Euglossa fimbriata Moure, 1968

Nemésio, André & Rasmussen, Claus, 2011, Nomenclatural issues in the orchid bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Euglossina) and an updated catalogue, Zootaxa 3006, pp. 1-42 : 17-18

5. Euglossa fimbriata Moure, 1968

Euglossa fimbriata Moure, 1968

Euglossa fimbriata Rebêlo & Moure, 1996

Moure et al. (2007) introduced a change in the authorship of Euglossa fimbriata , which was until then considered to be described by Rebêlo & Moure (1996). Nemésio (2009a: 87–89) disagreed with Moure et al. (2007), arguing that referring to the nomen fimbriata by Moure (1968) was not enough to establish a character to clearly distinguish a species, in such a way that this nomen could not be available from Moure (1968), even under the more flexible rules of the second edition of the Code, then in force. Both interpretations, however, provoked informal debate and we decided to submit the matter to zoologists with expertise in nomenclature (see Acknowledgment section). Unfortunately, this informal consultation resulted in no consensus following much debate. Finally, we decided to submit the situation informally to the Secretariat of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, initially through Ellinor Michel and subsequently through David Notton. Eventually, Notton informed us that the matter provoked discussion at the ICZN Secretariat, but that they came to the view that Euglossa fimbriata is available from Moure (1968) reasoning the following:

· Moure (1968) included a sentence with a character which is purported to distinguish Euglossa cyanaspis from Euglossa fimbriata , each from the other. (our translation “The length of the postglandular hairs is much shorter than in [Eg.] fimbriata , which distinguishes it from this latter species”). So there is a character which is purported to distinguish Eg. fimbriata and Article 13.1.1 is (minimally) satisfied. Article 13.1.1 has generally been interpreted to be satisfied by one character. It does not matter if the character is relative. It does not matter if the character does not in fact distinguish the species or cannot be objectively perceived, only that it has been purported to distinguish the species.

· Moure considered the nomen valid in his 1968 paper and so the nomen satisfies Article 11.5. That he did not consider it valid or available in subsequent publications does not prevent it being available from 1968.

· Possibly Moure did not intend to describe Eg. fimbriata in 1968, however, an author’s intentions are impossible to prove. The availability of nomina can be disclaimed under Article 8.3, but Moure (1968) did not do that, rather he used the nomen as valid, and hence available. It is only after 1999 that authors must make their intention to establish new nomina explict (Article 16.1). Therefore Moure’s intention, whatever that may have been, does not prevent the nomen from being available from 1968.

· Euglossa fimbriata Moure, 1968 has a separate type, a Bolivian specimen labelled by Moure as Holotype. Nevertheless, ICZN (recommendation 73F) recommends that where no holotype or syntype was fixed in the original publication for a nominal species-group taxon established before 2000, and when it is possible that the nominal species-group taxon was based on more than one specimen, an author should proceed as though syntypes may exist and, where appropriate, should designate a lectotype rather than assume a holotype (see also Article 74.6). Recognition of this specimen as lectotype (the action taken here) is in accordance with Article 72.4.1.1 and recommendation 73F. Thus Eg. fimbriata Moure 1968 is a quite different nomen from Eg. fimbriata Rebêlo & Moure 1996 (nec Moure 1968) which has a different type, different description and different authorship and date. The nomenclatural situation is therefore:

· Euglossa fimbriata Moure, 1968 –available

· Euglossa fimbriata Rebêlo & Moure, 1996 –available, but permanently invalid as a junior primary homonym of

Eg. fimbriata Moure, 1968 .

In spite of not being a formal decision by the Commission, we opted for accepting the above interpretation, since it was the most close to a “consensus” they could find. Besides David Notton, two other members of the ICZN Secretariat actively took part on this discussion: Steve Tracy and Svetlana Nikolaeva, through the enquiry service of the ICZN Secretariat.

The specimen collected in Bolivia (Santa Cruz, Santiago) in December, 1959, deposited in Moure’s Collection and numbered DZUP 0 25524 at ‘Universidade Federal do Paraná’ is, thus, the lectotype (color photographs available in Nemésio 2009a: 89).