|
|
Post by dynastes on Jul 4, 2016 20:51:13 GMT -8
Colleagues, Lycaenidae experts, who can clarify the situation with taxon Lycaena aeolus Wyatt, 1961. Holotype: LNK. male ♂. 4.VIII.1960.
What with this species. It included in Red book of Uzbekistan (2009) as Lycaena aeolus, but on wikisecies - Status: invalid [transferred to Coenonympha aeolus]. But genus Coenonympha is different groupe from different family\subfamily Satyridae (-nae)
|
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Jul 4, 2016 23:19:21 GMT -8
Must be a problem on the part of wikispecies, GBIF, and all the other datamappers? Because I can only find Coenonympha aeolus Wyatt, 1961 on their websites. I have not seen the original publication yet. There shouldn't be any clash possible between both names, if both of them exist.
Lycaena aeolus Wyatt, 1961 does exist for sure, there is nice pics in Bozano's book. It is one of the few old world Lycaena missing in my collection.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Jul 4, 2016 23:24:26 GMT -8
images.peabody.yale.edu/lepsoc/jls/1960s/1961/1961-15%281%291-Wyatt.pdfHere is the original description, at the second last page. The pic clearly shows a Lycaena species. There was no description for any Coenonympha. So one of the datamappers screwed up, and now it will probably be impossible of getting rid of the wrong name as they copy back and forth from each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by dynastes on Jul 5, 2016 1:08:33 GMT -8
nomihoudai, thank you!!
|
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Jul 5, 2016 6:12:17 GMT -8
images.peabody.yale.edu/lepsoc/jls/1960s/1961/1961-15%281%291-Wyatt.pdfHere is the original description, at the second last page. The pic clearly shows a Lycaena species. There was no description for any Coenonympha. So one of the datamappers screwed up, and now it will probably be impossible of getting rid of the wrong name as they copy back and forth from each other. waow ... what a trip  |
|
