Isophya tatrica MaĜan, 1957

MACHÁýKOVÁ, Lenka & FIKÁýEK, Martin, 2014, Catalogue of the type specimens deposited in the Department of Entomology, National Museum, Prague, Czech Republic *, Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 54 (1), pp. 399-450 : 444-445

Isophya tatrica MaĜan, 1957

Isophya tatrica MaĜan, 1957 in DOBŠÍK (1959: 200).

Two specimens are deposited in NMPC:

1 J, 1 ♀ (both in alcohol collection): ‘Isophia / tatrica MaĜ. / XI. [hw] 19[p]56 J Holotypus [hw] / Dr. J. MaĜan det.

[p] / [reverse of the same label] Vyšne Hagy / Vys. Tatry / cca 1150 m / VII. 1956 Moucha / lgt. [hw] // Isophia / tatrica MaĜ. / XI. [hw] 19[p] 56 ♀ Allotypus [hw] / Dr. J. MaĜan det. [p] / [reverse of the same label] Vyšne Hagy / Vys. Tatry / cca 1150 m / VII. 1956 Moucha lgt. [hw] // Isophya tatrica MaĜan mns. / name [p] // Isophya / camptoxyphq [sic!] (Fieber, 1853) / P. KoÞárek det. 2007 [p]’.

Comments. DOBŠÍK (1959) included ‘ Isophya tatrica MaĜan, 1957 ’ in his identi¿cation key to the species of the genus Isophya Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1878 of the Czechoslovakia, based on earlier unpublished studies by J. MaĜan. The species was however never described by J. MaĜan himself, and its diagnosis by DOBŠÍK (1959) does not full¿l the requirements of the Code (ICZN 1999). The name I. tatrica is hence unavailable. KOýÁREK & HOLUŠA (2007) analysed the case in detail and reexamined both above specimens standing as types of I. tatrica in the collection of NMPC. They found that both specimens actually belong to I. camptoxypha (Fieber, 1853) .

Taxa ascribed to OBENBERGER (1926)

Following the current understanding (HARZ 1975, EADES et al. 2014), OBENBERGER (1926a) elevated three infrasubspeci¿c names and hence made them available for the zoological nomenclature (ICZN 1999: Article 45.1.1). The identi¿cation keys from the original Czech text by OBENBERGER (1926a) were in parallel published also in French translation ( OBENBERGER 1926b). In both Czech and French versions, all three names are ascribed to the previous authors. We compared the Czech and French texts by OBENBERGER (1926a,b) with the publications to which OBENBERGER (1926a,b) refers. Detailed comments are provided below for all three cases.