Labus floricola de Saussure 1890
Fuente:
Zenodo
Enregistré dans:
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Publié: |
Zenodo
2025
|
| Sujets: | |
| Accès en ligne: | |
| Tags: |
Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
|
| _version_ | 1866901926140968960 |
|---|---|
| author | Selis, Marco |
| author_facet | Selis, Marco |
| contents | <p><b><i>Labus floricola</i> de Saussure, 1890 <i>nomen dubium</i></b></p><p><i>Labus floricola</i> de Saussure, 1890: 151, pl. XXII fig. 3, ♀ [♂]—“ Madagascar: Antananarivo ” (type lost?).</p><p><b>Notes.</b> de Saussure (1890) described <i>Labus floricola</i> based on a single female specimen collected by Franz Sikora near Antananarivo and subsequently reported further specimens and described the male (de Saussure 1900). A search of the MNHN collections by Quentin Rome resulted in a single male specimen (erroneously labelled as female), collected by Sikora and bearing an identification label reading “ <i>floricola</i> Sauss. ”. The identification label is in de Saussure’s handwriting, but the specimen is unlikely to be the holotype for three reasons: 1) the labels lack any reference to Antananarivo, cited as the collection locality by de Saussure (1890), and report a generic “ Madagascar ”; 2) the identification label is not in the usual format used by de Saussure to indicate type specimens in which he gave the genus, species, sex of the specimen and the abbreviation “Sss.”; 3) the specimen differs in several pattern aspects from the original description and illustration. Given these inconsistencies, it is unlikely that the specimen found is the holotype of <i>Labus floricola</i>, while it is likely to be one of the specimens examined subsequently and published in 1900 (de Saussure 1900: 235). Although it is certain that <i>Labus floricola</i> should be ascribed to the genus <i>Cyrteumenes</i>, in the absence of the holotype it is not possible to associate this name with certainty to one of the currently known species, since the description provided by de Saussure (1890) is applicable to at least three of them, and given the homogeneity of the species in the genus <i>Cyrteumenes</i> it is not possible to deduce the identity of <i>Labus floricola</i> on the basis of the non-type specimen found in MNHN, which instead coincides with <i>Cyrteumenes mochii</i>. Given these premises, the taxon <i>Labus floricola</i> is considered a <i>nomen dubium</i> to guarantee taxonomic stability within the genus <i>Cyrteumenes</i>.</p> |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_17327026 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | Labus floricola de Saussure 1890 Selis, Marco Biodiversity Taxonomy Animalia Arthropoda Insecta Hymenoptera Eumenidae Labus Labus floricola <p><b><i>Labus floricola</i> de Saussure, 1890 <i>nomen dubium</i></b></p><p><i>Labus floricola</i> de Saussure, 1890: 151, pl. XXII fig. 3, ♀ [♂]—“ Madagascar: Antananarivo ” (type lost?).</p><p><b>Notes.</b> de Saussure (1890) described <i>Labus floricola</i> based on a single female specimen collected by Franz Sikora near Antananarivo and subsequently reported further specimens and described the male (de Saussure 1900). A search of the MNHN collections by Quentin Rome resulted in a single male specimen (erroneously labelled as female), collected by Sikora and bearing an identification label reading “ <i>floricola</i> Sauss. ”. The identification label is in de Saussure’s handwriting, but the specimen is unlikely to be the holotype for three reasons: 1) the labels lack any reference to Antananarivo, cited as the collection locality by de Saussure (1890), and report a generic “ Madagascar ”; 2) the identification label is not in the usual format used by de Saussure to indicate type specimens in which he gave the genus, species, sex of the specimen and the abbreviation “Sss.”; 3) the specimen differs in several pattern aspects from the original description and illustration. Given these inconsistencies, it is unlikely that the specimen found is the holotype of <i>Labus floricola</i>, while it is likely to be one of the specimens examined subsequently and published in 1900 (de Saussure 1900: 235). Although it is certain that <i>Labus floricola</i> should be ascribed to the genus <i>Cyrteumenes</i>, in the absence of the holotype it is not possible to associate this name with certainty to one of the currently known species, since the description provided by de Saussure (1890) is applicable to at least three of them, and given the homogeneity of the species in the genus <i>Cyrteumenes</i> it is not possible to deduce the identity of <i>Labus floricola</i> on the basis of the non-type specimen found in MNHN, which instead coincides with <i>Cyrteumenes mochii</i>. Given these premises, the taxon <i>Labus floricola</i> is considered a <i>nomen dubium</i> to guarantee taxonomic stability within the genus <i>Cyrteumenes</i>.</p> |
| title | Labus floricola de Saussure 1890 |
| topic | Biodiversity Taxonomy Animalia Arthropoda Insecta Hymenoptera Eumenidae Labus Labus floricola |
| url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17327026 |