InsectNet forum

The ICZN Commission has passed the application in Case 3767:

Case 3767 – Papilio phoebus Fabricius, 1793 (currently Parnassius
phoebus; Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of prevailing
usage of the specific name and that of Doritis ariadne Lederer, 1853
(currently Parnassius ariadne) by the designation of a neotype.
http://dx.doi.org/10.21805/bzn.v76.a007

Opinion 2488 was officially published on 29 December 2023:
http://doi.org/10.21805/bzn.v80.a017

Opinion 2488 (Case 3767) – Papilio phoebus Fabricius, 1793 (currently Parnassius phoebus; Insecta, Lepidoptera): usage conserved for the specific name and that of Doritis ariadne Lederer, 1853 (currently Parnassius ariadne) by the designation of a neotype

Abstract
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has used its plenary power to conserve the specific names Parnassius phoebus (Fabricius, 1793) and Parnassius ariadne (Lederer, 1853) in their current usage, and to set aside all previous fixations of type specimens for the nominal species Papilio phoebus Fabricius, 1793, by designating the specimen INS_LEP_0000940 as the neotype.

Adam.

Does that mean ICZN has earlier names, but elected to retain the later yet well known name phoebus?

No, Hanus & Theye (2010) decided the illustration of the type (specimen no longer in existence) was actually Parnassius ariadne and changed the names, with the next oldest name replacing P. phoebus. Then in 2011 they made it worse by designating a neotype for P. phoebus which was a specimen of P. ariadne. As a result P. ariadne became P. phoebus and P. phoebus became P. corybas.

We (Lukhtanov, Pelham, Cotton & Calhoun, 2019) applied to the ICZN Commission to overturn this action and designate a neotype in concordance with absolute prevailing usage, and eventually they agreed. The reason we didn't apply earlier was because we waited for a previous application (Balletto & Bonelli 2014. Case 3637 Papilio phoebus De Prunner, 1798 proposed conservation) to be voted on. That was rejected due to unsound methodology since phoebus De Prunner actually belongs to P. sacerdos.

Adam.

In our application (Case 3767) we designated a neotype for Doritis ariadne Lederer, 1853 (currently Parnassius ariadne) and asked the ICZN Commission to overturn the 2011 neotype designation for P. phoebus, and proposed a specimen in St. Petersburg Museum from the type locality as a new neotype. The Commission approved our action, thus saving both species names for their traditional usage.

Adam.

Thanks for the "english language" version Adam!

Glad to be able to explain it simply.

Adam.

adamcotton wrote: Tue Jan 02, 2024 2:52 pm Glad to be able to explain it simply.

Adam.

Gotta keep it simple for me! I'm just a ground pounder.

Fun fact, until recently, Doritis was a genus of orchid. It has since been merged with the genus Phalaenopsis.

Yes, Doritis pulcherrima is native to Thailand.

Adam.

So Adam, was Doritis at one time a genus of orchid and butterfly simultaneously? Does the Code have something to say about these types of situations?

Almost certainly, but there is no homonymy between zoological and botanical genus names. Each has it's own Code of Nomenclature, and there is no 'cross-control'. I think there are many examples of the same genus name being used in animals and plants.

Adam.

adamcotton wrote: Wed Jan 03, 2024 8:42 am I think there are many examples of the same genus name being used in animals and plants.

Adam.

And, in Leps alone, many specific names used under multiple genus.

Chuck wrote: Wed Jan 03, 2024 4:21 pm And, in Leps alone, many specific names used under multiple genus.

Homonymy between species-group names (either species or subspecies) only occurs when the same name is used within a single genus; so it is perfectly acceptable for a specific name to occur in different genera, even within the same family, as long as the two taxa do not belong to the same genus.

There are two types of homonyms, primary and secondary. Primary homonymy occurs when the same species-group name is described twice within the same genus (even if in different subgenera). Secondary homonyms are much rarer, since they only occur when a taxon is moved to a genus where there is already another taxon with the same name, either at species or subspecies rank. Note that there is an effective exception for primary homonyms discovered after 1999 between taxa not placed in the same genus since before 1900 (article 23.9.5) but which were originally described in the same genus.

A junior primary homonym (the one described after the first taxon with the same name) is permanently unavailable and cannot be used ever again as the valid name for that taxon. As soon as an author recognises the homonymy the junior name is replaced with the next oldest available name, or if there is no name available then a replacement name is proposed.

The situation with secondary homonyms is a little more complicated, because the junior name is unavailable and must be replaced for as long as both taxa are placed in the same genus. If one of them is subsequently moved to a different genus then the junior name becomes the available name for the taxon again and the name that was used when secondary homonymy was in effect becomes a junior synonym. Thus junior secondary homonyms are not rendered permanently unavailable when the homonymy is recognised.

Adam.

For those who might be interested, the vote on the application (Case 3767) was as follows:

The Case was split into 3 parts:
(1) use its plenary power to set aside all previous fixations of type specimens
for the nominal species Papilio phoebus Fabricius, 1793, and to designate
the specimen INS_LEP_0000940, deposited in the Zoological Institute,
Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, as the neotype;
(2) place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) phoebus Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Papilio phoebus and as
defined by the neotype designated in (1) above; and
(b) ariadne Lederer, 1853, as published in the binomen Doritis ariadne.

Affirmative votes – 16
Negative votes – 2
Split votes – 2 (FOR 1; AGAINST 2a, ABSTAIN 2b), 2 (FOR 1 and 2a; AGAINST 2b).
Abstentions – 1
No votes were received from - 3

So the tally was 20 for and 2 against conserving the name Papilio phoebus Fabricius, 1793 by designating a neotype.

In the opinion it states the names of each Commissioner but I have omitted them here.

Adam.

Amazing. So many rules. Voting. And the animal doesn't care one bit. It's not even like we don't know it, about it; this is just about what we call it.

Chuck wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2024 7:44 pmthis is just about what we call it.

Exactly, but that is also very important so that everyone uses the same scientific name for the species, and readers around the world know what someone is discussing regardless of the language used.

Adam.