Plebeius

Chris J. Durden drdn at mail.utexas.edu
Fri Jan 26 22:24:24 EST 2001


Kurt, Norbert and others,
    I think that strict adherence to priority combined with minimal use of
the ICZN plenary powers to create exceptions to the rule of priority is the
shortest route to a stable nomenclature.
1.   I think that it was Paclt sometime in the 1960's who reported and
documented the first edition (1780) of Kluk's publication of  *Plebeius*. I
think the priority of this as the original spelling is established
robustly. Kluk was talking about blues.
2.   This early usage was documented implicitly by Cuvier (1798) who used
the Kluk generic name as the basis for his family-group name Plebeides.
Cuvier was talking about blues.
3.   From before 1815 to 1936 *Lycaena* was the genus in frequently used
for these blues because of usage based on no or unclear concept of the
genotype species. On this concept was founded the family group name
Lycaenida of Leach (1815). Meanwhile *Polyommatus* and *Chrysophanus* were
used for coppers.
4.   When it was established that the type species of *Lycaena* was in fact
a copper, as restricted by Curtis (1823), the first reviser,  blues were
assigned to other available genera and the type genus of the family-group
Lycaenida Leach, reverted to the earlier name *Plebeius*, the type genus of
the earlier family-group name Plebeides Cuvier and the family group-name
Lycaenida became a junior objective synonym of the family group-name
Plebeides..
5.   From 1920 to 1967 *Plebeius* was applied to many of the naked-eyed
blues, the hairy-eyed blues were placed in *Polyommatus*, following Barnes
& Lindsey (1922).
6.   From 1935 to 2000 *Plebejus* has been applied to blues previously
placed in *Plebeius* under the assumption that *Plebeius* was an incorrect
subsequent spelling of *Plebejus*.
7.   In 1954 *Plebejus* Kluk (1802) was placed on the ICZN Official List of
Generic Names.
8.   Paclt found copies of the first edition of Kluk (1780) in libraries in
Poland. This work was forgotten sometime after the time of Cuvier.
9.   Here we are! I would suggest that *Plebejus* be removed from the
Official list of Generic Names on the grounds that it is an unnecessary
subsequent emendation, and that it be replaced by the original spelling
*Plebeius*.
10.  I would suggest that we use the family name Plebeidae instead of
Lycaenidae because both names were based on the same taxonomic concept and
Plebeidae is the senior name. The rules that I am familiar with (and I may
be out of date) do not require the observance of the rule of priority in
the selection of family names, but they do not preclude it either. I think
that to foster long term stability we should adhere strictly to the rule of
priority at all taxon name levels. I think that it will be some time before
many taxonomists will want to take this step. I take a dim view of names
fixed on the basis of statistical usage over part of their life as I think
that in the long run that approach (eg. 60-year rule) dous not promote long
term stability of names.
 
........................Chris Durden
 
 
At 01:08 PM 1/26/2001 -0500, you wrote:
 
>It would certainly be useful if someone would summarize this somewhere in
>print (like the NEWS of the Lepid. Soc.).  The problem always seems to be
>that people (and it can be ANYONE; its not a matter of just taking sides)
>who seem to be so sure about their reading of the Code, turn out to be in
>disagreement with another group that is just as sure about THEIR reading
>of the Code.  An ancillary problem, as you know, is that Commission has
>not been good about keeping all its paper work up to date and in
>sync...hence the "errors" (by the "letter" of the Code) still on the
>"official" list (which I guess is also "hardly" official).  If some of us
>who know the Code pretty well are confused, think about those, esp. in the
>wasteland of lack of taxonomic education these days who really don't have
>much grounding in it.  I've got to admit sometimes I tend to treat
>everything as a matter of "opinion" since, so often, when it comes to
>something in the Code, being so sure runs smack dab into a contrary
>opinion backed by equal surity by some other constituency.  The worst of
>it results in several different committees and groups all claiming to have
>the "official" list, as long as they don't talk to each other!.  Bottom
>line, it all remains in flux I guess, at least over the years and the
>danger here is if good Polyommatine experts decide to continue using
>Plebejus, for whatever reason.  Well, for sure, by bottom line, its seems
>that Plebeius is right.  So I guess its a matter of people agreeing that
>nothing else needs to be done about the fact the Plebejus is still hanging
>around on that official list.  I guess the idea of a Code and a Commission
>has proved far from foolproof since, esp. with time lags and backlogged
>paperwork, the popular common usage is often just as subjective as
>ever.  It would be nice if everyone involved agrees.  I've seen awfully
>good brains disagree on this stuff and well meaning people too.  Perhaps
>these emails will result in some unanimity to start using
>Plebeius????  Maybe it would be nice if all the people listed above, who
>certainly have some sway on polyommatines would agree about what they are
>going to do.  For me, it's kind of like Gerardo Lamas said one time-- as
>an 8-letter word I don't care if its Plebejus, Plebeius, or 78763029...I'd
>just love to see unanimity among the people using it deciding on which one
>to use.  If you come up with a concensus, I'd be very happy to hear about
>it.  I'm surprised Fred Rindge read this matter the other way.  I didn't
>try the Millers.
>
>KJ
 
 
 
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------
 
   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
 
   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
 


More information about the Leps-l mailing list