Pieris f. rossioides Stauder, 1921

Zahiri, Reza, Nazari, Vazrick, Rajaei, Hossein, Wiemers, Martin, Fatahi, Maryam, Seidel, Matthias, Dalsgaard, Thure & Husemann, Martin, 2021, ? An illustrated catalogue of the type specimens of Lepidoptera housed in the Zoological Museum Hamburg (ZMH): Part II. superfamily Papilionoidea, Evolutionary Systematics 5 (2), pp. 193-261 : 193

66. Pieris f. rossioides Stauder, 1921

Original combination.

" P. rapae L. f. n. rossioides" Stauder, 1921 Dt. Ent. Z. Iris 35: 27.

Current combination.

Pieris rapae f. rossioides Stauder, 1921.

Current status.

Infrasubspecific and hence unavailable name.

Original material.

Labelled as “Type” 1? (ZMH 827627) (Fig. 66 ). "Calabria mer. / Aspromonte 800 m. / 4/7 [illegible] 1920 / H. Stauder legit." // “Type” // "Rossioides Stdr." // "rossioides / Stdr. / Type " // "ZMH 827627" .

Original locality.

Italy: "Polsibeken, Aspromonte 7-900 m."

Remarks.

Stauder (1921) proposed this name as a form of P. rapae (Linnaeus, 1758). According to article 45.6.1 ( ICZN 1999), it is infrasubspecific if the content of the work (please see below) unambiguously reveals that the name was proposed for an infrasubspecific entity. In the same paper, Stauder (1921) described another “form” of P. rapae as " zelleri " and clearly stated that it also occurs at the same "type locality" as rossioides (i.e., Aspromonte). As by definition two geographical races (or forms) cannot occur sympatrically; therefore, the content of the work reveals that such forms were not meant to be subspecific. However, Stauder added further complexity; there is a difference between how " zelleri " and " rossioides " have been described. In fact, the former was as 'g. aest. mer. alt.', i.e., generatio aestivalis meridionalis altitudinalis [Southern altitudinal summer generation], while the latter just as 'f. n.', i.e., "forma nova" [new form]. Thus, it could theoretically be argued that rossioides was meant as a geographical race, while zelleri would be a seasonal variation of that. However, this speculation does not seem to be correct, because it makes no sense that someone described a seasonal form of a subspecies before describing the subspecies itself. As a result, looking at the paper as a whole and not to the isolated description of rossioides alone, this name has to be considered as infrasubspecific (Alberto Zilli pers. comm.).

Figures

Plate 11. 66. Pieris rapae f. rossioides Stauder, 1921; 67. Pieris napi v. napaeae ab. gottingensis Meinhard; 68. Pieris brassicae ab. nigromarginata Meinhard; 69. Cigaritis acamas dueldueli Pfeiffer, 1932; 70. Lycaena alciphron f. emarginata (Warnecke, 1942); 71. Lycaena virgaureae ab. alba (Schoenfeld, 1924); 72. Lycaena virgaureae f. multipunctata (Warnecke, 1942). a. Dorsal view, b. ventral view.