Argus, Temminck, 1807

Mlíkovský, Jiří, 2015, The correct generic name for the Great Argus (Aves: Phasianidae), Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 63, pp. 66-68 : 66

Argus

Phasianus argus Linnaeus was first separated at the generic level by Temminck (1807: 149), who called the genus Argus . The type species of Argus Temminck is, by monotypy, Argus giganteus Temminck (1807: 149) , created as a new replacement name for Phasianus argus Linnaeus, 1766 .

The generic name Argus Temminck, 1807 , is potentially a junior homonym of Argus Bohadsch (1761: 65 ; Gastropoda), Argus Scopoli (1777: 432 ; Lepidoptera ) and Argus Poli (1795: 106 , 153, 162; Gastropoda). The generic name Argus Bohadsch, 1761 , was totally suppressed by ICZN (1944), but ICZN (1956) limited the suppression to the Principle of Priority, resurrecting the availability of Argus Bohadsch, 1761 , for the Principle of Homonymy. Note that ICZN (1956:

Department of Zoology, National Museum, Václavské náměstí 68, CZ-115 79 Praha 1, Czech Republic; Email: [e-mail]

© National University of Singapore

ISSN 2345-7600 (electronic) | ISSN 0217-2445 (print)

336) incorrectly stated that Bohadsch (1761) described Argus on page 56, this being an obvious misprint for 65. ICZN (1956) totally suppressed the generic name Argus Scopoli, 1763 , dating it from Scopoli (1763: 176), where the name was not used in generic sense. However, Scopoli (1777: 432) used Argus as a valid generic name and the opinion of the ICZN applies to Scopoli’s Argus irrespectively of the incorrect citation (cf. Art. 80.4 of the Code).

Thus, the generic name Argus Temminck, 1807 , is preoccupied by Argus Bohadsch, 1761 , and Argus Poli, 1795 , and cannot be used as a valid generic name. However, it is not preoccupied by Argus Scopoli, 1763 , or 1777 (contra Gregory, 2011: 206), because this name is not available for the Principle of Homonymy due to the action by ICZN (1956).

Rafinesque (1815: 69) listed “ Argus R.” as a phasianid genus without defining it in any way. Some authors (e.g. Peters 1934: 132) believed that the “R” (standing for Rafinesque) was printed in error and that Rafinesque (1815) took the name from Temminck (1807). However, there is no evidence that Rafinesque (1815) knew Temminck’s (1807) work and Argus Rafinesque, 1815 , explicitly attributed by Rafinesque to himself, thus should be considered nomenclaturally independent of Argus Temminck, 1807 , as was first observed by Richmond (1908: 591). Thus, Argus Rafinesque, 1815 , is a nomen nudum (see also Richmond, 1908: 591; Sherborn, 1923: 460; Gregory, 2011: 207).

Baker (1930: 447) listed Argusa Kelham (1881: 530) as an available generic name. However, Argusa of Kelham (1881) is obviously a subsequent incorrect spelling of Argus , not an available name.