Asthenolabus canadensis (Cresson, 1877)

(Figures 9, 10)

Platylabus canadensis Cresson, 1877: 200 (descr., key); Cresson 1887: 191 (cat.); Dalla Torre 1902: 781 (cat.); Bradley 1903: 282 (distr., key, fig.); Berthoumieu 1904: 57 (cat.); Cresson 1916: 23 (type); Johnson 1927: 143 (distr.); Strickland 1946: 41 (distr.); Townes 1944: 311 (cat.); Townes and Townes 1951: 280 (distr., cat.).

Asthenolabus canadensis Heinrich 1962b: 776 (descr., distr., neallotype designation, key); Carlson 1979: 546 (cat., distr.); Yu and Horstmann 1997: 673 (cat.); Yu et al. 2016 (cat.). Original type series

Lectotype ♀ (ANSP). Cresson (1877, p. 200) described Platylabus canadensis from ‘Hab.– Canada’ without specifying the number of specimens included in the description. Cresson (1916, p. 23) in his list of types, simply reported the type to be a female and in ‘ I n good condition’, without clarifying the number of specimens. Townes (1944, p. 311) and Townes and Townes (1951, p. 280) did not specify any number of specimens either. Later on, Heinrich (1962b, p. 776) referred to the specimen as the ‘Holotypus’. Carlson (1979, p. 317) expressed the assumption that Cresson (1916) ‘indicated which single specimen was to be regarded as the type for each; thus he selected lectotypes for those cases in which he had described a species from more than one specimen’. Hopper (1984, p. 968) reported being unable to see how it can be claimed that Cresson (1916) indicated a single specimen to be the type. This statement contradicted Cresson’s (1916, p. 1) own statement that ‘In selecting the single type the author has been governed by the present condition of the original material, and has always selected the perfect, or more nearly perfect specimen’ and suggests that Hopper (1984) overlooked this clear indication of Cresson’s (1916) intention to select a single name-bearing type (i.e. a lectotype in the modern sense). Cresson’s (1916) lectotype designation was valid and no subsequent lectotype designation has any validity (ICZN 1999, Article 74.1.1). The fact that the selected specimen eventually could no longer be traced, as suggested by various subsequent authors (Heinrich 1962b, p. 780; Hopper 1984), could be explained by collection mismanagement and has no influence on the validity of the lectotype selection. Only a careful study of Cresson’s collection can provide more insights. Heinrich’s (1962b, p. 776) employment of the term ‘holotypus’ is in error.