Candidus eborea, STOLL, 1781

Chainey, John E., 2005, The species of Papilionidae and Pieridae (Lepidoptera) described by Cramer and Stoll and their putative type material in the Natural History Museum in London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 145 (3), pp. 283-337 : 320-321

EBOREA STOLL, 1781

Pap[ilio] Dan[aus] Cand[idus] eborea Stoll, 1781: 120– 1 , 249, pl.352, figs C, D, E, F [original plate 315, figs B, B, C, C]. ‘Cte de Coromandel’ [= south-eastern India] (Stoll).

Papilio Danaus Candidus eborea, Stoll, 1782b: 5 [No. 71].

Material examined. No potential Stoll specimens located.

Current status. Valid species in Colotis ( Bridges, 1988) .

ECCLIPSIS LINNAEUS OF CRAMER, 1777

( FIGS 30, 31 )

Pap[ilio] Dan[aus] Cand[idus] ecclipsis Cramer, 1777: 47 , 148, pl.129, figs A, B [original plate 94, figs A, A]. Jamaica. ‘C’est le nom que Mr Linnaeus a donné à cette Danaïde, qui a quelque rapport avec un Papillon de l’Europe, connu sous le nom de Papillon Citron. ( Pap. Rhamni ). On l’a l’a [sic] prise à l’Ile de la Jamaïque’ [This is the name which Mr. Linnaeus has given to this pierid, which has relationship with the European butterfly known under the name of Pap. Rhamni [= Gonepteryx rhamni ]. This specimen comes from the island of Jamaica]. [Misidentification.]

Papilio Danaus Candidus ecclipsis, Stoll, 1782b: 5 [No. 21].

Material examined. 1 ♂ ( Fig. 31 ), with van Lennep label ‘No.21 ECCLIPSIS Cr. II. 129. A. B.’ and a surprising Felder label with ‘ Surinam Lennep’ written on one side and ‘Macassar Wallace’ on the other, is Aphrissa statira ( Cramer, 1775) but is not a syntype of that Neotropical species which was described only from the female; it may have been re-pinned but is otherwise in good condition. It is so obviously not the species figured by Cramer that this must be the result of misassociation of the label. The only Cramer/Stoll figure to which it can be matched is that of alcmeone Cramer (see above) and it could be a syntype of that species, which appears to have been based on a mixed series from south-eastern India (‘Côte de Coromandel’) and Surinam.

There are three males (without data) of Anteos maerula (Fabricius) from Felder’s collection, including one that has obviously been re-pinned and has the right forewing repaired ( BMNH (E)#665129); this specimen ( Fig. 30 ) is a good match for original plate 94, figs A, A. Because the van Lennep label had found its way into Felder’s collection it is not unreasonable to suppose that the specimen may have done so as well and that this re-pinned specimen may be the one that originally bore the van Lennep label. This specimen could be considered as a possible syntype if Cramer’s name were to be considered available (see below). One of the other two specimens has the thorax damaged and could have been re-pinned; the third specimen shows no sign of being re-pinned and is set lower on the pin .

Remarks. The name Papilio ecclipsis Linnaeus, 1763 , was described on the basis of a specimen of Gonepteryx rhamni hand-painted with eyespots, supposedly from ‘America Septentrionali’. Cramer evidently did not realize this, and was perhaps led astray by the type locality. He identified it with a distinct Neotropical species. Honey & Scoble (2001) argued that Linnaeus’ name is not valid under the ICZN Code because it was not based on a fraud and not an ‘animal known to occur in nature’, a phrase used in Article 1 in the 3rd edition of the Code ( International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1985), but not in the 4th edition ( International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1999). If their argument is accepted then Cramer’s description provides an available name, which is clearly identifiable as a junior subjective synonym of Anteos maerula (Fabricius, 1775) . However, it can also be argued that Linnaeus acted in good faith in describing ecclipsis , and that his name should be available. Art. 1.3 of the Code excludes from zoological nomenclature names based on hybrids ‘as such’, teratological specimens ‘as such’, etc., i.e. the Code means to exclude names proposed in full awareness they are of hybrid origin, etc. (G. Lamas, pers. comm.). Cramer’s ecclipsis is here treated as a misidentification.

Identity. Anteos maerula (Fabricius, 1775) .

Figures

Figures 27–32. Fig. 27. Papilio creona Cramer (possible syntype). Fig. 28. Papilio crocale Cramer (syntype). Fig. 29. Papilio delia Cramer (syntype). Fig. 30. Papilio ecclipsis of Cramer. Fig. 31. Aphrissa statira Cramer (mislabelled specimen). Fig. 32. Papilio epaphia Cramer (syntype).