Exaerete appendiculata ( Romand, 1849 )

Nemésio, André & Rasmussen, Claus, 2011, Nomenclatural issues in the orchid bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Euglossina) and an updated catalogue, Zootaxa 3006, pp. 1-42 : 12-14

3. Exaerete appendiculata ( Romand, 1849) , Exaerete subcornuta ( Romand, 1849) , and Euglossa dentata var. maxima Romand, 1849 , nom. nud.

Chrysantheda appendiculata Romand, 1849 , Chrysantheda subcornuta Romand, 1849 , and Euglossa dentata var. maxima Romand, 1849 , nom. nud.

When describing a supposed new species of Exaerete (as Chrysantheda), Bernard Romand (1849) inadvertently published three nomina for this same species, one of them long overlooked and here interpreted as a nomen nudum.

Although it is well accepted in the literature that Chrysantheda appendiculata and Ch. subcornuta are junior synonyms of Exaerete dentata ( Linnaeus, 1758) (see Moure 1967b; Kimsey 1979; Kimsey & Dressler 1986; Roubik & Hanson 2004; Moure et al. 2007; Nemésio 2009a), the status of these two species are apparently not well understood and the order of priority (among the junior synonyms) of both has been also usually mistaken. Although the onomatophore of Ch. subcornuta has been treated as a male since Moure (1967b), the gender of the onomatophore of Ch. appendiculata has been given as “unknown” by all authors. Misunderstandings concerning these little known nomina have their origin in the confusing description made by Romand (1849), but an accurate study of his work can elucidate the case. Also, although we kept them as junior synonyms of Exaerete dentata , there is reasonable evidence suggesting that these nomina can belong to other species of Exaerete .

Until the eighteenth and mid-nineteenth centuries illustrated publications often had the plates sent to the printer in advance, in such a way that plates were printed before the text referring to them, and the two parts had to be attached at a later stage (see the example of Buffon’s classical works in Zaharek & Overstreet 2001). It could even happen (and did happen more than once) that plates were released before their texts, allowing some authors to name animals solely indicating the illustrations, creating confusion sometimes (see one of these situations in Nemésio & Rasmussen 2009). Information contained in the text was therefore often more current than that presented on the plates, because late changes could be done in the text but not on the already printed plates. This is exactly what happened in Romand (1849).

When preparing his work, Romand described as Chrysantheda appendiculata what he thought to be an undescribed species. This is the nomen printed in the text and on the captions of the Plate 7, species number 1, in the Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, [2]7. Nevertheless, in the period between the printing of the plates and the printing of the text, Romand received a letter from Marchese Massimiliano Spinola, who had also recognized a supposed new species of Chrysantheda and provided the details to Romand. Romand, in turn, sent a letter to the publishers of his work letting them know that he would like to add the information provided by Spinola. The publishers inserted a footnote on pages xxxvii–xxxviii of Romand’s (1849) work, informing that (free translation from French):

“Since this note was printed, the Société received, in its meeting of 12th of September of 1849, a letter from Mr. de Romand containing new details about the Chrysantheda he mentioned [ Romand, 1849: p. xxxvi–xxxvii]. We reproduce this letter here:

‘I did research on the genus Chrysantheda and I recognize it was established by Mr. Max. Perty in the Delectus Animalium articulatorium, 1830, which I have seen.’

‘Perty described, after the genus, one species under the name Ch. nitida , which is a female. The only species [or specimen] he has seen.’

‘Mr. Max. Spinola communicated to me in time the designation of one species under the name Ch. subcornuta , which he considered as the Euglossa dentata of Fabricius, var. maxima , since Chrysantheda is a subdivision of Euglossa , from which it differs a little.’

‘Thus I am willing to name this species, which drawing I have already sent and that is extremely similar to that informed by Spinola, as Ch. subcornuta Spinola, and I see no need to add a new description because one can find the characters in Fabricius, the notes by Mr. Max. Spinola, and Perty, which terms do apply, except for size, to the species here considered’.” (our bold)

It is important to notice that the letter was sent to the publishers. It seems that Romand’s intention was to have the nomen of the species changed to Chrysantheda subcornuta both in the text and on the plate, since he was kind enough to give priority to the nomen proposed by Spinola. Nevertheless, it also seems that it was too late to carry out such modifications and the publishers opted instead to insert the letter by Romand, ipsis litteris, as footnotes. One hundred and sixty years after the publication of Romand’s work, we ought to apply the rules of the current Code to interpret which nomenclatural acts are valid in Romand’s (1849) text.

Although it is obvious that the footnote was inserted in the work by the publishers, the authorship of the text contained in the letter is also obviously attributed to Romand, in such a way he should naturally be considered the author of the letter text also. Romand’s acts, as interpreted currently, were as follows:

1). Romand explicitly refrained from publishing the new species under the nomen Chrysantheda appendiculata and considered the nomen Ch. subcornuta as the nomen of the species. As both nomina were printed (Ch. appendiculata in the main text and on the plate, because the publishers did not change it), Romand’s preference should be explicitly interpreted as giving priority to Ch. subcornuta , in such a way Ch. appendiculata was originally published as a junior synonym of Ch. subcornuta . Romand (1849: xxxvii) even stated that the nomen Ch. appendiculata was used as an “error” on plate 7. Two points deserve attention here: (i) the nomen Ch. subcornuta has priority over Ch. appendiculata and should be cited before the latter nomen in the list of synonyms of Exaerete dentata . If, in the future, the onomatophore of this species is found and it is proved that it is another species and one of these two nomina is the oldest available nomen for this other species, the nomen to be adopted must be Ch. subcornuta . Modern authors (started by Kimsey 1979) have listed Ch. appendiculata over Ch. subcornuta , probably because this nomen appears first in Romand’s text. As Nemésio (2007a) and Dubois et al. (2011) have already pointed out, there is no page (or line) priority in the Code for such cases. In this situation a First Reviser action is unnecessary, because it is clear that Romand treated Ch. appendiculata as the junior synonym; (ii) Ch. subcornuta was also explicitly considered a junior synonym of both Ch. nitida Perty, 1833 (date erroneously listed as 1830 by Romand) and Euglossa dentata Fabricius , var. maxima , because Romand saw “no need to add a new description because one could find the characters in Fabricius, the notes of Spinola, and Perty, which terms do apply, except for size, to the species here considered”. If Ch. subcornuta was described as a junior synonym, then Article 11.6.1 of the Code applies, and authorship should be given to Romand, not to Spinola – ironically, in spite of Romand’s gentle attitude of giving priority and even listing Ch. subcornuta as a Spinola species (see examples of application of Article 11.6. 1 in the Code itself and in Nemésio 2006b).

2). If Chrysantheda subcornuta and Ch. appendiculata were published based on the same specimen (in fact, it was all a matter of having the two nomina “accidentally” printed for the same description, as shown above), then the onomatophore of both nomina should obviously be the same (an objective synonymy). Thus, there is no sense in listing the onomatophore of Ch. subcornuta as a male and the onomatophore of Ch. appendiculata as undetermined sex, as all authors did since the introduction of this error by Kimsey (1979) [ Kimsey & Dressler (1986) omitted Ch. appendiculata from their checklist, possibly considering it a nomen nudum?]. The onomatophore of Ch. appendiculata is clearly a male.

3). Since the nomen Euglossa dentata Fabricius , var. maxima (authorship of Ex. dentata erroneously attributed to Fabricius) was only mentioned as an alleged communication from Spinola to Romand and no specific character was mentioned for this nomen, it could not be considered available under the Article 13.1.1 of the Code and it is best treated as a nomen nudum, the interpretation adopted in this work.

4). As a consequence, if future authors consider that both nomina should be considered as junior synonyms of Exaerete dentata ( Linnaeus, 1758) , the synonymic list of Ex. dentata , on the order of priority, should be as: