Papilio (Druryia) sjoestedti sjoestedti Aurivillius, 1908

Smith, Campbell R., Liseki, Steven & Vane-Wright, Richard I., 2008, On the status of Papilio sjoestedti Aurivillius, 1908, the ‘‘ Kilimanjaro swallowtail’ ’ (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae), Journal of Natural History 42 (19 - 20), pp. 1349-1359 : 1358-1359

Papilio (Druryia) sjoestedti sjoestedti Aurivillius, 1908

Papilio sjöstedti Aurivillius, 1908:15 .

Papilio Sjöstedti Aurivillius, 1910:12 , pl. I, Figures 1–2 . [As ‘n. sp.’]

Papilio sjostedti Aurivillius ; Williams 1969:56.

Papilio sjöstedti sjöstedti Aurivillius ; Carcasson 1975:21.

Princeps (Druryia) sjostedti (Aurivillius) ; Hancock 1983:48.

Papilio (Princeps) sjoestedti Aurivillius ; Collins and Morris 1985:104.

Princeps fuelleborni sjoestedti (Aurivillius) ; Hancock 1989:367.

Papilio sjöstedti sjöstedti Aurivillius ; Kielland 1990:45.

Papilio (Princeps) fuelleborni sjoestedti Aurivillius ; Ackery et al. 1995:149.

Papilio fuelleborni sjoestedti Aurivillius ; d’Abrera 1997:46.

Papilio (Druryia) fuelleborni sjoestedti Aurivillius ; Häuser et al. 2005a.

Type series

SYNTYPES: TANZANIA: ‘‘ Meru-Berg im Regenwald zwischen 3,000 und 3,500 m. über dem Meere. 7 „„, 5 ♀♀. Januar.’’ (Aurivillius 1910). Presumably all in Naturhistorika Riksmuseet, Stockholm .

Type discussion

Papilio sjöstedti was described from the 7 males and 5 females listed above. No holotype was selected, and so far as we are aware no lectotype has been designated. According to Horn et al. (1990) the material from Sjöstedt’s various expeditions were all deposited in Naturhistorika Riksmuseet , Stockholm. One of the original specimens is well illustrated on their website (Gustafsson 2005) .

Taxonomic status

The name Papilio sjöstedti was established as a species in Aurivillius (1908), with a brief diagnosis of both the male and female and known distribution, but no discussion of type numbers, their precise locality or depository. Under the ICZN (1999) Code, Article 12, this is nevertheless sufficient to constitute a valid publication and the name (suitably corrected, see below) available. Two years later, Aurivillius (1910) gave a fuller description of sjöstedti as ‘‘new species’’, with photographs, discussion of the original series, and a more detailed description of the type locality, including altitude and month of capture. It is evident that the author had expected this work to be published before the folio in ‘‘Seitz’’. The name was introduced as sjöstedti , retaining the o-umlaut in accordance with Article 20 of the existing rules of zoological nomenclature (International Congress of Zoology 1905) (in the subsequent English edition of ‘‘Seitz’’ the name was spelt sjoestedti in the text, but not the index). Under the current Code, Edition 4 (ICZN 1999) Article 32.5.2.1, diacritic marks should be deleted, ‘‘except that in a name … based upon a German word, the umlaut sign is deleted from a vowel and the letter ‘e’ is to be inserted after the vowel’’, the article continues ‘‘(if there is any doubt that the name is based upon a German word, it is to be so treated)’’. Given that both Sjöstedt and Aurivillius were Swedish, such doubt would not be applicable, so the name should be emended to sjostedti , with the spelling sjoestedti an unjustified emendation. However, it is this latter spelling that is in overwhelmingly more common usage. As a crude measure a recent internet search (using GoogleΘ) found 387 ‘‘hits’’ for Papilio sjoestedti ; just 18 for Papilio sjostedti , and in some of these the name is treated as a synonym or actually appears as Papilio sjoestedti . Most modern key works, including Collins and Morris (1985), Ackery et al. (1995), d’Abrera (1997), Häuser et al. (2005a) also spell the name sjoestedti .

According to the Code (ICZN 1999) Article 33.2.3.1. ‘‘when an unjustified emendation is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the original author and date it is deemed to be a justified emendation’’ (Article 33.3.1. applies a similar consideration to incorrect subsequent spellings). This clearly pertains in this case: the name Papilio sjoestedti may be deemed to be a justified emendation and thus the valid name for the taxon.

Figures

Figure 1. Wing patterns of the four taxa discussed in this paper. In each figure, the upperside of the wing and body is shown on the left, the underside of the same wing on the right. The butterflies are shown approximately two-thirds life size. Scale bar: 1 cm. (A) BMNH Entomology Specimen No. (BMNHE#) 705050; (B) Holotype BMNHE#705046; (C) Paratype BMNHE#705048; (D) BMNHE#705079; (E) Paratype BMNHE#705083; (F) BMNHE#705068.

Figure 2. Male genitalia of the four taxa discussed in this paper. Both scale bars: 1 mm. (A–D) Left valve; (B–H) pseduncus and uncus; (A,E) BMNHE#705051; (B,F) Paratype BMNHE#705047; (C,G) BMNHE#705080; (D,H) BMNHE#705072.