Liptena augusta Suffert, 1904

Libert, Michel, 2021, The types of Liptena augusta Suffert, 1904 and Liptena subundularis (Staudinger, 1892) (Papilionoidea: Lycaenidae: Poritiinae), Metamorphosis 32 (1), pp. 13-14 : 13

Liptena augusta Suffert, 1904

The description of L. augusta is based on four specimens collected in Cameroon, one male from Lolodorf (leg. Conradt) and three females from Bipindi (leg. Zenker) ( Suffert, 1904).

Stempffer et al. (1974: 138) considered that the four syntypes, which had been deposited in the Berlin museum, were "destroyed in the last war", and designated a male neotype from Bitje (illustrated pl. 3, Figs 41 & 44). However , a visit to the Berlin museum made it possible to find the complete type-series, which invalidates this neotype (Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Article 75.8).

Moreover, the four syntypes do not belong to the same species, and a lectotype must be designated. The male from Lolodorf is most probably the specimen illustrated by Druce (1910, pl. III, Figs 2 and 2a ); in his commentary, Druce synonymysed augusta with alluaudi Mabille, 1890, but Stempffer (1957: 212) showed that the two species are quite distinct and reinstated L. augusta (his reasoning is repeated in Stempffer et al., 1974: 136). The male from Lolodorf is designated as a lectotype (present designation); it is illustrated, with the original labels ( Fig. 1 ).

Lectotype: ♂, Lolodorf , S Cameroun, 29.vii.1895, (S. Conradt); genitalia Libert, 120-030; Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin.

Thanks to Viola Richter, of the Berlin Museum, this male could be dissected, and its genitalia ( Figs 2A to 2C) are identical to those illustrated by Stempffer, 1957 as Fig. 4. The same figure is used by Stempffer et. al., 1974 (Fig. 18), which suggests that the male dissected by Stempffer is the one designated as a neotype in the same publication; this figure is also reproduced here ( Fig. 2D ).

The designation of the male from Lolodorf as a lectotype preserves the stability of the nomenclature. It would have been quite different if the choice had been one of the females from Bipindi, since these are actually females of L. subundularis (Staudinger, 1892) , and it would have been necessary to find a replacement name for augusta , all with significant risks of confusion.

This is also why it is propitious that the decision by Schultze (1923: 1179) to synonymyse augusta with subundularis has fallen into disuse, which is perfectly justified since Schultze overlooked the fact that the male and the females of the type-series did not belong to the same species. It is however preferable to emphasise it [the same error is found in Stempffer et. al. when they contest Schultze's decision (p. 156), but they could not avoid it as they had not seen the type-series of L. augusta ].

Figures

Figure 1 – Male lectotype of Liptena augusta with labels.

Figure 2 – Male genitalia of ♂ lectotype of Liptena augusta (prép. Libert, 120-030) – A: right lateral view; B: ventral view of sternites 7 & 8; C: dorsal view of uncus. D: reproduction of Fig. 4 in Stempffer 1957.