Megachile dorsalis PEREZ 1879

Schwarz, M. & Gusenleitner, F., 2012, The valid name for Megachile leachella CURTIS 1828 (Hymenoptera: Apidae) and some comments, Linzer biologische Beiträge 44 (1), pp. 863-873 : 869

Megachile dorsalis PEREZ 1879

Megachile dorsalis PEREZ, 1879 , Contrib.: 107; nec; Bordeaux: environs de l'ètang de Cazaux; Arcachon: Royan. Lectotype MNHNP. Labeled ' Arcach' and with gold and yellow disc, rev. Baker, 1976. [No. 832 in Pérez' MS catalogue. from Arcachon, Marseille, Royan and Algérie; from Bordeaux. PÉREZ' supposed was not in fact conspecific: cf. burdigalensis BENOIST.

Megachile leachella (KIRBY MS) CURTIS, 1828 . Brit. Ent.,5: expl. pl. 218: sex not indicated: locality not indicated. Nom. nud. Against the entry for leachella in his list of British species of 'Megachile' actually a mixture of species of Megachile and Osmia. CURTIS commented: "The smallest species of the genus, and may be the M. papaveris LAT. [i.e., Anthocopa papaveris LATR., 1799]. Specimens are presserved in the British Museum". Given that this comment does relate to dorsalis, it does not constitute a description within the meaning of the Code (Glossary, 253) and it was obviously not intended as a description: CURTIS' s descriptions throughout his British Entomology, if often short, are regularly given in conventional, factual, form.

Curtis' intentions, and evidence of his behaviour in other contexts, are irrelevant. Every description of every organism is, and must be, self-contained, and all of its parameters (authorship, spelling, description, type designation, genders, etc.) self-evident. Virtually the only place in the entire ICZN where one is allowed to use *external* evidence for *any* purpose is Article 72.4.1.1, for determining the constituency of the type series of a taxon published before 2000.

To treat it as a definition. "A statement in words that purports to give characters differentiating a taxon" (Cod, l.c.), or according to the French text "Une enonce ecrit destiné [present italics] à donner les caractères [plural!] qui differencient un taxon" (Cod, 276), would be to strech interpretation of the Code beyond the bounds of common sense.

It does indeed stretch common sense, but that is what Code interpretations commonly do. Again, it does not require more than one character for a description to be Codecompliant. You will never find a Commissioner that would uphold so strict an interpretation of the wording..... Old names that are already available are always "grandfathered" in. As such, leachella Curtis is an available name, and will remain so. But just because it is available does not mean it is valid.