Lepidiota negatoria Blackburn 1912

Fuente: Zenodo
Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
1. Verfasser: Allsopp, Peter G.
Format: Recurso digital
Veröffentlicht: Zenodo 2020
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
_version_ 1866902040314118144
author Allsopp, Peter G.
author_facet Allsopp, Peter G.
contents <p><b><i>Lepidiota negatoria</i> Blackburn, 1912</b></p><p><i>Lepidiota negatoria</i> Blackburn, 1912: 63.</p><p><i>Lepidiota deceptrix</i> Blackburn, 1912: 59; Britton 1978: 57 (synonymy).</p><p><i>Lepidiota mungomeryi</i> Britton, 1963: 4; Britton 1978: 57 (synonymy).</p><p><b>Lectotype of <i>Lepidiota negatoria</i> (here designated) male:</b> aedeagus dissected out and mounted on card | Type H.T. (circular red ringed, typeset) | 7898 Mackay [21.14°S, 149.18°E] (handwritten in red) T (handwritten) | Blackburn coll. 1910-236 (typeset) | Lepidiota negatoria, Blackb. (handwritten) | my lectotype label; in NHML.</p><p>Blackburn’s (1912) did not define the type series, seeing an unknown number of males (vide Articles 73.1.2, 72.1.1) from Port Mackay. Lea (1912) noted that the ‘type’ had been sent to NHML, and Britton (1978) referred to a “ holotype ” male from Macleay [sic] in NHML. Houston & Weir (1992) listed a male “ holotype (probable)” and Miller & Allsopp (2000) followed this interpretation. As Britton (1978), Houston & Weir (1992), and Miller & Allsopp (2000) provided no discussion and did not label any specimen in NHML, none of these mentions of a holotype constitutes a valid lectotype designation (vide Article 74.5). To stabilise nomenclature, I designate the male in NHML the lectotype.</p><p><b>Lectotype of <i>Lepidiota deceptrix</i> (here designated) female:</b> Type H.T. (circular red ringed, typeset) | 7895 Qu. [Queensland] (handwritten in red) T (handwritten) | Blackburn coll. 1910-236 (typeset) | LEPIDIOTA deceptrix, Blackb. (handwritten) | my lectotype label; in NHML.</p><p>Blackburn (1912) described this species after realising that what he had thought was a male syntype of <i>Lepidiota caudata</i> Blackburn was a female specimen. However, it is unclear how many specimens he had when he described it, so it is impossible to know the exact composition of the type series (vide Articles 73.1.2, 72.1.1). Lea (1912) noted that the ‘type’ had been sent to NHML, and Britton (1978) referred to a “ holotype ” female from Queensland in NHML. Houston & Weir (1992) listed a “ holotype (probable)” and Miller & Allsopp (2000) followed this interpretation. As Britton (1978), Houston & Weir (1992), and Miller & Allsopp (2000) provided no discussion and did not label any specimen in NHML, none of these mentions of a holotype constitutes a valid lectotype designation (vide Article 74.5). To stabilise nomenclature, I designate the male in NHML the lectotype.</p>
format Recurso digital
id zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_4340918
institution Zenodo
language
publishDate 2020
publisher Zenodo
record_format zenodo
spellingShingle Lepidiota negatoria Blackburn 1912
Allsopp, Peter G.
Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Melolonthidae
Lepidiota
Lepidiota negatoria
<p><b><i>Lepidiota negatoria</i> Blackburn, 1912</b></p><p><i>Lepidiota negatoria</i> Blackburn, 1912: 63.</p><p><i>Lepidiota deceptrix</i> Blackburn, 1912: 59; Britton 1978: 57 (synonymy).</p><p><i>Lepidiota mungomeryi</i> Britton, 1963: 4; Britton 1978: 57 (synonymy).</p><p><b>Lectotype of <i>Lepidiota negatoria</i> (here designated) male:</b> aedeagus dissected out and mounted on card | Type H.T. (circular red ringed, typeset) | 7898 Mackay [21.14°S, 149.18°E] (handwritten in red) T (handwritten) | Blackburn coll. 1910-236 (typeset) | Lepidiota negatoria, Blackb. (handwritten) | my lectotype label; in NHML.</p><p>Blackburn’s (1912) did not define the type series, seeing an unknown number of males (vide Articles 73.1.2, 72.1.1) from Port Mackay. Lea (1912) noted that the ‘type’ had been sent to NHML, and Britton (1978) referred to a “ holotype ” male from Macleay [sic] in NHML. Houston & Weir (1992) listed a male “ holotype (probable)” and Miller & Allsopp (2000) followed this interpretation. As Britton (1978), Houston & Weir (1992), and Miller & Allsopp (2000) provided no discussion and did not label any specimen in NHML, none of these mentions of a holotype constitutes a valid lectotype designation (vide Article 74.5). To stabilise nomenclature, I designate the male in NHML the lectotype.</p><p><b>Lectotype of <i>Lepidiota deceptrix</i> (here designated) female:</b> Type H.T. (circular red ringed, typeset) | 7895 Qu. [Queensland] (handwritten in red) T (handwritten) | Blackburn coll. 1910-236 (typeset) | LEPIDIOTA deceptrix, Blackb. (handwritten) | my lectotype label; in NHML.</p><p>Blackburn (1912) described this species after realising that what he had thought was a male syntype of <i>Lepidiota caudata</i> Blackburn was a female specimen. However, it is unclear how many specimens he had when he described it, so it is impossible to know the exact composition of the type series (vide Articles 73.1.2, 72.1.1). Lea (1912) noted that the ‘type’ had been sent to NHML, and Britton (1978) referred to a “ holotype ” female from Queensland in NHML. Houston & Weir (1992) listed a “ holotype (probable)” and Miller & Allsopp (2000) followed this interpretation. As Britton (1978), Houston & Weir (1992), and Miller & Allsopp (2000) provided no discussion and did not label any specimen in NHML, none of these mentions of a holotype constitutes a valid lectotype designation (vide Article 74.5). To stabilise nomenclature, I designate the male in NHML the lectotype.</p>
title Lepidiota negatoria Blackburn 1912
topic Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Melolonthidae
Lepidiota
Lepidiota negatoria
url https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4340918