Psychostrophia melanargia Butler, 1877

Huang, Si-Yao, Wang, Min & Fan, Xiao-Ling, 2019, Notes on the genus Psychostrophia Butler, 1877 (Lepidoptera, Epicopeiidae), with description of a new species, ZooKeys 900, pp. 111-127 : 118-122

Psychostrophia melanargia Butler, 1877

Psychostrophia melanargia Butler 1877: 401. [Type locality: Yokohama, Japan]; Leech 1897: 189; Seitz 1912: 278, pl. 48, line f; Minet 2003: 473, fig. 3; Zhu et al. 2004: 224, fig. 156, pl. VI, fig. 3.

Psychostrophia hemimelaena Seitz, 1913 [sic]: Zhu et al. 2004: 225, fig. 157, pl. VI, fig. 4.

Remarks.

Zhu et al. (2004) recorded P. melanargia Butler, 1877 and P. hemimelaena Seitz, 1913 (sic), which was originally described as an aberration of P. melanargia , viz. P. melanargia ab. hemimelaena Seitz, 1912, from Dailing, Heilongjiang Province and Mt Changbai, Jilin Province, respectively. According to Article 45.6.2 of the Code ( ICZN 1999), the name hemimelaena as well as the name catenifer Seitz, 1912, which was also published as a new aberration, are invalid because they are infrasubspecific due to the use of the term “ab.” when described. Although these two names were subsequently regarded as P. melanargia var. hemimelaena and P. melanargia var. catenifera (sic) in the catalogue by Dalla Torre (1924), this action is at most an "elevation in rank" because no description and definition of these taxa can be traced throughout the catalogue. According to Article 45.5.1 of the Code ( ICZN 1999), an infrasubspecific name cannot be made available from its original publication by any subsequent action (such as "elevation in rank") except by a ruling of the Commission. Thus, the name P. melanargia ab. catenifer Seitz, 1912 is still unavailable. It should also be clarified that the correct spelling of this aberration is catenifer , not catenifera , as indicated in Dalla Torre (1924) and Beccaloni et al. (2003).

The matter of the name P. melanargia ab. hemimelaena is more complicated. As already mentioned above, according to Article 45.5.1 of the Code ( ICZN 1999), a name that has infrasubspecific rank under the provisions of this Article cannot be made available from its original publication by any subsequent action (such as "elevation in rank") except by a ruling of the Commission. Article 45.5.1 also states that when a subsequent author applies the same word to a species or subspecies in a manner that makes it an available name (Articles 11-18), even if he or she attributes authorship of the name to the author of its publication as an infrasubspecific name, that subsequent author thereby establishes a new name with its own authorship and date. The name hemimelaena seemed to have been made available under Article 45.5.1 by Zhu et al. (2004) as Psychostrophia hemimelaena Zhu, Wang & Han, 2004 because they gave a description in Chinese. This would mean that Zhu, Wang and Han 2004 published a new name with its own authorship and date. However, according to Dr Gerardo Lamas (pers. comm.), the actions of Zhu et al. (2004) did not actually comply with Articles 13.1.1, 16.4.1 and 16.4.2 ( ICZN 1999). They require every new specific and subspecific name published after 1999, except a new replacement name (a nomen novum), for which the name-bearing type of the nominal taxon it denotes to is fixed automatically (Art. 72.7), must also be accompanied in the original publication by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon (Article 13.1.1), by the explicit fixation of a holotype, or syntypes, for the nominal taxon (Article 16.4.1) and where the holotype or syntypes are extant specimens, must be a statement of intent that they will be (or are) deposited in a collection and a statement indicating the name and location of that collection (Article 16.4.2). Zhu et al. (2004) did not differentiate hemimelaena from any other taxon in the genus Psychostrophia in their description, fix a holotype for the name hemimelaena , nor state where the “holotype” was because their actions were not deliberate, nor did they intend to make the name hemimelaena available. Thus, the name Psychostrophia melanargia ab. hemimelaena Seitz, 1912 is still unavailable, bearing the original authorship and date.

It is worth noting that the year of publication of P. melanargia ab. hemimelaena is 1912, not 1913 as indicated by Dalla Torre (1924), Beccaloni et al. (2003) and Zhu et al. (2004). This name had been published on page 278 in the section on the Uraniidae written by A. Seitz. Although no information on date can be traced throughout the whole section, according to Griffin (1936), the text of the Uraniidae section in the German version of Seitz (1912) was published in Lieferung 99 and received at the British Museum of Natural History on 25.VI.1912. Part 99 encompasses pages 265-344 and plates 49 and 53. The figure of P. melanargia ab. hemimelaena first appeared on plate 48 published in Lieferung 100, which was received at the British Museum of Natural History on 13.VIII.1912. Part 100 encompasses pages 345-392 and plates 48 and 50. Thus, the publication date of this name must be earlier than 25.VI.1912 and definitely not 1913.

The presence of P. melanargia in northeast China is still debatable. Its only known host plant, Clethra barbinervis , the Japanese sweet shrub, is distributed across Japan, Korea, and South and East China. The northernmost distribution record in China is from Mt Lao in the Shandong Province, and this plant is not currently recorded in the flora of northeast China ( Qin and Fritsch 2005). Moreover, the specimen figured in Zhu et al. (2004) is not significantly different from the individuals commonly found in Japan, which suggests that the individuals examined by Zhu et al. (2004) were collected from somewhere within the geographic range of P. melanargia in Japan and mislabeled as being collected in northeast China. Thus, it is unlikely that the geographic range of P. melanargia extends to northeast China, and this species should therefore be excluded from the Chinese fauna. There is a similar case in Lepidoptera regarding the distribution of Neope niphonica Butler, 1881. Takahashi (1996) concluded that an individual of N. niphonica labeled as "Kirin, Manchoukuo, 1941-VII-17 (now Jilin Province, PR China)" had been mislabeled, because the host plant genus of this butterfly was not found in northeast China and the wing pattern did not differ from populations found in central Japan.

Distribution.

Japan (Honshu, Shikoku, Kyushu) ( Fig. 25 ).

Key to the genus Psychostrophia Butler, 1877

Figures

Figure 25. Distribution map of the genus Psychostrophia. Records of distribution are taken from Inoue (1992), Chou and Yuan (2001), Owada (2011), Huang et al. (2019), An Identification Guide of Japanese Moths Compiled by Everyone http: // www. jpmoth. org, Shiiba Research Forest, Kyushu University http: // www. forest. kyushu-u. ac. jp / miyazaki / index. php, and the present study.