Callimome cyaneus Walker, 1847 (problematic nomenclature, see below)
Torymus cyaneus Walker, 1847 (in synonymy)
Syntomaspis cyanea (Walker, 1847)
Callimome eurynotus Walker, 1850
Syntomaspis eurynotus Foerster, 1859 (nec Walker, 1850; secondary homonym and objective junior synonym) (see note)
Syntomaspis lazulinus Foerster, 1859
Torymus lazulinus (Foerster, 1859)
Torymus cyaneus Boheman, 1834 nec Fabricius, 1798 (misidentification)
Note: all current authors regard Torymus cyaneus as the valid name of
this species. However, this is problematic. The first occurrence of this
species in the literature is in the work of Boheman (1834). However,
Boheman did not realize that he had a new species before him and thought
that his specimens were identical to Ichneumon cyaneus of Fabricius
(1798). Therefore, Boheman calls the species Torymus cyaneus and even
cites the work by Fabricius. Thus, this is not the description of a new
species, but rather an obvious misidentification. The next author to
deal with the present species is Walker (1847). Walker was working with a
collection of specimens that he introduces as follows: "The species in
the following list belong to a collection which the Rev. F. W. Hope
received from Austria, and kindly allowed me to inspect". Thus, Walker
was just sorting through the collection and reported on the specimens
that he saw. The first names in his list appear to be the names as used
in the collection itself (i.e. names on the labels), because he comments
on quite a few of them, writing that they in fact belong to different
genera. If Walker agrees with how the specimens were named in the
collection, he just gives the name of the species, the original author
and the country where the specimens had been collected. An example is:
"Eucharis adscendens, Fabr., Austria". However, in many cases he
disagrees with the collection name and then also gives the name he deems
to be the correct one. An example is: "Encyrtus Eitelwienii, Ratzeburg,
Austria = Encyrtus flaminius, Dalman". In most of these cases, however,
the entomologist given by Walker has never published the name. In the
example, Julius Ratzeburg has never published the name "Eitelwienii". It
is likely, therefore, that these names are label names, that Walker
found on the specimens in the collection. His records must therefore be
interpreted like this (using the example): "The specimens in the Hope
collection labeled as Encyrtus Eitelwienii, Ratzeburg and collected in
Austria, are in fact Encyrtus flaminius described by Dalman". The entry
for the present species is "Torymus cyaneus, Kollar, Austria = Callimome
ditto". It must be interpreted as "The specimens in the Hope collection
labeled as Torymus cyaneus, Kollar and collected in Austria are in fact
Callimome with the aforementioned data". It is unclear where the name
cyaneus traces from. The Austrian entomologist Vincenz Kollar is given
by Walker (1847), but has never published this name. The most likely
interpretation is, that it traces from the misidentification by Boheman
(1834). Boheman has used this name in error for the present species (as
explained above), but obviously the name stuck and was then used by all
subsequent authors. In this interpretation, the "Torymus cyaneus" on the
label in the Hope collection and listed by Walker (1847) is not the
description of a new name, but is still the same misapplication of the
name as by Boheman (1834), and Walker (1847) just transfers it into a
new genus, Callimome. In this case, this does not constitute the
original description of a new species name, and the valid name for the
present species would be the next available name, Callimome eurynota. If
one maintains, however, that the Torymus cyaneus in the listing by
Walker (1847) does not trace from the misidentification by Boheman, then
this can indeed be regarded as the original description of this
species. However, the original combination is Callimome cyaneus, not
Torymus cyaneus as all subsequent authors believed. The list entry in
Walker (1847) clearly shows that the generic placement in Torymus is
believed by Walker to be incorrect and is only cited as the label name.
In Walker´s opinion the correct generic placement is in Callimome. The
mentioning of "Torymus cyaneus" must therefore be regarded as an
unpublished label name published in synonymy with Callimome cyaneus.
Note: the name epithet eurynotus traces from a manuscript by Foerster. Walker (1850)
published the name and a detailed description, and although he gave
Foerster as the source Walker is the author of the name. When Foerster
finally published his manuscript (Foerster 1859),
his description of Syntomaspis eurynotus became an objective junior
synonym of Callimome eurynotus (because it is based on the same
specimens in the British Museum) and a secondary homonym, because both
nominal taxa are now placed in Torymus.
|
