Linnaeus's butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea)

The names of all the species of butterflies described by Linnaeus under "Papilio" are researched. Of the 305 names treated, 243 (c. 80%) are currently valid as specific (241) or subspecific (2), 29 are junior synonyms, 14 are invalid (one of these applying to a fake), and for 13 the identity is unknown or uncertain. Six species of moths misidentified by Linnaeus as butterflies are cited in the study, but details are not included. One hundred and fifty-two lectotypes have been designated, representing about 56% of the sum of the valid names and junior synonyms. Of these, 99 were selected from specimens in the Linnean Society of London, 52 from Queen Ludovica Ulrica's collection, Uppsala, and one lectotype is a Petiver specimen from the collection of Sir Hans Sloane. Linnaeus described at least five species, possibly eight, from the literature alone. All Linnaean material examined is documented, as are 'subsequent' specimens that are associated with Linnaean material. Synonymy and homonymy are discussed and presented, as are the identities of type localities. Care has been taken to achieve a practical balance between Linnaean and current species identities. Linnaean material studied included specimens from The Linnean Society of London, Museum Ludovicae Ulricae (Uppsala University), the Clerck and De Geer collections in the Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Stockholm, and the collection of James Petiver, now part of the collection of Sir Hans Sloane housed in The Natural History Museum, London.     

The Noctuoidea (Lepidoptera) described by Linnaeus

Linnaeus described 166 nominal species of Noctuoidea, of which 144 (86.7%) are currently used as valid names, 18 are synonyms, one is a homonym and three taxa remain unknown. Seven taxa were described solely from illustrations in contemporary literature. Lectotypes are designated for 139 (87.4%) of the 159 remaining taxa, 122 of them from the Linnaean collection in London, 13 from the Queen Ludovica Ulrica's collection in Uppsala, Sweden, and four from other contemporary collections. Two Linnaean senior synonyms are introduced: Hada plebeja comb. nov. (Linnaeus, 1761) for the current H. nana (Hufnagel, 1766) and Oeonistis altica (Linnaeus, 1768) comb. nov. for Oe. entella (Cramer, 1779). Erebus occiduus (Linnaeus, 1758) syn. nov. is a junior subjective synonym of E. crepuscularis (Linnaeus, 1758); L. marmorides (Cramer, 1775) Stat. rev. should be reinstated for Letis occidua auct. In two species pairs the Linnaean names have been interpreted incorrectly. The lectotype designation of Phalaena prasinana Linnaeus, 1758, by Lempke (1947) is invalid because the specimen is not syntypic. According to the new lectotype, Pseudoips prasinanus (Linnaeus, 1758) comb. nov. replaces P. faganus (Fabricius, 1781), and Bena bicolorana (Fuessly, 1775) comb. nov. is available for the other species. Abrostola triplasia (Linnaeus, 1758) Stat. rev. replaces A. trigemina (Werneburg, 1864), and for the other species A. triparlila (Hufnagel, 1766) should be reinstated. One neotype designation [Eilema complanum (Linnaeus, 1758)], one lectotype designation [Xylena exsolela (Linnaeus, 1758)], and precedence of a junior synonym [Ophideres fullonia (Clerck, 1764)] over its unused senior synonym are to be referred to the ICZN; until their decision the current usage must be followed. The identity of Mesapamea secalis (Linnaeus, 1758) stat. rev. corresponds to current usage, but, under presence of syntypic material, the recent neotype designation by Lempke (1988) will be referred to the ICZN. The revision is mainly based on the discovery that the insect pins and the way specimens are prepared give evidence of the authenticity of the material. Contrary to the views of earlier authors, Linnaeus had his labels with the specific name pinned against the bottom of the drawers by the specimen pin. Because the labels have been moved twice during subsequent curations, their present position is less indicative of the authenticity than has been previously suggested. The origin of the so-called n-labels is discussed.     

Linnaean fish specimens in the Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm

Specimens of fish in the Naturhistoriska riksmuseet, Stockholm, which are type specimens of species described by Linnaeus are listed. A total of 94 taxa is represented in the collection. The sources for the typification of each taxon are given and the existence of type material in other collections is noted. A short history of this collection of fishes is given as it relates to confirmation of the original nature of the specimens.
Most of the taxa represented came from the collection of King Adolf Fredrik (1710–1771) and were described by Linnaeus in the Museum Adolphi Friderici Volumes 1 and 2 (1754a, 1764) or from Fredrick Hasselqvist's (1722–1752) collections in North Africa and the Mediterranean borderlands.     

Typification of the Linnean species of Saxifraga

WEBB, D. A., 1987. Typification of the Linnean species of Saxifraga. Types (mainly lectotypes) arc assigned to all the species of Saxifraga described by Linnaeus. There are 38 names in all, of which one is now assigned to Bergenia, one is known to be a hybrid, three have been rejected in the past as nomina ambigua, one was later reduced to synonymy by Linnaeus himself, while 32 are accepted as valid species today. Three have been previously typified by Pugsley, one by Steam and one by the author; for the others the types are newly proposed here. Nineteen names are typified from the Linnean herbarium in London (LINN), three from the Linnean herbarium in Stockholm (S), seven from the Burser herbarium at Uppsala (UPS), one from the Tournefort herbarium in Paris (P), and eight from illustrations cited by Linnaeus in synonymy. Lists are appended of all specimens of the genus in the Linnean herbaria in London and Stockholm and the Burser herbarium at Uppsala, and a determination is given for each specimen, though in some cases these can only be tentative. The specimens include 15 species which Linnaeus did not describe, though in the case of five he probably regarded them as varieties.     

Rank and sequence in Caspar Bauhin's Pinax

CAIN, A. J., 1994. Rank and sequence in Caspar Bauhin's Pinax. Bauhin's consistent use of genera, species and binominals, applauded by historians as anticipating Linnaeus's theory and practice, does not appear on closer examination to be intended as anything of the sort. His use of the terms genus and species is as in Aristotelian logic, with a shifting reference, at all taxonomic levels. His typographical layout, emphasizing (but far from invariably employing) single-word names for effectively generic entities, often qualified by ‘and its species’, gives the impression of Linnaean practice, and coincides with it not infrequently, but not with Linnaean theory. The main entities for which it can be said that Bauhin uses fairly consistently a biverbal binominal name-phrase, like Linnaeus' trivial names, were in fact in Linnaeus's eyes two levels of supraspecific groupings. The main entities in Bauhin which Linnaeus recognized as species, as is shown by his quotations in the Species plantarum, are subdivisions of his biverbally or nearly biverbally named groupings, but themselves have multiverbal names. These correspond closely to Linnaeus's diagnostic specific names, not at all to his biverbal trivial names. Bauhin probably had no conception of the species and genus as ranks in the modern sense, first adumbrated by Tournefort and utilized by Linnaeus. Bauhin certainly tried to group forms by natural affinity, as did Theophrastus before him and Linnaeus afterwards. Not being alerted to the importance of the details of the flower and fruit, he used what characters he could find, notably, but not by any means exclusively, leaf shape. He composed the Pinax as a nomenclatural concordance to earlier authors, notably Dioscorides, Theophrastus and Pliny. He retained the sequence of major groups of Theophrastus (as the greatest authority on plants) but reversed it to start with the best-known plants, grasses. Where Theophrastus gave no help, in the cryptogams, Bauhin inserted as a pendant his own series from ferns down to fungi, using the Aristotelian principles of the gradation of forms. His overall arrangement, therefore, is not a simple progression but a chain with pendants. Bauhin is far closer to earlier authors than to Linnaeus, but his typography, along with other authors, may well have helped to incite Linnaeus to a more rigorous and consistent use of ranked groups and biverbal names.     

The species of Hymenoptera described by Linnaeus in the genera Sphex, Chrysis, Vespa, Apis and Mutilla

Data are presented on the type-material representing the species described by Linnaeus in his genera Sphex, Chrysis, Vespa, Apis and Mutilla , The names here considered total 158; six are currently applied in the Hymenoptera Parasitica. Of the balance of 147, three are emendations and five are unavailable homonyms or names proposed in the synonymy of other species. Fifteen Linnaean names are here placed as synonyms. One name is attributed to an author other than Linnaeus, and live names remain species incertae sedis. The remainder, 118, are applied as valid names in die Hymenoptera Aculeata. Holotype specimens in London, Uppsala or Stockholm represent 60 names; 55 names are based on lectotype specimens of which 49 are here designated, two by other authors. One name is represented by a neotype specimen in Lund, and one by a lectotype figure. One non-aculeate species is based on syntypes. Specimens appear to be lost with respect to 25 names; three specimens in Uppsala may be the holotypes of a further three species.
Eight new combinations are made, and twelve new synonyms established; three further new combinations and three further new synonymies are suggested. A systematically arranged summary of species treated and of nomenclatural changes made is given. Nomenclatural changes affecting non-Linnaean names are included where relevant; lectotypes are designated for two non-Linnaean species.     

The species of "Ichneumon" (Hymenoptera) described by Linnaeus

Ichneumonidae in the Linnaean and other collections have been critically assessed with regard to their status as type-specimens of species described by Linnaeus. The generic placements of the 56 nominal species of Ichneumonidae (54 originally in Ichneumon and two in Mutilla) described by Linnaeus are established after study of the extant type-material. Lectotypes are designated for eleven of the species and one new synonymy is established. Notes are given on the 33 species originally described by Linnaeus in Ichneumon but now placed in other families.     

Marine biological collections in the 21st century

From the time of Linnaeus forward, it has been appreciated that collections, not least marine biological collections, are fundamental to the understanding of the biodiversity of life on earth, especially when they contain type specimens which define individual species. Historical collections are particularly rich in types and also represent a model of the biodiversity of marine life at the time of the collection, often centuries ago. The taxonomic and systematic importance of collections is well appreciated, as is the significance of time series of data in this period of anthropogenic environmental change. The application of new techniques increases the value of collected material even further, for example, molecular biology techniques allowing the recognition of new (often cryptic) taxa and their distributions, and stable isotope analyses releasing information on past and present ontogenies, geographical distributions and diets. Moreover the new era of information technology with associated digitization enables the release of the information stored in the collections to the scientists of the world.     

The Linnaean Plant Name Typification Project

JARVIS, C. E., 1992. The Linnaean Plant Name Typification Project. Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778) introduced the consistent use of binomial names for plants and animals. As he published more than 9000 plant names, valid under the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, their application is of considerable importance. Professor Steam's reputation as a Linnaean scholar brought him literally hundreds of requests, from all over the world, for help in the interpretation of Linnaean names. In 1980 he was instrumental in obtaining funding for a pilot study for the typification of Linnaean names. The Project was subsequently core-funded by the Natural History Museum, and has developed into an international Project that has attracted support and collaboration on a worldwide basis. The aims, methodology and progress of the Project are reviewed, and the names Crepis barbata L. and Hieracium capense L. are lectotypified.     

Separation of two species standing as Alopecosa aculeata (Clerck) by morphological, behavioural and ecological characters, with remarks on related species in the pulverulenta group (Araneae, Lycosidae)

Study of numerous specimens identified as Alopecosa aculeata (Clerck), according to the prevailing concept, revealed two morphologically distinct forms concluded to represent distinct species. In Sweden, the two species are sympatric. One is identified as A. taeniata (C. L. Koch) [earlier regarded as conspccific with either A. aculeata or A. pulverulenta (Clerck)], here found to be widely distributed (outside Sweden material examined from Norway, Finland, the U.S.S.R., the F.R.G., Austria, Switzerland, France, and Italy). Alopecosa aculeata and A. taeniata (both with neotypes designated) are rcdescribed and illustrated. Their courtship behaviour is distinctly different and their habitat preference differs in part. Information on morphology, courtship behaviour, habitat, and phenology in the allied A. cuneata (Clerck) and A. pulverulenta is given. Connections between certain morphological characters and behavioural traits are discussed. A few cases of parasitism by insects (Acroceridac: Ogcodes and Ichncumonidac: Gelis) in A. aculeata are reported.     

The Music Indici: its authors, types and localities

The sixty new taxa described in Musci Indici are reviewed. As a result of validation of 54 of these by plates alone, authorities, original specimens and provenance of many have been widely misinterpreted. Evidence from published material, unpublished correspondence and herbarium material demonstrates that W. H. Harvey (1836) is the sole validating author of most of the names; three were validated by J. D. Hooker in 1837, and two names jointly by J. D. Hooker and Harvey in 1840. None was validated by W. J. Hooker, in the past often considered to be the author of some of the names. It is shown that Musci Indici names should be typified by lectotypes; recent typifications of four of the names by ‘holotypes’ and six out of eight published ‘lectotypes’ are untenable as the specimens selected were not original material studied by Harvey, and should be superseded by new lectotypes. Five specimens are selected as new lectotypes. Original material, mostly in Harvey's herbarium in TCD, is identified as most suitable for future lectotypification of the other names. Types for the three names based solely on Royle material are located in LIV and BM. Original Harvey material is also preserved in GL, but most of the Wallich collections in BM, E and elsewhere are not part of the original material. For Neckera blanda no suitable type specimen was located; the original published plate is selected as lectotype with a specimen in BM as a supporting ‘epitype’. Many of the original localities published in 1840 as ‘Nepal’ are shown to be erroneous. As far as possible these are corrected but for some taxa provenance remains doubtful. Twenty-two of the new names are shown not to have been based on material from Nepal; as a result ten species (Acanthorrhynchium papillatum, Brachythecium kamounense, Chaetomitriopsis glaucocarpa, Meiothecium microcarpum, Mitthyridium repens, Rozea fulva, Splachnobryum flaccidum, Sterophyllum radiculosum, Trichosteleum boschii and Trismegistia lancifolia) and Trismegistia lancifolia) are deleted from the Nepal checklist. Twenty-eight of the new species are considered to be reliably based on material from Nepal, and a further five doubtfully so. Rozea microcarpa Broth. is shown to be an synonym of R. fulva (Harv.) M. Fleisch. Past taxonomic confusion between Hypnum cordatum Harv. and Neckera cordata [Hook. ex] Harv. is untangled; the first is shown to be a synonym of Eurhynchium hians (Hedw.) Sande Lac. and the second is the basionym of Penzigiella cordata (Harv.) M. Fleisch.     

On the Spiders Collected during the Swedish Expeditions to Novaya Zemlya and Yenisey in 1875 and 1876

The material collected in 1875 and determined by L. Koch has been revised. The material from 1876 has been determined and a list of 197 species from Russia, Novaya Zemlya and Siberia represented in the two collections is given and in addition 14 species collected by the 1875 expedition in Northern Norway. Hybauchenidium gen.n. of the fam. Erigonidae is established with Erigone aquilonaris L. Koch, 1879, as type species. Eboria sibirica sp.n. (Erigonidae), and Diplocephalus cristatus angustieeps subsp.n. (Erigonidae) are described. A list of the species described and recorded by L. Koch in 1879 with the actual names is given.     

Typifications of Linnaean names in the genus Centaurea and Serratula (Asteraceae)

The typification of three Linnaean names in the genus Centaurea and one in Serratula (Asteraceae): C. lippii (syn. Volutaria lippii), C. muricata (Volutaria muricata), C. repens (Rhaponticum repens) and S. babylonica (Centaurea babylonica), is discussed. Designations of nomenclatural types based on the consultation of Linnaeus's original material and the literature cited in the respective protologues are proposed. Three names are lectotypified using specimens from both Linnaeus herbarium at LINN and the illustrations from Isnard and Dodoëns. Furthermore, a neotype is designated for Serratula babylonica from a specimen at LINN.     

冬虫夏草无性型研究概况*

文献调查结果表明与冬虫夏草有关的无性型菌种已报道有22个学名,涉及13个属。针对这些名称上存在的命名问题本文展开了讨论,并评述了不同名称与冬虫夏草的关系及其有关菌种的研究进展。在已报道的分离菌种中,作为新种正式描述的名称有8个,其中6个为合格发表,其余2个未能满足名称合格发表的条件;还有4个名称在文献中作为新种提到,但没有合格发表的出处,也有一例只提到名称而无其他要素;另有5个名称则只有属名,尚未鉴定到种的水平。中国被毛孢为多个独立的研究证明为冬虫夏草的无性型,还有3个无性型名称已被证明不可能是冬虫夏草的无性型。其他无性型名称与冬虫夏草的关系有待进一步验证。文中对与冬虫夏草有关的菌种定名、无性型分离和验证方法、复无性型现象,以及有关学名问题作了讨论。     

Specific epithets of the flowering plants of central French Guiana

The epithets of the flowering plants of central French Guiana are classified into derivation categories. Specific epithets of the flowering plants of central French Guiana refer mostly to shapes (274 species), persons (252), places (212), appearance (146), and size (140). These categories account for 55% of names given to the plants of this flora. The most prolific publishers of names for the flora of central French Guiana are Aublet and Linnaeus, who were respectively the authors of 177 and 110 of the names of species (15% of the total) found in the flora of central French Guiana. Although many of the species names, such as those relating to place and person, are easy to categorize, many others are open to different interpretations. Specific epithets with different orthographies derived from Guiana or Guyana are discussed. In addition, problems in the use of diacritical marks and inconsistencies with spacing between the abbreviations of given names and surnames of authors of plant names are noted.     

Quid significat nomen? (What's in a name?)

For the purposes of classification and effective communication among scientists, organisms must have unequivocal names. The binomial naming system of species was devised and popularized by Linnaeus in the 18th Century. His "Botanical Latin" is an artificial language first adopted for naming plants and is now internationally accepted as a naming system for both plants and animals. Genus and species names are based on Latin and Greek words which describe characteristics of the organism, as well as words from more modern sources, such as the name of the discoverer or place of discovery. Naming follows certain rules and all of the word endings are Latinized. The history of naming parasites is interesting and the molecular age may influence naming in the future.