Allantus sabariensis Mocsáry, 1880
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.3626.2.1 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:48930777-6ACC-4AFD-996D-117F9E8D4CEF |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6146525 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/015F3A43-6E15-3F66-FF21-5ABDFB85573B |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Allantus sabariensis Mocsáry, 1880 |
| status |
|
Allantus sabariensis Mocsáry, 1880
A valid species, Tenthredo (Elinora) sabariensis (Mocsáry, 1880) .
TYPES. Allantus Sabariensis [sic!] Mocsáry, 1880: 269–270. Syntype (s) Ƥ 3, “Ad Sabariam, urbem vetustam Pannoniae superioris (Hungariae occidentalis)”. Lectotype Ƥ, hereby designated ( Fig. 33 View FIGURE 33 ). Type locality: “Szombath.” [= Hungaria: Szombathely].
= Allantus sabariensis forma moravica Gregor in Gregor & Baľa, 1941: 198–199.
DISCUSSION. Apart from the lectotype ( Fig. 33 View FIGURE 33 ), a fragment of a second specimen of the type series (a male?) was found with a similar label “Szombath. jun. 19. ”. This specimen is labelled as a paralectotype. Gregor in Gregor & Baľa (1941) described the forma moravica [type material not checked] based on characters which are typical for sabariensis (“Scutello et postscutello nigro, segmentis 3–5 etiam in ventrali parte flavorubris”). Furthermore, a specimen labelled by Ermolenko as “ Elinora sabariensis (Mocs.) forma nigroscutellata nova desc. V. Ermolenko 1976” was found in the HNHM collection. This name is not available because descriptions of “forms” after 1961 do not fulfill the requirements of the ICZN. Furthermore, no published description is known (Taeger et al. 2010). The specimen perfectly matches the lectotype of sabariensis . Specimens in the HNHM collection with a yellow scutellum labelled by Ermolenko as sabariensis seem to belong to a different species. Enslin (1912a) noted erroneously in his widely used key that this species has a yellow scutellum. This may have led Gregor and Ermolenko to assume that sabariensis has a yellow scutellum. Enslin seems simply to have made a lapse in his 1912 description, because he described sabariensis correctly in 1910.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.