Lampyris longipennis Motschulsky, 1854

Fanti, Fabrizio, 2024, Lampyridae: History of the type species of the genus Luciola, updated checklist of North African fireflies, and other taxonomic and faunistic notes, Baltic Journal of Coleopterology 24 (1), pp. 43-64 : 56-57

Lampyris longipennis Motschulsky, 1854

Material. Pin without scarab, labels handwritten by Motschulsky: “Pyr. or.”, “ Lampyris longipennis Motsch., Pyr. or." ( Kazantsev & Nikitsky 2008).

3C.

Lampyris fuscata Geisthardt, 1987 Material. Basilicata: Policoro ( MT), 3 males, 10.vii.1984, Lucio Saltini leg.

Note. Italian endemism of Tuscany, Umbria, Marche, Lazio, Abruzzo, Molise, and Apulia ( Fanti, 2022). New for Basilicata.

3D.

Luciola lusitanica var. minor Baudi di Selve, 1873 stat. rest.

Luciola lusitanica var. erythrocephala J. E. Olivier, 1885 stat. rest.

These names were originally described as a variety, and thus must be considered as available names ( ICZN 1999: Art. 45.6., Art. 45.6.4.).

Keller & Ballantyne (2023) establish the current status of the subspecies, along with other specific names, on the basis of article 45.6. ( ICZN 1999). These acts by Keller & Ballantyne (2023) are a misinterpretation of the Code ( ICZN 1999: Art. 45.6.), because the Code provides the cases in which a name may be available (subspecific) or not available (infrasubspecific), but does not automatically establish the status. In fact, the two names are to be referred (and in this my document are referred to again) to simple varieties of color or size and are certainly not subspecies.

3E.

Lampyris (Nyctophila) reichii var. hispanica J. E. Olivier, 1884 s tat. rest.

Lampyris reichii var. bidens Rey, 1891 stat. rest.

As above, Keller & Martin (2024), due to a misinterpretation of the Code ( ICZN 1999: Art. 45.6.), considered these taxa as subspecies: Lampyris reicheii [sic] bidens Rey, 1891 and Nyctophila reichii hispanica

56 (J. E. Olivier, 1884). Therefore, these supposed subspecies are here restored as varieties.

3F.

Delopyrus dregei Motschulsky, 1853 Delopleurus fuscus Motschulsky, 1853 Motschulsky in a work of 1853 describes or redescribes various genera of Lampyridae ( Motschulsky 1853) , including the genera in question: Delopyrus and Delopleurus . Then, subsequently in 1854, he provides descriptions or redescriptions of the species of the various genera proposed the year before or little known, which he had found and studied in the collection of the entomological Museums ( Motschulsky 1854a, 1854b, 1854c, 1854d). In the 1853 work, together with each genus, he also provides the name of the type species, which therefore, as highlighted in Fanti (2022), for monotypic genera, according to the Code, the various descriptions are to be applied combined to both the genus and the species. Fanti (2022), in agreement with Kazantsev (2010), therefore confirms as valid the date 1853 and not 1854 for these species present in the work, where in reality in this subsequent works by Motschulsky, we only find redescriptions ( Motschulsky 1854a, 1854b, 1854c, 1854d), perhaps more in-depth and useful. The correct year 1853 is also reported later in Fanti & Parisi (2024).

The type species proposed by Motschulsky regarding the two genera are Delopyrus dregei and Delopleurus fuscus .

Keller & Ballantyne (2023), not citing the work of Fanti (2022) nor that of Kazantsev (2010), do not consider them to be combined new genus / new species descriptions in the work of Motsckulsky (1853) and attribute to the two species (mentioned above), the status of nomina nuda with year of description to be the 1854 ( Keller & Ballantyne 2023). This is done by them on the basis of the application of article 8.3. ICZN (1999), as Motschulsky (1853) in note 1 of page 27 says “La description des espèces paraitra dans un N:o suivant des " Etudes Entomologiques." = The description of the species will appear in a N:o following “Entomological Studies”, and consider it as a disclaimer with the descriptions that should not count for the species.

However, the application of article 8.3. ( ICZN 1999) given by Keller & Ballantyne (2023) is incorrect on the basis of the following issues:

1. In scientific works in general, and that of Motschulsky (1853) is certainly no exception, the additional notes differ only in the sentence, or period of sentences, under which the respective notes themselves are found. In the case under examination, therefore, it is clear that note 1 on page 27 is to be referred exclusively to the genus Hyas and not, as reported by Keller & Ballantyne (2023), to be applied to all the species present in the work.

Indeed, it is worth noting: A. Motschulsky's sentence “La description des espèces paraitra dans un N:o suivant des " Etudes Entomologiques.” is yes plural (although it would have been more correct for a gender agreement “Les descriptions des espèces apparaîtront dans…”) as Keller & Ballantyne (2023) suggests, but it also fits perfectly with what is stated above, as in the work of Motschulsky (1854a) we find under the genus Hyas the descriptions (in reality redescriptions) of two species: Hyas denticornis Germar and Hyas scisiventris Perty.

B. The note 1 of page 27, which according to Keller & Ballantyne (2023) should be attributed to all the species present in the work, is found under Hyas . That, however, is not the first genus described in the work of Motschulsky (1853), rather the second. If the note was to be understood as relating to all of Motschulsky's work because the author did not place it (note 1 at the page 27) under Strongylomorphus , which is the first genus to appear described in his work, how would it be legitimate and appropriate to expect?

2. The article 8.3 ICZN (1999) states:

“If a work contains a statement to the effect that all or any of the names or nomenclatural acts in it are disclaimed for nomenclatural purposes, the disclaimed names or acts are not available. Such a work may be a published work (i.e. taxonomic information in it may have the same nomenclatural status as the taxonomic information in a published but suppressed work: see Article 8.7.1)”.

From a literary and semantic point of view, Motschulsky's sentence is certainly not a disavowal (much less for nomenclatural purposes), therefore article 8.3 cannot be applied in any way.

Also, it is worth noting:

A. Motschulsky, in the subsequent work of 1854, also redescribes the species of previous authors ( Motschulsky 1854a, 1854b, 1854c, 1854d), and could not have disregarded only a small part of species.

So in the light of the above:

1.

The article 8.3 ( ICZN 1999) cannot be applied in this case.

2.

Delopyrus Motschulsky, 1853 :

Delopyrus dregei Motschulsky, 1853 which is the type species (designated by Motschulsky, 1853)

Delopleurus Motschulsky, 1853 : Delopleurus fuscus Motschulsky, 1853 which is the type species (designated by Motschulsky, 1853)

are all valid as Motschulsky’s taxonomical acts of 1853 and not of the year 1854.

3.

Even if Keller & Ballantyne (2023) erroneously applied article 8.3 ( ICZN 1999), the species Delopleurus fuscus and Delopyrus dregei are not nomina nuda as reported by these authors, but would be names unavailable.

57