Subspecies
|
No
subspecies are recognized. The taxon prolai (from central Italy) is
sometimes regarded as a subspecies of the present species, but most
authors regard it as a separate species Nematopogon prolai.
|
Synonyms
|
Tinea pilella Denis et Schiffermueller, 1775
Nemophora pilella (Denis et Schiffermueller, 1775)
Nematopogon pilella (Denis et Schiffermueller, 1775)
Nematopogon pilellus (Denis et Schiffermueller, 1775)
Capillaria pilea Haworth, 1828
Nemophora minutella Snellen, 1884
Nemophora submetallica Caradja, 1920
Nemophora pilella flavicomella Mueller-Rutz, 1927
Nemophora schwarziella auct. nec Zeller, 1839 (misidentification)
Nematopogon schwarziellus auct. nec Zeller, 1839 (misidentification)
Nemophora pilella castellanii (unpublished name)
Note: there is considerable debate about the many -ella endings in the
smaller lepidopteran groups. While some authors consider these names to
be adjectives that have to agree in gender with the genus name, other
authors argue that most of these names are "phantasy" words rather than
true Latin words and must therefore be regarded as unchangeable nouns in
apposition. The "-ella" endings have first been introduced by Linnaeus
(1758) who used them like a formula for all species names in his group
"Tinea". Endings like "-ella" are genuine Latin endings: it denotes the
normal or double diminutive of a noun. Thus, names like "Tinea
salicella" (salicella = "very small willow-tree") indeed make sense in
the Latin language. Other forms, however, are more enigmatic: because
Linnaeus used these endings like a formula for all species names in
Tinea, most names (by force) are either wrong diminutives (e.g. "Tinea
pratella" should be "pratulum" ("small meadow") or "pratellum" ("very
small meadow"), because pratum ("meadow") is of neutral gender) or do
not make sense at all (e.g. "Tinea swammerdamella", a name obviously
dedicated to the famous Dutch biologist Jan Swammerdam, could be
interpreted as nonsensical "small female Swammerdamlet"). How can these
names be interpreted then? First of all, this formula-like use of
taxon-specific endings is problematic per se, because this practice is
normally excluded from nomenclature by the Code (Article 1.3). But who
dares to criticize the founder of nomenclature for using "formula-like
names"? Second, we need to establish whether Linnaeus originally used
his species epithets as adjectives or as substantives, because if they
are adjectives, they have to be adjusted to the gender of the genus
name, otherwise they are to be treated as nouns in apposition and their
gender ending remains unchanged (Article 31.2.2). In the case of the
"-ella" forms, this is rather easy to decide, because this is a typical
diminutive ending. Diminutive adjectives, like normal adjectives,
receive their gender from the substantive they refer to. By contrast,
diminutive substantives derive their gender solely from the primitive
form of the substantive. For example: in the combination of Tinea with
an diminutive species epithet based on e.g. the biologist Swammerdam,
the adjectival form would be "swammerdamella", because this diminutive
adjective derives its gender from the genus name Tinea, which is
feminine; by contrast, the substantival form would be "swammerdamellus",
because this diminutive substantive derives its gender from the gender
of Jan Swammerdam. Thus, this is clear evidence that Linnaeus used his
formula-like "-ella" names as adjectives. This is further corroborated
by the fact that, in other genera, Linnaeus usually forms diminutive
substantives with the gender imparted from the primitive substantive,
rather than from the gender of the genus name: e.g. Cypraea asellus,
Cypraea vitellus, Cypraea annulus (all: genus name feminine, but species
name correct masculine diminutive of asinus, vitulus and anus),
Buccinum testiculus (genus name neuter, but species name correct
masculine diminutive of testis). This clearly shows that Linnaeus in the
case of the Tinea moths deliberately used adjectival forms in order to
always have the same formula-like names ending with "-ella". His
intention clearly was not to generate correct diminutive substantival
forms (otherwise he would have named e.g. Tinea pratella as Tinea
pratellum). His intention very obviously was to always use the feminine
form of the diminutive in order to match it with the feminine gender of
Tinea. As already stated above, this is especially evident from those
species names that he dedicates to fellow researchers (e.g. "Tinea
goedartella", "Tinea leuvenhoekella", "Tinea merianella", "Tinea
wilkella" etc.). Otherwise he would have named at least those species
dedicated to male scientists as e.g. "Tinea goedartellus", "Tinea
leuvenhoekellus" etc.). Thus, I argue that if Linnaeus-type formula-like
names are subsequently transferred to other genera with a masculine or
neuter gender, then the ending should be adjusted in order to stick to
Linnaeus´ original intention.
Nematopogon is of masculine gender (pogon = greek "beard"
m.), thus the formula-like species epithets should be adjusted to the "-ellus" form.
The original epithet "pilella" is an example for an obviously incorrect
form that was created by Linnaeus by using any of the following words
(see next sentence) as a "root" and then just adding "-ella" to arrive
at the formula-like species epithet for his Tinea grouping. "Pilella"
obviously refers to
the yellow cap of hairs on the head, because it is reminiscent to the
Latin words for "hair" (pilus, -i), "tuft of hair" (pila, -ae) "hairy"
(pilosus, -a, -um), "cap" (pileus or pilleus, -i), and "equipped with a
cap on the head" (pileatus, -a, -um). The form "pilella" looks like a
diminutive, but actually does not fit any of these words: the diminutive
of "pilus" is "pilulus", of "pila" it is "pilula", and of "pileus" it
is
"pileolus".
|
Identification
|
No information has been entered yet.
|
Distribution
|
No information has been entered yet.
|
Biology
|
No information has been entered yet.
|
|
|
|
|
