paper in "The
Entomologist" was just a report about a talk held by himself in May of
the same year. Allegedly, a two-page summary of that talk has been
published before the report in "The Entomologist" in a publication
called "Proceedings of the Northern Entomological Society". I have not
yet been able to locate a single copy of this publication and thus
cannot confirm whether it has been published before June 1869. If this
two-page summary indeed has been published before June 1869 then the
name "britanniodactyla" could have precendence over "teucrii" if the
2-page summary satisfies the criteria for publication of the
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Second, if one considers
only the readily available publications by Jordan (1869) and Gregson (1869),
then the publication by Jordan is older than the one by Gregson and
"teucrii" would be the valid name. However, Jordan´s paper is only a
short preliminary note, in which he reports that "next month, I hope to
describe it under the name of Pterophorus teucrii". Thus, Jordan
obviously did not intend to introduce the name with this short note, but
later in a full paper when he had more data. Therefore, this publication could qualify
as "temporal reference" in the sense of Article 1.3.5. In this case, the
name is excluded from zoological nomenclature. Thus, this case requires
more research on the status of both names.
|
