The problem name canidiaformis Drenowski and a proposed solution
(Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea: Pieridae)
Stanislav P. Abadjiev[Originally published as ‘Abadjiev, S. P. (2000): The problem name canidiaformis Drenowski and a proposed solution (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). — SHILAP Revta. lepid. 28 (111): 335—340’]
ABSTRACT
In the period of 1909—1928 several attempts were made by the eminent Bulgarian entomologist Alexander K. Drenowski to describe a new taxon affiliated with the species Pieris napi (Linnaeus, 1758). Unfortunately they resulted in the introduction of seven different names for a single taxon. Now, definitive unavailability has been established for 6 of these. Also the sole available name Pieris napi canidiaformis Drenowski, 1925 is treated here as a junior subjective synonym of Papilio napi napi Linnaeus, 1758, syn. n. The name Pieris napi canidiaformis Higgins & Riley, 1973 being a junior primary homonym of Pieris napi canidiaformis Drenowski, 1925 is rejected here, and a replacement name is proposed: Pieris balcana Lorkovic, [1970] nom. n. for Pieris napi canidiaformis Higgins & Riley, 1973.
RESUMEN
En el período de 1909—1928 el eminente entomólogo Alexander K. Drenowski, realizó algunos intentos para describir un nuevo taxon relacionado con la especie Pieris napi (Linnaeus, 1758). Desafortunadamente de ello resultó la descripción de siete diferentes nombres para un solo taxón. Para seis de estos nombres ahora, son invalidados definitivamente. Del mismo modo el único nombre disponible Pieris napi canidiaformis Drenowski, 1925, se trata como una nueva sinonimia subjetiva de Papilio napi napi Linnaeus, 1758, syn. n. El nombre Pieris napi canidiaformis Higgins & Riley, 1973 es considerado como nueva homonimia primaria de Pieris napi canidiaformis Drenowski, 1925, es rechazado aquí y se propone el nombre de remplazo: Pieris balcana Lorkovic, [1970] nom. n., para Pieris napi canidiaformis Higgins & Riley, 1973.
INTRODUCTION
Problems with the name canidiaformis started in 1909 when Drenowski (1909a: 74; 1909b: 603) introduced his name (without any description, definition or indication), in the following combination: ‘[Pieris] rapae L. nova var. canidioformis Drnw.’; ‘Pieris rapae L. var. nova canidioformis Drenow.’; the same was repeated in the next 1910 (Drenowski, 1910b). A description of this taxon appeared for the first time in 1925 (Drenowski, 1925: 108—109) and the name spelling and combination were both changed by Drenowski himself: ‘Pieris napi L. var. nova canidiaformis Dren.’.
Bollow (1932: 96) listed ‘canidiaeformis Drenowski’ (accepting ‘Drenowski, 1910a’ as an original publication) together with aberrations, without indicating its rank (subspecific or infrasubspecific). Subsequently Müller & Kautz (1939: 109) proposed the combination ‘[P. napi meridionalis] mod. canidiaformis Drenowski, 1910, Z. Wiss. Ins. Biol. S. 85’. It was clearly erroneous to use the spelling canidiaformis together with a citation of Drenowski’s paper published in 1910 (e. g. Drenowski, 1910b). The problem escalated when Higgins & Riley (1973: 46) associated the same with an established species-group name balcana Lorkovic, [1970], stating: ‘P.[ieris] n.[api] canidiaformis Drenowsky 1910; T[ype] L[ocality]: Bosnia and Macedonia; syn.[onym]: balcana Lorkovic’. In 1997 Kudrna (1977: 63) established the unavailability of Pieris rapae canidioformis Drenowski, 1910, but the first publication of this name had been overlooked; additionally Pieris napi canidiaformis Higgins & Riley, 1973 was proposed as a junior synonym of Pieris balcana Lorkovic, [1970] (l. c.: 64). Higgins & Riley (1980: 26) again used (but this time as ‘A.[rtogeia] n.[api] canidiaformis Drenowsky 1925’) Drenowski’s name as a senior synonym of balcana Lorkovic, submitting no reference to ‘Drenowsky (1925)’. Later Eitschberger (1983: 213) established ‘eine wundersame Metamorphose’ (3 different spellings) of the name canidioformis, and accepting ‘Drenowski, 1924—1925 (1925)’ as an original publication declared ‘Logischerweise müssen wir demnach P. napi canidiaformis Drenowski, 1925 (nec Higgins & Riley, 1973) partim als Synonym zu P. napi napi Linné und P. pseudorapae balcana Lorkovic stellen.’ Lastly Kudrna (1986: 170), in a commentary of Higgins & Riley (1980), stated: ‘apparently unavailable infrasubspecific name Pieris napi canidiaformis Drenowsky, 1925’.
Adding no more, other authors used the above statements and usually in somewhat inaccurate ways: Jaksic (1983: 85: ‘A. balcana Lorkovic, 1968 (nec. canidiaformis Drenowsky; 1925)’); Reissinger (1989: ‘... pseudorapae balcana Lorkovic, 1970... Syn.: canidioformis Drenowsky, 1910 (nom. nud.)’); Abadjiev (1992: 38: ‘P. p. balcana Lorkovic, [1970]... syn.: canidiaformis Drenowsky, 1910 (nom. nud.)’); Tolman (1997: 39: ‘A. balcana Lorkovic 1970... syn: canidiaformis Drenowsky 1910 (nom. nud.)’) and Jaksic (1998: 9: ‘Pieris balcana Lorkovic, [1970] (syn. canidiaformis Drenowsky, 1910 nomen nudum’).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An extensive literature search has been carried out in order to establish the validity of the above statements, to fill the gaps in current knowledge and to offer a correct solution of the enigma. The primary focus was on the Drenowski’s publications, taking into consideration his own opinion, but several other works have also been consulted. The necessary investigation of all of the names introduced by Drenowski has been accomplished, including both questions of nomenclatural availability and validity and the circumstances of their first publications and subsequent use. In the actual cases (listed below), the rules and recommendations of the ICZN have been followed.
RESULTS
In an attempt to describe a single new taxon Drenowski (1909a, 1909b, 1910a, 1925, 1924—1925 (1925), 1928) introduced it under 7 different names and in the following combinations (listed here chronologically):
[1] Pieris rapae canidioformis Drenowski, 1909
‘[Pieris] rapae L. nova var. canidioformis Drnw.’ (Drenowski, 1909a: 74); ‘Pieris rapae L. var. nova canidioformis Drenow.’ (Drenowski, 1909b: 603: footnote 1, 605, 609).
Additional reference: ‘Pieris rapae L. u. nova var. canidioformis Drenow.’ (Drenowski, 1910b: 85).
[2] Pieris rapae canadiaeformis Drenowski, 1910
‘Pieris rapae L. Canadiaeformis’ (Drenowski, 1910a: 4).
[3] Pieris rapae canidiafermis Drenowski, 1910
‘Pieris rajae [sic] var. canidiafermis’ (Drenowski, 1910a: 60).
[4] Pieris napi canidiaformis Drenowski, 1925
‘Pieris napi L. var. nova canidiaformis Dren.’ (Drenowski, 1925: Die vertikale Verteilung der Lepidopteren in den Hochgebirgen Bulgariens. — Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 1925 (2) (15 May 1925): 108).
Type locality: ‘Cham-koriya’ (Drenowski, 1909a: 73—74) [Bulgaria: Rila Mts: Borovets]; UTM Grid reference 34TGM18.
Type material: originally not stated; apparently destroyed due to the earthquake disaster in Skopje in 1963.
Original description: (Drenowski, 1925: 108—109): ‘Die... Pieris napi L. in einer Form an, die hauptsächlich in ihren weiblichen Exemplaren sehr stark an die asiatische Art canidia Sparrm. erinnert, weshalb ich sie noch im Jahre 1909 mit den Namen var. nova canidiaformis Dren. belegte... Das Hauptunterscheidungsmerkmal dieser Gebirgsform von der Nominatform besteht darin, daß auf den hinteren Flügeln die Enden der Äderchen oben (bei den Weibchen stärker, bei den Männchen schwächer) mit schwarzen Schuppen in einer Länge von 2—5 mm stark besetzt sind. Diese so gebildeten schwarzen Striche, die an der vorderen Ecke der Flügel in Richtung zu den hinteren beginnen (Analwinkel), verlieren sich allmählich, wodurch die Form im hinteren Flügel der Art canidia, wie bemerkt, sehr ähnlich wird. Bei den männlichen Exemplaren sind statt der schwarzen Linien nur schwarze Punkte vorhanden, die sich sehr klar abzeichnen. Ebenso sind auch bei den vorderen Flügeln die Enden der Äderchen mit schwarzen Schuppen bedeckt und wiederum am stärksten bei den weiblichen Exemplaren ausgeprägt. Die so entstandenen breiten schwarzen Striche vereinigen die diskoidalen beiden großen schwarzen Flecken mit dem Saum der Flügel.’.
Additional references: ‘Pieris napi L. var. canidiaformis Dren.’ (Drenowski, 1924—1925 (1925): 1); ‘Pieris napi (L.) var. canidiaformis (Dren.)’ (Drenowski, 1928: 47, 48—49, 55, 56, 60, 70); ‘Pieris napi var. canidiaformis Drenowski’ (Drenowski, 1929a: 66); ‘Pieris napi (L.) var. canidiaformis (Dren.)’ (Drenowski, 1929b: 138); ‘Pieris napi L. var. canidiaformis Dren.’ (Drenowski, 1930a: 11, 18, 27, 31—32); ‘Pieris napi var. canidiaformis Dren.’ (Drenowski, 1930b: 184); ‘Pieris napi canidiaformis Drenow.’ (Drenowski, 1932: 43, 44); ‘Pieris napi L. var. canidiaformis Drenow.’ (Drenowski, 1933: 13).
[5] Pieris napi canidaformis Drenowski, 1925
‘Pieris napi L. var. canidaformis Dren.’ (Drenowski, 1925: 115).
[6] Pieris napi canidiiformis Drenowski, 1925
‘Pieris napi L. var. canidiiformis Dren.’ (Drenowski, 1924—1925 (1925): 30).
[7] Pieris napi canidiaforme Drenowski, 1928
‘[Pieris] napi (L.) var. canidiaforme (Dren.)’ (Drenowski, 1928: 102).
DISCUSSION
The name [1] was published simultaneously in 2 different publications (Drenowski, 1909a; 1909b). In both cases it fails to satisfy Articles 12 and 16 of the ICZN code (lack of any description, definition or indication) and I propose that Pieris rapae canidioformis Drenowski, 1909 be designated nomen nudum; unavailable name.
The names [2 and 3] also fail to satisfy Articles 12 and 16 of the ICZN code: Pieris rapae canadiaeformis Drenowski, 1910 — nomen nudum; unavailable name; Pieris rapae canidiafermis Drenowski, 1910 — nomen nudum; unavailable name. The name ‘P.[ieris] rapae L. canidiaeformis Drenowski’ Bollow, 1932 is an incorrect subsequent spelling of ‘Pieris rapae L. Canadiaeformis’ Drenowski, 1910.
As far as of name [4] is concerned it should be noted that none of the previous authors contributing to this problem (e. g. Kudrna, Eitschberger) paid attention to the work of Drenowski (1925), which is astonishing since it certainly was the most popular of his works. As a result, the sole available Drenowski’s names was omitted from their works. Satisfying Articles 12 and 16 of the ICZN code, the taxonomic status (subspecific or infrasubspecific) of this name remains somewhat unclear, because it was introduced under the term ‘var.[iety]’. Drenowski’s personal criterion for the subspecies was far from the current rules of the ICZN. Concerning the term ‘variety’ and its usage, some examples, commonly seen in his works, are: Drenowski (1925: 40): ‘Coenonympha tiphon Rott... var. rhodopensis Elw.’; a taxon recently treated as a distinct species Coenonympha rhodopensis Elwes, 1900 (cf Kudrna, 1986: 163, 177; Tolman, 1997: 243) or (l. c. p. 71): ‘Erebia epiphron Kn. var. orientalis Elw.’; again recently treated as a distinct species Erebia orientalis Elwes, 1900 (cf Kudrna, 1986: 164; Tolman, 1997: 215). Taking into account Article 45 (e) (i) and following Article 45 (d) (ii) of the ICZN it is preferable to treat the name at subspecific rank (i. e. available). The following is provided as evidence: subsequently in many cases the name canidiaformis has been associated with the phrase ‘our endemic form’ or as a characteristic taxon for the montane altitudinal zone of some of the Bulgarian mountains (cf Drenowski, 1925: 51, 55, 59; 1928: 47, 48—49, 55, 56, 60, 70; 1930a: 31; etc.). Also it can not be considered as a ‘seasonal montane form (summer brood)’ (see Kudrna, 1986: 170). In this case Drenowski (1925: 109) wrote: ‘entspricht der zweiten Generation der Art napi aus der Ebene’ and subsequently (1930a: 31): ‘comparable to a summer brood of the species napi L., but only in the mountains... Appears in a single brood.’ It is difficult (due to the absence of type material) but not impossible (having a description), to make conclusions about its identity. A comparison between the features stated in the description (cf original description above) of canidiaformis and those of the nominate P. napi napi lead to a view that these taxa are conspecific. Ultimately the only logical and correct solution, derived from the above explanation, is the one that has been proposed: name [4] Pieris napi canidiaformis Drenowski, 1925 is available; it is a junior subjective synonym of Papilio napi napi Linnaeus, 1758 (syn. n.) and therefore it is invalid.
According to Article 33 (b) (ICZN) the names [5, 6 and 7] should be treated as follows: Pieris napi canidaformis Drenowski, 1925 — an incorrect subsequent spelling of Pieris napi canidiaformis Drenowski, 1925, unavailable name; Pieris napi canidiiformis Drenowski, 1925 — an incorrect subsequent spelling of Pieris napi canidiaformis Drenowski, 1925, unavailable name (noted also by Eitschberger (1983: 213)); Pieris napi canidiaforme Drenowski, 1928 — an incorrect subsequent spelling of Pieris napi canidiaformis Drenowski, 1925, unavailable name.
The name Pieris napi canidiaformis Higgins & Riley, 1973, emerged through the action of Kudrna (1977: 64), is a junior primary homonym of Pieris napi canidiaformis Drenowski, 1925; it is rejected here (under Article 59 (a), ICZN); a replacement name is proposed: ‘Pieris... balcana m. n.’ Lorkovic, [1970]: 114—120; type material: ‘Holotypus [male]’, originally designated (Lorkovic, [1970]: 117: Fig. 7b [hindwing]), illustrated also in Eitschberger (1983 (Teil 2): Taf. 459: Abb. 27/28) — in coll. Entomologisches Museum Eitschberger, Marktleuthen (EMEM) (Eitschberger, 1983 (Teil 2): 458); type locality: ‘Treska Schlucht, Mazedonien’, originally designated (Lorkovic, [1970]: 117) nom. n. for Pieris napi canidiaformis Higgins & Riley, 1973 (Article 60 (a), ICZN).
The possible relations between canidiaformis and balcana are highly speculative and they can be deduced only artificially. The association of ‘canidiaformis Drenowsky, 1925’ with balcana Lorkovic suggested by Eitschberger (1983: 213) is clearly erroneous. The cited publication (Drenowski, 1924—1925 (1925)) contains no description, definition or indication of canidiaformis and, as it has been noted by Eitschberger, the name should be considered unavailable, nomen nudum (cf Art 12 and 16, ICZN). His statement concerning the sympatric occurrence of Pieris napi and P. balcana in Bulgaria is not evidence that there is a sympatric occurrence of canidiaformis and balcana (notwithstanding the superficial similarity in the distribution and bionomics of napi and balcana); moreover no sympatric occurrence of napi and balcana in a type locality (Borovets) of canidiaformis has been established until now. Additionally, if (hypothetically) we synonymise this particular name with balcana Lorkovic (even ‘partim’) it should be clearly noted that ‘canidiaformis Drenowsky, 1925 (Drenowski, 1924—1925 (1925)’ is a senior synonym, which immediately results in invalidity of the name balcana Lorkovic. It is obvious that the relations between canidiaformis and balcana remain the same as those between napi and balcana. To avoid future confusion the following suggestion is offered here: the names canidiaformis and balcana should not be used in combination.
Any kind of commentary on the name ‘A.[rtogeia] n.[api] canidiaformis Drenowsky 1925’ used by Higgins & Riley (1980: 26) (published without exact any reference) would be purely hypothetical and non-essential in this case.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to thank Dr Ulf Eitschberger (Marktleuthen, Germany) who kindly assisted with literature. Also I am deeply indebted to Mr Colin W. Plant (Bishops Stortford, Hertfordshire, England) for manuscript reading and linguistic corrections and to Dr Antonio Vives Moreno (Madrid, Spain) for the translation of Spanish abstract.
REFERENCES
Abadjiev, S. (1992): Butterflies of Bulgaria, Part 1, Papilionidae & Pieridae. Veren Publishers, Sofia, 91 pp.
Bollow, C. (1932): 2. Familie: Pieridae, Weißlinge. In: Seitz, A. (Hrsg.) Die Groß-Schmetterlinge der Erde, Alfred Kernen Verlag, Stuttgart, Suppl. I (1): pp. 93—125.
Drenowski, A. K. (1909a): Izsledvaniya varhu peperudnata fauna na Rila planina. [Studies on the lepidopterous fauna of Rila Mountains]. — Arhiv na Ministerstvoto na narodnoto prosveshtenie 1 (2): 67—91.
Drenowski, A. K. (1909b): Novi i s malko nahodishta vidove iz peperudnata fauna na Bulgariya. [New and with few localities species of the lepidopterous fauna of Bulgaria]. — Periodichesko spisanie na Bulgarskoto knizhovno druzhestvo v Sofiya 70 (9—10): 603—638, Tab. I—IV. (In Bulgarian).
Drenowski, A. K. (1910a): In: Bulgarische Entomologische Vereinigung in Sophia. — Entomologische Rundschau, Beilage Entomologisches Vereinsblatt 27 (2): 4, (9): 60, (13): 92, (17): 24, (19): 140.
Drenowski, A. K. (1910b): Ueber die vertikale Verbreitung der Lepidopteren auf dem Ryla-Gebirge (2924 m) in Bulgarien. — Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Insektenbiologie 6 (3): 81—85, (5): 174—177.
Drenowski, A. K. (1924—1925): Die Lepidopteren-Fauna der Zentral-Rhodopen in Bulgarien. — Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Insektenbiologie 19 (1924) (10): 233—238; 20 (1925) (1): 1—5, (2): 28—32, (3): 39—44.
Drenowski, A. K. (1925): Die vertikale Verteilung der Lepidopteren in den Hochgebirgen Bulgariens. — Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 1925 (1): 29—75, (2): 97—125, 1 Kartenskizze.
Drenowski, A. K. (1928): Die Lepidopterenfauna auf den Hochgebirgen Bulgariens. — Sbornik na Bulgarskata Akademiya na Naukite 23: 1—120, 1 Karte, 1 Schema. (In Bulgarian with German summary).
Drenowski, A. K. (1929a): Die Lepidopterenfauna auf den Hochgebirgen Bulgariens. Dritter Teil. Ueber den Charakter der bulgarischen Lepidopterenfauna. — Trudove na Bulgarskoto Prirodoispitatelno Druzhestvo 14: 57—98.
Drenowski, A. K. (1929b): Über die Lepidopteren-Formationen in den Hochgebirgen Bulgariens. — Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 1929 (2): 129—140.
Drenowski, A. K. (1930a): Untersuchungen über die Lepidopterenfauna des Ossogowagebirges in W. Bulgarien. — Sbornik na Bulgarskata Akademiya na Naukite 26: 1—83, 2 Karten-Schema. (In Bulgarian with German summary).
Drenowski, A. K. (1930b): Übt die Meeresnachbarschaft einen Einfluß auf die Höhenverteilung der Gebirgslepidopteren in Bulgarien aus? — Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 1930: 179—192.
Drenowski, A. K. (1932): Ein vergleichender Übersicht der Bergschmetterlings-Fauna auf den Hochgebirgen Bulgariens. — Izvestiya na Bulgarskoto Entomologichno Druzhestvo 7: 31—55. (In Bulgarian with German summary).
Drenowski, A. K. (1933): Ueber die Lepidopteren-Zonen auf dem Alibotuschgebirge (In bulgarisch Mazedonien). Eigene Ausgabe, Sofia, 51 S., 2 Karten-Schema. (In Bulgarian with German summary).
Eitschberger, U. (1983): Systematische Untersuchungen am Pieris napi-bryoniae-Komplex (s.l.) (Lepidoptera, Pieridae). — Herbipoliana, Band I (Teil 1): i—xxii, 1—504; (Teil 2): 1—601.
Higgins, L. G. & N. D. Riley (1973): A field guide to the butterflies of Britain and Europe. Collins, London, (Ed. 2): 381 pp., 60 col. pls.
Higgins, L. G. & N. D. Riley (1980): A field guide to the butterflies of Britain and Europe. Collins, London, (Ed. 4): 384 pp., 63 col. pls.
ICZN (1985): International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Third edition, adopted by the XX General Assembly of the International Union of Biological Sciences. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature in association with British Museum (Natural History) London & University of California Press, London, Berkeley, Los Angeles, XX + 338 pp.
Jaksic, P. (1983): Bibliografija Rhopalocera (Lepidoptera) Jugoslavije sa katalogom vrsta, podvrsta i sinonima. — Acta entomologica Jugoslavica 19 (Suppl.): 55—115.
Jaksic, P. (1998): Male genitalia of butterflies on Balkan Peninsula with a check-list. Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea and Papilionoidea. F. Slamka, Bratislava, 144 pp.
Kudrna, O. (1977): On the nomenclature of some taxa of the genus Artogeia Verity (Lep., Pieridae). — Zeitschrift der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Oesterreichischer Entomologen 29 (1—2): 63—64.
Kudrna, O. (1986): Butterflies of Europe, Vol. 8, Aspects of the conservation of butterflies in Europe. Aula-Verlag, Wiesbaden, 323 pp.
Lorkovic, Z. ([1970]): Karyologischer Beitrag zur Frage der Fortpflanzungsverhältnisse südeuropäischer Taxone von Pieris napi L. (Lepid., Pieridae). — Bioloski Glasnik 21 (1968): 95—136.
Müller, L. & H. Kautz (1939): Pieris bryoniae O. und Pieris napi L. Österreichischer Entomologen-Verein, Wien, 16 + 191 pp., 18 Taf.
Reissinger, E. (1989): Checkliste Pieridae Duponchel, 1835 (Lepidoptera) der Westpalaearktis (Europa, Nordwestafrika, Kaukasus, Kleinasien). — Atalanta, Würzburg 20 (1—4): 149—185.
Tolman, T. (1997): Butterflies of Britain & Europe. Harper Collins Publishers, London — Glasgow — New York — Sydney — Auckland — Toronto — Johannesburg, 320 pp., A, B + 104 Pls.
In the period of 1909—1928 several attempts were made by the eminent Bulgarian entomologist Alexander K. Drenowski to describe a new taxon affiliated with the species Pieris napi (Linnaeus, 1758). Unfortunately they resulted in the introduction of seven different names for a single taxon. Now, definitive unavailability has been established for 6 of these. Also the sole available name Pieris napi canidiaformis Drenowski, 1925 is treated here as a junior subjective synonym of Papilio napi napi Linnaeus, 1758, syn. n. The name Pieris napi canidiaformis Higgins & Riley, 1973 being a junior primary homonym of Pieris napi canidiaformis Drenowski, 1925 is rejected here, and a replacement name is proposed: Pieris balcana Lorkovic, [1970] nom. n. for Pieris napi canidiaformis Higgins & Riley, 1973.
RESUMEN
En el período de 1909—1928 el eminente entomólogo Alexander K. Drenowski, realizó algunos intentos para describir un nuevo taxon relacionado con la especie Pieris napi (Linnaeus, 1758). Desafortunadamente de ello resultó la descripción de siete diferentes nombres para un solo taxón. Para seis de estos nombres ahora, son invalidados definitivamente. Del mismo modo el único nombre disponible Pieris napi canidiaformis Drenowski, 1925, se trata como una nueva sinonimia subjetiva de Papilio napi napi Linnaeus, 1758, syn. n. El nombre Pieris napi canidiaformis Higgins & Riley, 1973 es considerado como nueva homonimia primaria de Pieris napi canidiaformis Drenowski, 1925, es rechazado aquí y se propone el nombre de remplazo: Pieris balcana Lorkovic, [1970] nom. n., para Pieris napi canidiaformis Higgins & Riley, 1973.
INTRODUCTION
Problems with the name canidiaformis started in 1909 when Drenowski (1909a: 74; 1909b: 603) introduced his name (without any description, definition or indication), in the following combination: ‘[Pieris] rapae L. nova var. canidioformis Drnw.’; ‘Pieris rapae L. var. nova canidioformis Drenow.’; the same was repeated in the next 1910 (Drenowski, 1910b). A description of this taxon appeared for the first time in 1925 (Drenowski, 1925: 108—109) and the name spelling and combination were both changed by Drenowski himself: ‘Pieris napi L. var. nova canidiaformis Dren.’.
Bollow (1932: 96) listed ‘canidiaeformis Drenowski’ (accepting ‘Drenowski, 1910a’ as an original publication) together with aberrations, without indicating its rank (subspecific or infrasubspecific). Subsequently Müller & Kautz (1939: 109) proposed the combination ‘[P. napi meridionalis] mod. canidiaformis Drenowski, 1910, Z. Wiss. Ins. Biol. S. 85’. It was clearly erroneous to use the spelling canidiaformis together with a citation of Drenowski’s paper published in 1910 (e. g. Drenowski, 1910b). The problem escalated when Higgins & Riley (1973: 46) associated the same with an established species-group name balcana Lorkovic, [1970], stating: ‘P.[ieris] n.[api] canidiaformis Drenowsky 1910; T[ype] L[ocality]: Bosnia and Macedonia; syn.[onym]: balcana Lorkovic’. In 1997 Kudrna (1977: 63) established the unavailability of Pieris rapae canidioformis Drenowski, 1910, but the first publication of this name had been overlooked; additionally Pieris napi canidiaformis Higgins & Riley, 1973 was proposed as a junior synonym of Pieris balcana Lorkovic, [1970] (l. c.: 64). Higgins & Riley (1980: 26) again used (but this time as ‘A.[rtogeia] n.[api] canidiaformis Drenowsky 1925’) Drenowski’s name as a senior synonym of balcana Lorkovic, submitting no reference to ‘Drenowsky (1925)’. Later Eitschberger (1983: 213) established ‘eine wundersame Metamorphose’ (3 different spellings) of the name canidioformis, and accepting ‘Drenowski, 1924—1925 (1925)’ as an original publication declared ‘Logischerweise müssen wir demnach P. napi canidiaformis Drenowski, 1925 (nec Higgins & Riley, 1973) partim als Synonym zu P. napi napi Linné und P. pseudorapae balcana Lorkovic stellen.’ Lastly Kudrna (1986: 170), in a commentary of Higgins & Riley (1980), stated: ‘apparently unavailable infrasubspecific name Pieris napi canidiaformis Drenowsky, 1925’.
Adding no more, other authors used the above statements and usually in somewhat inaccurate ways: Jaksic (1983: 85: ‘A. balcana Lorkovic, 1968 (nec. canidiaformis Drenowsky; 1925)’); Reissinger (1989: ‘... pseudorapae balcana Lorkovic, 1970... Syn.: canidioformis Drenowsky, 1910 (nom. nud.)’); Abadjiev (1992: 38: ‘P. p. balcana Lorkovic, [1970]... syn.: canidiaformis Drenowsky, 1910 (nom. nud.)’); Tolman (1997: 39: ‘A. balcana Lorkovic 1970... syn: canidiaformis Drenowsky 1910 (nom. nud.)’) and Jaksic (1998: 9: ‘Pieris balcana Lorkovic, [1970] (syn. canidiaformis Drenowsky, 1910 nomen nudum’).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An extensive literature search has been carried out in order to establish the validity of the above statements, to fill the gaps in current knowledge and to offer a correct solution of the enigma. The primary focus was on the Drenowski’s publications, taking into consideration his own opinion, but several other works have also been consulted. The necessary investigation of all of the names introduced by Drenowski has been accomplished, including both questions of nomenclatural availability and validity and the circumstances of their first publications and subsequent use. In the actual cases (listed below), the rules and recommendations of the ICZN have been followed.
RESULTS
In an attempt to describe a single new taxon Drenowski (1909a, 1909b, 1910a, 1925, 1924—1925 (1925), 1928) introduced it under 7 different names and in the following combinations (listed here chronologically):
[1] Pieris rapae canidioformis Drenowski, 1909
‘[Pieris] rapae L. nova var. canidioformis Drnw.’ (Drenowski, 1909a: 74); ‘Pieris rapae L. var. nova canidioformis Drenow.’ (Drenowski, 1909b: 603: footnote 1, 605, 609).
Additional reference: ‘Pieris rapae L. u. nova var. canidioformis Drenow.’ (Drenowski, 1910b: 85).
[2] Pieris rapae canadiaeformis Drenowski, 1910
‘Pieris rapae L. Canadiaeformis’ (Drenowski, 1910a: 4).
[3] Pieris rapae canidiafermis Drenowski, 1910
‘Pieris rajae [sic] var. canidiafermis’ (Drenowski, 1910a: 60).
[4] Pieris napi canidiaformis Drenowski, 1925
‘Pieris napi L. var. nova canidiaformis Dren.’ (Drenowski, 1925: Die vertikale Verteilung der Lepidopteren in den Hochgebirgen Bulgariens. — Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 1925 (2) (15 May 1925): 108).
Type locality: ‘Cham-koriya’ (Drenowski, 1909a: 73—74) [Bulgaria: Rila Mts: Borovets]; UTM Grid reference 34TGM18.
Type material: originally not stated; apparently destroyed due to the earthquake disaster in Skopje in 1963.
Original description: (Drenowski, 1925: 108—109): ‘Die... Pieris napi L. in einer Form an, die hauptsächlich in ihren weiblichen Exemplaren sehr stark an die asiatische Art canidia Sparrm. erinnert, weshalb ich sie noch im Jahre 1909 mit den Namen var. nova canidiaformis Dren. belegte... Das Hauptunterscheidungsmerkmal dieser Gebirgsform von der Nominatform besteht darin, daß auf den hinteren Flügeln die Enden der Äderchen oben (bei den Weibchen stärker, bei den Männchen schwächer) mit schwarzen Schuppen in einer Länge von 2—5 mm stark besetzt sind. Diese so gebildeten schwarzen Striche, die an der vorderen Ecke der Flügel in Richtung zu den hinteren beginnen (Analwinkel), verlieren sich allmählich, wodurch die Form im hinteren Flügel der Art canidia, wie bemerkt, sehr ähnlich wird. Bei den männlichen Exemplaren sind statt der schwarzen Linien nur schwarze Punkte vorhanden, die sich sehr klar abzeichnen. Ebenso sind auch bei den vorderen Flügeln die Enden der Äderchen mit schwarzen Schuppen bedeckt und wiederum am stärksten bei den weiblichen Exemplaren ausgeprägt. Die so entstandenen breiten schwarzen Striche vereinigen die diskoidalen beiden großen schwarzen Flecken mit dem Saum der Flügel.’.
Additional references: ‘Pieris napi L. var. canidiaformis Dren.’ (Drenowski, 1924—1925 (1925): 1); ‘Pieris napi (L.) var. canidiaformis (Dren.)’ (Drenowski, 1928: 47, 48—49, 55, 56, 60, 70); ‘Pieris napi var. canidiaformis Drenowski’ (Drenowski, 1929a: 66); ‘Pieris napi (L.) var. canidiaformis (Dren.)’ (Drenowski, 1929b: 138); ‘Pieris napi L. var. canidiaformis Dren.’ (Drenowski, 1930a: 11, 18, 27, 31—32); ‘Pieris napi var. canidiaformis Dren.’ (Drenowski, 1930b: 184); ‘Pieris napi canidiaformis Drenow.’ (Drenowski, 1932: 43, 44); ‘Pieris napi L. var. canidiaformis Drenow.’ (Drenowski, 1933: 13).
[5] Pieris napi canidaformis Drenowski, 1925
‘Pieris napi L. var. canidaformis Dren.’ (Drenowski, 1925: 115).
[6] Pieris napi canidiiformis Drenowski, 1925
‘Pieris napi L. var. canidiiformis Dren.’ (Drenowski, 1924—1925 (1925): 30).
[7] Pieris napi canidiaforme Drenowski, 1928
‘[Pieris] napi (L.) var. canidiaforme (Dren.)’ (Drenowski, 1928: 102).
DISCUSSION
The name [1] was published simultaneously in 2 different publications (Drenowski, 1909a; 1909b). In both cases it fails to satisfy Articles 12 and 16 of the ICZN code (lack of any description, definition or indication) and I propose that Pieris rapae canidioformis Drenowski, 1909 be designated nomen nudum; unavailable name.
The names [2 and 3] also fail to satisfy Articles 12 and 16 of the ICZN code: Pieris rapae canadiaeformis Drenowski, 1910 — nomen nudum; unavailable name; Pieris rapae canidiafermis Drenowski, 1910 — nomen nudum; unavailable name. The name ‘P.[ieris] rapae L. canidiaeformis Drenowski’ Bollow, 1932 is an incorrect subsequent spelling of ‘Pieris rapae L. Canadiaeformis’ Drenowski, 1910.
As far as of name [4] is concerned it should be noted that none of the previous authors contributing to this problem (e. g. Kudrna, Eitschberger) paid attention to the work of Drenowski (1925), which is astonishing since it certainly was the most popular of his works. As a result, the sole available Drenowski’s names was omitted from their works. Satisfying Articles 12 and 16 of the ICZN code, the taxonomic status (subspecific or infrasubspecific) of this name remains somewhat unclear, because it was introduced under the term ‘var.[iety]’. Drenowski’s personal criterion for the subspecies was far from the current rules of the ICZN. Concerning the term ‘variety’ and its usage, some examples, commonly seen in his works, are: Drenowski (1925: 40): ‘Coenonympha tiphon Rott... var. rhodopensis Elw.’; a taxon recently treated as a distinct species Coenonympha rhodopensis Elwes, 1900 (cf Kudrna, 1986: 163, 177; Tolman, 1997: 243) or (l. c. p. 71): ‘Erebia epiphron Kn. var. orientalis Elw.’; again recently treated as a distinct species Erebia orientalis Elwes, 1900 (cf Kudrna, 1986: 164; Tolman, 1997: 215). Taking into account Article 45 (e) (i) and following Article 45 (d) (ii) of the ICZN it is preferable to treat the name at subspecific rank (i. e. available). The following is provided as evidence: subsequently in many cases the name canidiaformis has been associated with the phrase ‘our endemic form’ or as a characteristic taxon for the montane altitudinal zone of some of the Bulgarian mountains (cf Drenowski, 1925: 51, 55, 59; 1928: 47, 48—49, 55, 56, 60, 70; 1930a: 31; etc.). Also it can not be considered as a ‘seasonal montane form (summer brood)’ (see Kudrna, 1986: 170). In this case Drenowski (1925: 109) wrote: ‘entspricht der zweiten Generation der Art napi aus der Ebene’ and subsequently (1930a: 31): ‘comparable to a summer brood of the species napi L., but only in the mountains... Appears in a single brood.’ It is difficult (due to the absence of type material) but not impossible (having a description), to make conclusions about its identity. A comparison between the features stated in the description (cf original description above) of canidiaformis and those of the nominate P. napi napi lead to a view that these taxa are conspecific. Ultimately the only logical and correct solution, derived from the above explanation, is the one that has been proposed: name [4] Pieris napi canidiaformis Drenowski, 1925 is available; it is a junior subjective synonym of Papilio napi napi Linnaeus, 1758 (syn. n.) and therefore it is invalid.
According to Article 33 (b) (ICZN) the names [5, 6 and 7] should be treated as follows: Pieris napi canidaformis Drenowski, 1925 — an incorrect subsequent spelling of Pieris napi canidiaformis Drenowski, 1925, unavailable name; Pieris napi canidiiformis Drenowski, 1925 — an incorrect subsequent spelling of Pieris napi canidiaformis Drenowski, 1925, unavailable name (noted also by Eitschberger (1983: 213)); Pieris napi canidiaforme Drenowski, 1928 — an incorrect subsequent spelling of Pieris napi canidiaformis Drenowski, 1925, unavailable name.
The name Pieris napi canidiaformis Higgins & Riley, 1973, emerged through the action of Kudrna (1977: 64), is a junior primary homonym of Pieris napi canidiaformis Drenowski, 1925; it is rejected here (under Article 59 (a), ICZN); a replacement name is proposed: ‘Pieris... balcana m. n.’ Lorkovic, [1970]: 114—120; type material: ‘Holotypus [male]’, originally designated (Lorkovic, [1970]: 117: Fig. 7b [hindwing]), illustrated also in Eitschberger (1983 (Teil 2): Taf. 459: Abb. 27/28) — in coll. Entomologisches Museum Eitschberger, Marktleuthen (EMEM) (Eitschberger, 1983 (Teil 2): 458); type locality: ‘Treska Schlucht, Mazedonien’, originally designated (Lorkovic, [1970]: 117) nom. n. for Pieris napi canidiaformis Higgins & Riley, 1973 (Article 60 (a), ICZN).
The possible relations between canidiaformis and balcana are highly speculative and they can be deduced only artificially. The association of ‘canidiaformis Drenowsky, 1925’ with balcana Lorkovic suggested by Eitschberger (1983: 213) is clearly erroneous. The cited publication (Drenowski, 1924—1925 (1925)) contains no description, definition or indication of canidiaformis and, as it has been noted by Eitschberger, the name should be considered unavailable, nomen nudum (cf Art 12 and 16, ICZN). His statement concerning the sympatric occurrence of Pieris napi and P. balcana in Bulgaria is not evidence that there is a sympatric occurrence of canidiaformis and balcana (notwithstanding the superficial similarity in the distribution and bionomics of napi and balcana); moreover no sympatric occurrence of napi and balcana in a type locality (Borovets) of canidiaformis has been established until now. Additionally, if (hypothetically) we synonymise this particular name with balcana Lorkovic (even ‘partim’) it should be clearly noted that ‘canidiaformis Drenowsky, 1925 (Drenowski, 1924—1925 (1925)’ is a senior synonym, which immediately results in invalidity of the name balcana Lorkovic. It is obvious that the relations between canidiaformis and balcana remain the same as those between napi and balcana. To avoid future confusion the following suggestion is offered here: the names canidiaformis and balcana should not be used in combination.
Any kind of commentary on the name ‘A.[rtogeia] n.[api] canidiaformis Drenowsky 1925’ used by Higgins & Riley (1980: 26) (published without exact any reference) would be purely hypothetical and non-essential in this case.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to thank Dr Ulf Eitschberger (Marktleuthen, Germany) who kindly assisted with literature. Also I am deeply indebted to Mr Colin W. Plant (Bishops Stortford, Hertfordshire, England) for manuscript reading and linguistic corrections and to Dr Antonio Vives Moreno (Madrid, Spain) for the translation of Spanish abstract.
REFERENCES
Abadjiev, S. (1992): Butterflies of Bulgaria, Part 1, Papilionidae & Pieridae. Veren Publishers, Sofia, 91 pp.
Bollow, C. (1932): 2. Familie: Pieridae, Weißlinge. In: Seitz, A. (Hrsg.) Die Groß-Schmetterlinge der Erde, Alfred Kernen Verlag, Stuttgart, Suppl. I (1): pp. 93—125.
Drenowski, A. K. (1909a): Izsledvaniya varhu peperudnata fauna na Rila planina. [Studies on the lepidopterous fauna of Rila Mountains]. — Arhiv na Ministerstvoto na narodnoto prosveshtenie 1 (2): 67—91.
Drenowski, A. K. (1909b): Novi i s malko nahodishta vidove iz peperudnata fauna na Bulgariya. [New and with few localities species of the lepidopterous fauna of Bulgaria]. — Periodichesko spisanie na Bulgarskoto knizhovno druzhestvo v Sofiya 70 (9—10): 603—638, Tab. I—IV. (In Bulgarian).
Drenowski, A. K. (1910a): In: Bulgarische Entomologische Vereinigung in Sophia. — Entomologische Rundschau, Beilage Entomologisches Vereinsblatt 27 (2): 4, (9): 60, (13): 92, (17): 24, (19): 140.
Drenowski, A. K. (1910b): Ueber die vertikale Verbreitung der Lepidopteren auf dem Ryla-Gebirge (2924 m) in Bulgarien. — Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Insektenbiologie 6 (3): 81—85, (5): 174—177.
Drenowski, A. K. (1924—1925): Die Lepidopteren-Fauna der Zentral-Rhodopen in Bulgarien. — Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Insektenbiologie 19 (1924) (10): 233—238; 20 (1925) (1): 1—5, (2): 28—32, (3): 39—44.
Drenowski, A. K. (1925): Die vertikale Verteilung der Lepidopteren in den Hochgebirgen Bulgariens. — Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 1925 (1): 29—75, (2): 97—125, 1 Kartenskizze.
Drenowski, A. K. (1928): Die Lepidopterenfauna auf den Hochgebirgen Bulgariens. — Sbornik na Bulgarskata Akademiya na Naukite 23: 1—120, 1 Karte, 1 Schema. (In Bulgarian with German summary).
Drenowski, A. K. (1929a): Die Lepidopterenfauna auf den Hochgebirgen Bulgariens. Dritter Teil. Ueber den Charakter der bulgarischen Lepidopterenfauna. — Trudove na Bulgarskoto Prirodoispitatelno Druzhestvo 14: 57—98.
Drenowski, A. K. (1929b): Über die Lepidopteren-Formationen in den Hochgebirgen Bulgariens. — Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 1929 (2): 129—140.
Drenowski, A. K. (1930a): Untersuchungen über die Lepidopterenfauna des Ossogowagebirges in W. Bulgarien. — Sbornik na Bulgarskata Akademiya na Naukite 26: 1—83, 2 Karten-Schema. (In Bulgarian with German summary).
Drenowski, A. K. (1930b): Übt die Meeresnachbarschaft einen Einfluß auf die Höhenverteilung der Gebirgslepidopteren in Bulgarien aus? — Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 1930: 179—192.
Drenowski, A. K. (1932): Ein vergleichender Übersicht der Bergschmetterlings-Fauna auf den Hochgebirgen Bulgariens. — Izvestiya na Bulgarskoto Entomologichno Druzhestvo 7: 31—55. (In Bulgarian with German summary).
Drenowski, A. K. (1933): Ueber die Lepidopteren-Zonen auf dem Alibotuschgebirge (In bulgarisch Mazedonien). Eigene Ausgabe, Sofia, 51 S., 2 Karten-Schema. (In Bulgarian with German summary).
Eitschberger, U. (1983): Systematische Untersuchungen am Pieris napi-bryoniae-Komplex (s.l.) (Lepidoptera, Pieridae). — Herbipoliana, Band I (Teil 1): i—xxii, 1—504; (Teil 2): 1—601.
Higgins, L. G. & N. D. Riley (1973): A field guide to the butterflies of Britain and Europe. Collins, London, (Ed. 2): 381 pp., 60 col. pls.
Higgins, L. G. & N. D. Riley (1980): A field guide to the butterflies of Britain and Europe. Collins, London, (Ed. 4): 384 pp., 63 col. pls.
ICZN (1985): International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Third edition, adopted by the XX General Assembly of the International Union of Biological Sciences. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature in association with British Museum (Natural History) London & University of California Press, London, Berkeley, Los Angeles, XX + 338 pp.
Jaksic, P. (1983): Bibliografija Rhopalocera (Lepidoptera) Jugoslavije sa katalogom vrsta, podvrsta i sinonima. — Acta entomologica Jugoslavica 19 (Suppl.): 55—115.
Jaksic, P. (1998): Male genitalia of butterflies on Balkan Peninsula with a check-list. Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea and Papilionoidea. F. Slamka, Bratislava, 144 pp.
Kudrna, O. (1977): On the nomenclature of some taxa of the genus Artogeia Verity (Lep., Pieridae). — Zeitschrift der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Oesterreichischer Entomologen 29 (1—2): 63—64.
Kudrna, O. (1986): Butterflies of Europe, Vol. 8, Aspects of the conservation of butterflies in Europe. Aula-Verlag, Wiesbaden, 323 pp.
Lorkovic, Z. ([1970]): Karyologischer Beitrag zur Frage der Fortpflanzungsverhältnisse südeuropäischer Taxone von Pieris napi L. (Lepid., Pieridae). — Bioloski Glasnik 21 (1968): 95—136.
Müller, L. & H. Kautz (1939): Pieris bryoniae O. und Pieris napi L. Österreichischer Entomologen-Verein, Wien, 16 + 191 pp., 18 Taf.
Reissinger, E. (1989): Checkliste Pieridae Duponchel, 1835 (Lepidoptera) der Westpalaearktis (Europa, Nordwestafrika, Kaukasus, Kleinasien). — Atalanta, Würzburg 20 (1—4): 149—185.
Tolman, T. (1997): Butterflies of Britain & Europe. Harper Collins Publishers, London — Glasgow — New York — Sydney — Auckland — Toronto — Johannesburg, 320 pp., A, B + 104 Pls.