Home > Phylum selection > Arthropoda > Heteroptera > Pentatomidae
Home How to cite this site Terms & conditions Disclaimer Contact Site tutorial / Help Links |
Sciocoris umbrinus |
| Subspecies No subspecies are recognized. Original description Synonyms Cimex umbrinus Panzer, 1803 (plate 15) (nec Wolff, 1804) (senior primary homonym) Sciocoris umbrinus
(Panzer,
1803)
Cimex umbrinus
Wolff, 1804 (p. 142) (nec Panzer, 1803) (junior
primary homonym)Sericoris umbrinus (Panzer, 1803) Pentatoma umbrina (Panzer, 1803) Type locality: not given ("Germania" as inferred from title). Type locality:
"Habitat in Europa".
Sciocoris
brevicollis Fieber, 1851 (see note below)Sciocoris fieberii Flor, 1860 Sciocoris rotermundi Schumacher, 1912 Sciocoris rotermundi subglabra Schumacher, 1912 The name Cimex umbrinus was published twice almost simultaneously by Panzer (1803) and by Wolff (1804). Traditionally, only the description by Wolff is accepted as the description of the present species, whereas the description by Panzer is attributed to Sciocoris microphthalmus. I do not accept this view. The type(s) of both taxa are no longer extant, thus the description is the only source of information. Both descriptions comprise a general diagnosis and a figure. The figures apparently show a species of the genus Sciocoris, but are not detailed enough to confidently identify the species. In addition, the coloration differs between different copies of the books, which is usual for hand-colored works of that time. The text provides information about the color, but does not mention the important characters that differentiate between the species (e.g. shape of the head, stalk of the eyes). Therefore, neither the figures nor the texts allow the confident species identification. However, there is strong evidence that both names actually are based on the same specimen in Panzer´s collection: Panzer does not cite Wolff´s work (obviously because it was not yet published), but he gave Wolff as the author of the name below the figure, which was general practice at that time, because the official author was not the one who published first, but who coined the name first. And Wolff in his publication did not cite Panzer´s work (again, obviously because Panzer´s work was not yet published when Wolff prepared the proofs of his work), but he gave the collection of Panzer as the source of the specimen ("Mus. D. D. Panzer."). This shows that both authors knew of the work of each other and were referring to each other during the preparations of their manuscripts. Apparently, Wolff was working in Panzer´s collection and planned to name the specimen "Cimex umbrinus"; according to the general practice at the time, he likely also placed a label with that name below the specimen. When Panzer later prepared his work he also figured this specimen from his collection and used the Wolff´s name from the label and of course cited Wolff as the author (although Wolff´s work had still not been published). The portion of Panzer´s work that also contained the figure of "Cimex umbrinus" was eventually published in 1803, whereas Wolff´s work only appeared one year later. According to the practice of the time, Wolff is nevertheless the author. However, according to the currently valid rules of zoological nomenclature (ICZN 1999), the principle of priority demands that Panzer is the author, because his work has been published first. Therefore, I regard Panzer not Wolff as the author of Cimex umbrinus. Note: the taxon brevicollis has previously been regarded as a separate species. Identification Distribution Biology This page has been updated on March 8, 2013 This site is online since May 31, 2005 Copyright © by Nikola-Michael Prpic-Schäper. All rights reserved. |
< Previous | Next > Subspecies Original description Synonyms Identification Distribution Biology References  |